As we’ve been discussing, Barack Obama is moving fast and furious on naming his cabinet. Given the great depression current economic crisis, the nomination of a Treasury Secretary is probably the most significant cabinet appointment he’ll make. That’s why so many progressives are concerned about the front runner, former Harvard President and  Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. If you’ve heard his name before it’s likely not because of his stint as Treasury Secretary. The bell ringing right now for you is “oh shit, that’s the guy who said women aren’t genetically as good at math and science as men.” Ummm? Great. After the jump we will lay out our case against Summers (as well as our case for a few other candidates.) If you are already against him and just want to have done with it and get involved, click here to sign the “no fox in the henhouse” petition, which argues that neither Summers nor anyone deeply connected with Wall Street should be the ones entrusted with regulating it and bringing it in line. If not, keep readin! 

From Time (via) Crooks and Liars, here is the best (list format) case I’ve seen against Summers as Secretary of the Treasury:

Summers was an awfully controversial guy a couple years ago. And the things that made him controversial will all be revisited if he has to sit through a Senate confirmation hearing.Here’s a quick run-through of the Sins of Larry:
1. He’s a loose cannon. Summers has a long history of saying what’s on his mind, regardless of whether others might find it offensive. The thing about women and science was only the most infamous. There was also that memo he signed about exporting toxic waste to the developing world. [..]

2. He’s loyal, to a fault. One of the main things that turned Harvard’s faculty against Summers was the case of his protege Shleifer. Shleifer ran a Harvard-affiliated, USAID-funded office in Moscow in the 1990s that advised the Russian government on economic reform. The U.S. government later sued Harvard and Shleifer, charging that the operation was overrrun by conflicts of interest. Summers recused himself from direct dealings with the case, but in his epic dissection of the saga for Instititutional Investor, David McClintick charged that Summers did try to shield Shleifer. Harvard and Shleifer lost the suit, and Harvard had to pay $26.5 million in damages and Shleifer $2 million. 

3. He’s a callous right-winger. Summers’ academic mentor was conservative economist Marty Feldstein, and he worked for Feldstein at Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers in the early 1980s. Paul Krugman worked there too, so that really isn’t saying much. For most of the 1980s, in fact, Summers was an outspoken skeptic of financial markets and their ability to set prices rationally and steer investment wisely. As he rose to positions of power in Washington in the 1990s, though, he became a leading defender of the Washington consensus–the idea that free financial markets, free trade and fiscal discipline would bring prosperity to the world. Lately Summers has been partially reconsidering that stance in his columns for the Financial Times. If you’re favorably disposed to him, as I am, you could say he’s been pulling a Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind.” But I guess if you’re not so favorably disposed, you could call him a closet right-winger, a closet left-winger, or a slave to fashion.

Also he once promised Kenneth Lay (the enron guy) he’d “look into” energy deregulation. And he looks like former Hillary Clinton strategist Mark Penn, who we don’t like at all! (Stirling even wanted to waterboard him.) The bottom line to me? No on Summers.   

So who are some people we like? A lot of people favor a woman named Sheila Bair, who has been a calm head throughout the financial crisis and seems like a solid choice. My personal favorite is New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who in spite of his Wall Street pedigree has shown a serious commitment to Labor Unions and to a range of social justice causes. I think his heart is in it. Also he drives like James Dean. Woof. A lot of people like James K. Galbraith, but he is likely way too far to the left. Laura D’Andrea Tyson totally understands math, and she is another name out there. 

The reality is that Barack Obama is not going to pack his cabinet with Pinkos and socialists like we would want to see. That’s fine. I want the guy to succeed. But a Summers confirmation hearing would be a disaster, with moderate Republican women grilling him about women’s intelligence and aptitude for math and science? Jesus fuck. What a crime scene. In some ways he may be a solid choice, having held the job before, but in my opinion this is the first place where we really need to take a stand.

About The Author
Ben Wyskida is a writer, activist, conscientious hedonist and political communications strategist living in Brooklyn. - Visit Ben's site.