Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Balkinization

Legal Commentary

: Balkinization

On "authority" (as distinguished from power), and does George W. Bush have any

By Jack M. Balkin

I did not bother watching George W. Bush's speech to the nation this evening (which I also have intention of reading), because I do not take him seriously as really knowing anything about the economy. "Authority" requires such confidence. Ben Bernanke has "authority," whether or not one agrees with him in all details. Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson or NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman have authority. Perhaps Henry Paulson amassed authority along with $38 million/year while running Goldman Sachs. But would any serious person--defined as someone worried about his/her pension and the future of his/her children/grandchildren-- really be give credence to anything Mr. Bush said about the economy and what is required to resolve the present "crisis"? If one says, "Well, he's talked to Paulson and Bernanke and really believes them," then to give any "authority" to Bush is simply to double-count any "authority" one might already have assigned to Paulson and Bernanke. I do not gain "authority" as a physicist because I can quote Steve Weinberg on the Higgs Boson, about which I know, in terms of any deep understanding, absolutely nothing, nor do I display authority about golf, which I do not play, by quoting Tiger Woods. What makes Bush any different?

Not only is there no reason to believe that Bush, Harvard MBA though he may be, knows more about the economy that the rest of us do; it is also the case that he has, notoriously and flagrantly, throughout his Administration, been almost totally uninterested in what genuine "authorities" think about all sorts of issues, ranging from how many troops might be necessary effectively to occupy Iraq--goodbye, Gen. Shinseki because you're not fitting the party line--to global warming to..... (The list is almost endless, and, incidentally, Sarah Palin seems to be a worthy successor to Bush in this regard, though I digress....)

The "new paradigm" was supposed to be that he and his minions could "create reality" rather than have to bow to its dictates as declared by those "authorities" committed to ordinary modes of rationality as taught, for example, in our great universities (attendance or membership at which seemingly disqualifies one to be taken seriously, in the new McCain-Palin reality, save, presumably, for former Princeton Prof. Ben Bernanke and former Harvard Prof. Henry Kissinger). So why now is Bush suddenly willing to listen to "authorities"? Is the prospect of a Depression, genuinely scary though that is, really scarier than the prospect of massive climate changes, about which he has been, practically speaking, indifferent? Or is it that he's now obsessed with his "legacy," and doesn't want to clinch his place as the all-time worse president in our history, which would certainly be assured if two disastrous wars (where "disaster" is defined, among other ways, as an inability to prevail in any reasonable time and, in Afghanistan, perhaps to prevail at all) were followed by the complete disintegration of the US economy?

But, even if that is what we face, would any serious person believe that Bush offers any value-added, so to speak, in crafting a solution? He is truly the Wizard of Oz, but we're stuck with him, thanks to our Constitution (and an American public that saw fit to elect him (note, I don't say "re-elect") in 2004. He has all too much power until noon of January 20, 2009, but, really, what "authority" remains, assuming it ever existed, in that pathetic creature who inhabits the Oval Office?

Full post as published by Balkinization on September 24, 2008 (boomark / email).