Think Tank Watch's editor-in-chief seems rather pleased with himself. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in good work.
One of Harvard’s best think tank sources: Think Tank Watch. #thinktankshttps://t.co/7mwFAnKm8H
— Think Tank Watch (@ThinkTankWatch) March 24, 2021
Think Tank Watch saw something and said something
Think Tank Watch has learned that the center-left Brookings Institution is in the late stages of a merger deal with the conservative Heritage Foundation to form a new think tank behemoth called "Brookitage."
The news comes via unnamed sources. Is there any other way to get information in Washington D.C. than 'unnamed sources'? Of course not!
Making policy not shaping or influencing
"We cannot afford to be just a liberal think tank in today's polarized political atmosphere," said a senior level Brookings official. "Bringing the most well-known liberal think tank together with the most well-known conservative think tank would send a huge message to Capitol Hill. Things need to change."
It is unusual for think tanks to take such an active political role. Also, think tanks tend to be hothouses of similar ideologies. Brookings and Heritage are not similar, so merging will no doubt be uncomfortable for all involved. Also, Heritage is likely none too happy with that portmanteau of a name, Brookitage.
Brookings and Bernanke
For context, recall former Federal Reserve Chairman BenjamÃn Bernanke. He oversaw the Fed's response to the 2008 financial crisis, taxpayer bailout of incompetent Wall Street investment banks, AIG, their friends, and crony colleagues. After eight years as Fed chair, Bernanke's first stop after he left central banking was as Resident Fellow at Brookings in 2014.
Bernanke started an economics blog at Brookings in March 2015. Everyone got excited about it. Bernanke never responded to reader comments, mine included. Eventually, everyone on Twitter lost interest, especially since we didn't want to hear more about his embarrassingly-titled autobiography, "The Courage to Act".
"Courage..." the book, as well as Bernanke's actions during the financial crisis of 2008-2010, were only so-so. He bailed out the risk-taking speculators using taxpayer money. He and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson forced relatively healthy financial institutions to take possession of floundering investment banks along with their sub-prime credit derivatives and toxic assets, e.g. Bank of America was never the same after being forced to absorb Merrill Lynch.
 |
| Bernanke via "Courage..." review, NY Review of Books |
I have read many favorable reviews of Bernanke's book, especially when it was first published, and praise for Bernanke himself. One of the few critical reviews of "Courage..." to be found is via the CLS (Columbia Law School) Blue Sky blog, the subject of a post by Kathryn Judge, published 20 October 2015.
Judge observes what I did: The financial crisis began before Lehman’s failure. The interval between August 2007 and the collapse of Lehman in September 2008 was truly the first year of the crisis. If the Fed and Treasury Secretaries Paulson, then Geithner, had acted sooner than Autumn 2008, that would have been better than courageous: It would have likely saved Americans and the global economy some portion of the financial crisis misery.
The conventional wisdom, which Bernanke invokes... is that a central bank should flood the market with liquidity... this is the wrong approach when liquidity shortages persist despite countervailing efforts by a central bank.
While too little liquidity can exacerbate financial distress and the provision of liquidity can play an important role preventing shocks...liquidity alone will never resolve a crisis once panic takes hold... Markets require credible information about how risks are distributed... when that picture reveals the need for more capital—as will often be the case when liquidity shortages persist—policymakers cannot hope to restore financial stability without identifying and rectifying those shortfalls.
Adding more liquidity without identifying and starting to fix whatever caused the original market dysfunction can make the financial system even MORE fragile.
Bernanke stopped spending time with Brookings after a year or so. He moved on to highly-paid speaking engagements and private equity advising.
Not so non-partisan
Apparently, not all think tanks are non-partisan. Heritage Foundation seems to be one of Think Tank Watch's favorite targets for Heritage's conservativsm and any associated stodginess.
Heritage Foundation mocked for defending British monarchy. https://t.co/jgxSJci3m3 #thinktanks
— Think Tank Watch (@ThinkTankWatch) March 21, 2021
Wait a sec... something isn't right here. This originally appeared in the somewhat higher visibility Lawfare blawg. "Blawgs" are blogs about jurisprudence and legal stuff, i.e. blawg = blog +law. Think Tank Merger.
"One official with knowledge of the discussions said that President Barack Obama is among the top candidates to become president of Brookitage when he steps down in January 2017."
APRIL FOOL'S!
This appeared on April Fool's Day, from the unnamed editor-in-chief of Think Tank Watch... uh April Fool's Day 2016. That was the final year of the Obama Administration! So, I guess the Heritage Foundation won't be merging with Brookings after all.
The primary contributor to Lawfare's "Miscellaneous" and "April Fool's" tagged articles is Benjamin Wittes. Does that name sound familiar?
Rapid Onset Trump Derangement Syndrome
It should, as Wittes created a huge ruckus a few years back, in 2017. He went to the New York Times to disclose confidential conversations he had had with FBI Director James Comey, a few months prior. Wittes said that Comey was worried President Donald Trump would pressure him (Comey) to compromise the FBI's independence. Although Wittes has written about legal matters at the Lawfare website for decades, he isn't an attorney, didn't attend law school, only undergrad at Oberlin, so there wasn't any violation of lawyer-client confidentiality, merely weird attention-seeking behavior.
With hindsight, both Wittes AND Comey seem a bit deranged. For example, Wittes told the Times the following:
“He was disgusted by the episode,” Wittes (Brookings, Lawfare blog, and a friend of Mr. Comey) said... about what the former FBI director has told him about his relationship with President Trump.
Comey did not want to attend the Jan. 22 ceremony at the White House, organized to thank officers who had worked during the inauguration. Comey, who is 6’8”, wore a blue blazer to try to blend into blue drapes in the room... standing as far away from Trump as possible. Trump singled Comey out and called him across the room. Comey extended his hand, and Trump pulled him into a hug. “[Comey] thought it was an intentional attempt to compromise him in public...” Wittes said.
This was the famous episode when Comey was described as hiding behind the drapes at the Oval Office.
Bard of the Deep State
The New York Times reporter who Wittes contacted asked, "WHY are you telling me this?" Wittes said that he just thought it was something the public needed to know. For the first and only time, Wittes made it into the POLITICO 50 of 2017; he was listed at number 15, Bard of the Deep State.
It seems likely that Wittes wrote, or had editorial input, into the 2016 think tank April Fool's Day piece. If so, it would also explain wishing for Obama to be "president of Brookitage". Obama departed from office in January 2017. Wittes was an Obama supporter. There's also this: Wittes is both a Brookings fellow AND a Heritage Foundation fellow!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are most welcome! Some HTML is available for style and also for those with no style whatsoever.