What the Geithner/Summers Insurrection Tells Us About Obama

Revelations that President Obama was regularly stymied by his economics advisers raise the question yet again of why, exactly, Tim Geithner still has a job. It also makes you wonder if Obama thinks he's the conciliator-in-chief, rather than commander-in-chief.

In a new book, Pulitzer-winner Ron Suskind reports that Geithner ignored a March 2009 order to consider dissolving Citigroup (C). He also says that Larry Summers, the former chairman of the National Economic Council, routinely undermined the President by "re-litigating" his decisions.

In Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and The Education of A President, Suskind writes,

The Citibank incident, and others like it, reflected a more pernicious and personal dilemma emerging from inside the administration: that the young president's authority was being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers.

I wish this account didn't jibe so well with everything else we've seen from the president. If firing Geithner at that time would have been too much for the markets to deal with, then he certainly should have had a dressing down or three. But no. Obama says of his attitude during a meeting with Geithner about the inaction concerning Citi, "Agitated may be too strong a word."

Even Summers, whose history of ineptitude spans two administrations and a very ugly term as president of Harvard, seems miffed about his ability to derail Obama's orders. The book quotes Summers as saying he and others felt "home alone" and that this wouldn't have happened under President Clinton. Yep, Bill would have fired your sorry ass in heartbeat if you tried any of this stuff. (One indication of Summers' strength of character: When an AP reporter asked him about these comments he first denied making them, then admitted he did.)

Can't we all just get along?
I can't help but feel the president is uncomfortable around -- and deferential to -- groups he doesn't have experience with, such as Wall Street and the military. This may be the drawback of his background as a community organizer, a job which puts a premium on consensus.

The administration has always been too cozy with the money types, an attitude which may cost the president his job. At a moment when the citizenry was calling out for someone to kick ass and take names and would have supported any financial reform effort, the president said, "Let me get back to you on that."

Gays in the military is another case in point. Confronted with a policy (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) that increased security risks by making it possible to extort servicemen and women, the president decided to appoint a panel.

Compare that to President Harry Truman's decision to integrate the military after World War II. It is difficult to understand why a racist like Truman did such a thing, but once he made the decision he knew what to do. The veteran of World War I ordered the Pentagon to do it. And they did it. When Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the most popular general in the U.S., disobeyed orders on another front, Truman fired him.

Obama's inability to do likewise with Geithner and others is just further evidence of the lack of political leadership the nation desperately needs.

Related:

• Revealed: Tim Geithner's Cover Letter to Goldman Sachs
• Why Does Tim Geithner Still Have a Job?
• Fear Itself: What Obama Should Have Said -- but Didn't
• Why Banks Think Their Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card Isn't Good Enough