Comments on: Social Democracy reviving in the UK?

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:31:36 +0000

You are both right. Summers was undersecretary of treasury for international affairs, then deputy secretary, and finally secretary (when Rubin left) Before that, he was on the faculty of first MIT and then Harvard. He also continued to write accademic papers while at the Treasury. Condoleezza Rice, who is the National Security Advisor in Bush’s cabinet, was first a professor, and then provost of Stanford University. Attorneys General are regularly taken from amongst the ranks of law professors. Of course, with a full time job running a department, these former accademics don’t spend as much time with thier former collegues; but then again, neither do British cabinet members. If anything, I would expect an accademic (or, for that matter, someone from business—another group represented in US cabinet posts) especially one who will likely return to the accademy, to be much less political than a career politican in a similar post. I am not sure what Harry and the other conference attendee think is utterly unimaginable. If they are talking about left-wing ideas being considered by the Bush administration, then of course he is right, but that is the norm for politics. If they think that US cabinet and sub-cabinet members can’t and don’t talk to ‘accademics on their own terms’, then their imagination seems to be lacking.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:12:05 +0000

“That’s Laurence Summers, who was I believe an Undersecretary in the Clinton Treasury Department.” Summers was Secretary of the Treasury.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:02:43 +0000

The president of Harvard wasn’t Labor secretary under Clinton. You’re thinking of Robert Reich, who is not president of Harvard. That’s Laurence Summers, who was I believe an Undersecretary in the Clinton Treasury Department. Kind of the other side of the road from the Labor Department, as Reich makes clear in his book ‘Locked in the Cabinet’.

By: PG

PG — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:54:27 +0000

Yes, there have been plenty of academics in the U.S. Cabinets—the current president of Harvard was a Labor secretary under Clinton. However, I don’t know if these people spend much time with other academics once they receive high government posts. It seems like they then must become more oriented toward the political speech defending X policy, even if it wouldn’t be considered sound by their former ivory tower peers. Coming to one of my interests, it appears that the Brits—and perhaps most other nations generally—understand the rewarding of merit to be a policy tool rather than a matter of morality. Makes for an interestingly different starting place in any tax discussion; in the U.S. one always has to contend with those convinced that taxation beyond a certain (and often arbitrary) point like 33% (for GWB) or 50% (for most people) is somehow wicked and immoral.

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:31:36 +0000

Is it really “uttey unimaginable” that Larry Summers (or, to choose another administration, Condi Rice) could and would be able “to discuss the work of … serious accademics on their own terms”? They have both done pretty in the world of serious accademics. Rice might prefer center- or right-wing accademics, but that’s to be expected from a center-right politician. Neither is an elected politician, but they are/were the functional equivalent of the attendees at your conference. In fact, the US system, where cabinet (and, equally important, sub-cabinet) officials need not be elected politicians, brings many more accademics into government.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:01:30 +0000

Provocative counter: By definition, US left-wing academics are not serious, and thus there’s no need for serious policy makers to address them on their own terms. Thoughts?

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:09:01 +0000

Sigh, makes me almost nostalgic for London… A friend who works in the Treasury tells me that Gordon Brown can hoover up a 20 page brief in minutes, and address the single toughest and most pertinent question to its writer there and then.