ShareThis Page
George Will: Cain, Moore nominations are two more tests for Republicans to fail | TribLIVE.com
George F. Will, Columnist

George Will: Cain, Moore nominations are two more tests for Republicans to fail

George Will
999482_web1_vnd-b6-bigbiztradewar-020119
Herman Cain speaks at the Multicultural Media Correspondents Dinner at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. May 24.

WASHINGTON

In 1964, although there was scant chance that Americans would choose to have a third president in 14 months, Lyndon Johnson took no chances. The economy was sizzling and in November Johnson would carry 44 states. Nevertheless, he wanted low interest rates, so he summoned to his Texas ranch Federal Reserve Chairman William McChesney Martin Jr., the longest-serving chairman (1951-70). Johnson (this from “Capitalism in America: A History” by Alan Greenspan and Adrian Wooldridge) “gave (Martin) the once-over, shoving him around the room, yelling in his face, ‘Boys are dying in Vietnam and Bill Martin doesn’t care.’ ”

In 1969, Richard Nixon, already plotting re-election, summoned to the White House Arthur Burns, who Nixon had nominated to become Fed chairman. According to John Ehrlichman’s memoir “Witness to Power,” Nixon said: “‘Arthur, I want you to come over and see me privately anytime. … I know there’s the myth of the autonomous Fed.Nixon barked a quick laugh. … ‘And when you go up for confirmation some senator may ask you about your friendship with the president. Appearances are going to be important, so you can call Ehrlichman to get messages to me.’”

Past instances of presidential pressure on the Fed are pertinent to Donald Trump’s hectoring of Jerome Powell, the Fed chairman he regrets having chosen. Trump’s public coarseness makes Johnson’s and Nixon’s private behavior seem comparatively couth. Fortunately, Powell seemingly regards the president’s clamor for low interest rates as white noise, unworthy of notice.

The Fed’s structure largely insulates it from political pressure, but structure can only do so much. Today’s controversy concerns Trump’s nominees to fill the two vacant seats on the Fed’s seven-member board of governors, Herman Cain and Stephen Moore. Whether or not their untidy sex lives are disqualifying, a sufficient disqualification is that both are notably partisan Trump acolytes and neither has satisfactory credentials or experience.

The GOP’s descent into vaudeville began with the 2008 vice presidential nomination of Sarah Palin, it accelerated in 2011 when Cain was taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and it reached warp speed with the party’s capture by the man who takes Cain seriously as a maker of monetary policy.

Some thoughtful people regret, as Cain does, the end of the gold standard, but they understand, as he does not, that fiat money is here to stay. Similarly, Moore might be right that the Fed would function better if it bound monetary policy to a prudent rule. There are, however, reasons to doubt that Moore knows what the rule should be (he certainly wrongly ascribes a particular rule to former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker), and there are reasons to expect that the rule he would advocate at any moment would reflect his assessment not of macroeconomic facts but of partisan advantage.

The fact that presidents nominate judges with whose jurisprudence they agree does not of itself “politicize” courts, because most cases that courts consider are not directly related to partisan issues, and because the political fortunes of presidents and their parties are rarely immediately impacted by the court’s decisions the way the Fed’s economic decisions can impact them.

Trump’s crude attempt to lower the Fed’s intellectual quotient while increasing the perception that the Fed is a political plaything is dangerous. In a crisis like that of September 2008, the Fed influences not just the U.S. money supply but something that can suddenly be even more important — the world’s confidence supply. The Fed’s prestige is perishable — and endangered by these two nominees.

Populism, democracy’s degenerate byproduct, incubates hostility to people possessing specialized knowledge (aka “elites”), but senators can withhold consent from particularly egregious abuses of institutions that are particularly dependent on the perception of competence.

The Cain and Moore nominations will be two more tests — of political courage, and of their institutional responsibility — for Senate Republicans to fail. The possible good news is that these two confirmation votes might bring us closer to the day when supine senators grow weary of being embarrassed and embarrassing.

George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.