24 September 2007
Greenspan’s Reticence and Nuremberg
Appointment to even as prestigious a position as Federal Reserve Chairman does not carry with it the obligation to lead public opinion in one direction or another according to one’s conscience. That is carrying Nuremberg Principles too far, although the press sometimes acts as if its own obligation to tell the public the truth applies to everyone else.
In his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Alan Greenspan admits to having disagreed with certain policies of the Bush Administration that he did not publicly rebuke. One of them, Bush’s veto-less acceptance of Congress’s budgetary profligacy, directly impacted on Greenspan’s primary responsibility—defending the international value of the dollar. Were it not for America’s real estate boom, private equity and hedge fund frenzy, and the improved productivity overhang from the Internet bubble, the budget deficits caused by the federal fiscal policies of the Bush era could have crippled the economy.
I suspect that the former Federal Reserve Chairman is unwilling to admit that he was lucky to have been able to behave unobtrusively, speak obscurely and still successfully manage the financial markets. Peggy Noonan’s criticism of Greenspan’s official reticence on that and other issues in the Wall Street Journal on September 22, 2007, therefore, is misplaced. A public official is not obligated to resign, or even to protest publicly, when he or she disagrees with an administration policy. If he judges that he can still fulfill the duty the public has entrusted him with, he can justifiably remain in office until removed by the public or by the administration.
Let us presume that Mr. Greenspan expressed his views to the President confidentially on the deficit, the Iraq War, and other contentious issues; he may also have dissented from the administration’s policies as a private citizen at the ballot box. It is not dishonest to curry the favor of one’s boss, by refraining from public disagreement, in order to be renominated for a position in which one believes he is making a difference, sometimes in spite of the boss’s other decisions.
Appointment to even as prestigious a position as Federal Reserve Chairman does not carry with it the obligation to lead public opinion in one direction or another according to one’s conscience. That is carrying Nuremberg Principles too far, although the press sometimes acts as if its own obligation to tell the public the truth applies to everyone else.
In his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Alan Greenspan admits to having disagreed with certain policies of the Bush Administration that he did not publicly rebuke. One of them, Bush’s veto-less acceptance of Congress’s budgetary profligacy, directly impacted on Greenspan’s primary responsibility—defending the international value of the dollar. Were it not for America’s real estate boom, private equity and hedge fund frenzy, and the improved productivity overhang from the Internet bubble, the budget deficits caused by the federal fiscal policies of the Bush era could have crippled the economy.
I suspect that the former Federal Reserve Chairman is unwilling to admit that he was lucky to have been able to behave unobtrusively, speak obscurely and still successfully manage the financial markets. Peggy Noonan’s criticism of Greenspan’s official reticence on that and other issues in the Wall Street Journal on September 22, 2007, therefore, is misplaced. A public official is not obligated to resign, or even to protest publicly, when he or she disagrees with an administration policy. If he judges that he can still fulfill the duty the public has entrusted him with, he can justifiably remain in office until removed by the public or by the administration.
Let us presume that Mr. Greenspan expressed his views to the President confidentially on the deficit, the Iraq War, and other contentious issues; he may also have dissented from the administration’s policies as a private citizen at the ballot box. It is not dishonest to curry the favor of one’s boss, by refraining from public disagreement, in order to be renominated for a position in which one believes he is making a difference, sometimes in spite of the boss’s other decisions.
Comments:
Post a Comment
