Back in 2015, when Trump was just starting to make noise about running for President, which most sensible people dismissed as just more hot air, a childhood friend posted a declaration on Facebook that the New York narcissist was exactly who the nation needed. My comments to him were incredulous and, with a fair level of sarcasm and disdain, I highlighted his Fox/AM proclivities and their knack for making regular consumers morons. Naturally, he took significant umbrage and messaged me how he didn’t appreciate being taken to task or having his academic bona fides challenged. After all, he had been mentored by the redoubtable Stephen Moore, who was already in the Trump corner. He was proud of that part of his background, and spoke of it like its very truth heartened both his and Trump’s credentials as formidable intellects. I saw no reason to up the ante on our conflict so I simply acknowledged his point tactfully and moved on even though, as one fully familiar with Moore’s snake oil economics, I was tempted to stridently doubt the wisdom of associating oneself so closely with such a fringe element.
Few federal mandates have given US taxpayers more bang for their buck than the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Enacted as a means to confront and prevent financial crises usually caused by public panic, the Fed’s role has steadily grown through the decades and now, not only focuses on maximizing employment while preventing inflation, but also includes research and planning geared to stabilizing financial markets while readying strategies to deal with crises that may occur. The Fed has determinedly attended to its political autonomy and strives to act solely in line with economic best practices.
It’s been at least tacitly accepted through administrations of both parties that politicizing the Fed is a no no. While not illegal, it’s been commonly regarded as bad form, a red flag of an undisciplined Presidency. Sure, some Fed Chairman embraced a public persona more than others, Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker come to mind, but the unwritten rule for Presidents has been to let them do their work outside the political news cycles. The exceptions to the rule have only helped to strengthen it. LBJ went ballistic when the Fed, alarmed by inflation pressures, tightened money supply just as our deepening quagmire in Vietnam crystallized an emerging guns vs. butter budget reality. He actually summoned the Fed Chairman, William McChesney Martin, to his ranch for a scolding. Martin later recalled he was initially shocked by Johnson’s bullying, but left more determined to follow his own inclinations. Reagan Chief-of-Staff James Baker actually demanded Paul Volcker not raise interest rates until after the 1984 Presidential election. Volcker was unswayed.
Of course our current President demonstrates time and again his indifference to any manner of best practices or tradition. Moreover, rather than dealing directly with those he knows are his intellectual superiors, and current Fed Chairman Jay Powell certainly qualifies, Trump prefers the cowardice of AM tweetstorms. In fact, he has already signaled Powell out for just such treatment a couple of times as the markets faltered. Nobody should doubt, when Trumpenomic chickens come home to roost, the Federal Reserve will be scapegoat numero uno.
All of which brings us back to Moore, as sycophantic a Trump lackey as any in the current public sphere, and now a nominee for a slot on the Fed’s Board of Governors. There is quite literally no outrage the President has foisted, either during the 2016 campaign or after inauguration, that Moore has not spun with a reverential determination. Forget tariffs, previously a conservative taboo, or ballooning deficits, which Moore couldn’t go after Obama with enough fervor for, in his role as CNN contributor, the Heritage Foundation fellow has been glad to defend the slimiest of Trump behavior. Indeed, he has given Rick Santorum all he can handle in the “did he really frickin just say that” department.
As to his qualifications for a job heretofore deemed the pervue of accomplished economists with the intellectual gravitas necessary for bipartisan Senate approval, let’s just be charitable and say Moore’s resume is noticeably light. But don’t take my word for it, the reaction has been as lopsided as it’s been emphatic. Economics columnist Robert Samuelson is as dispassionate and apolitical as they come, but he wasn’t mincing words in a piece wholly devoted to the folly of Moore’s nomination. It isn’t so much Moore as merely one member of the Fed’s Board that Samuelson frets about, it’s the “terrifying” possibility his placement could lead him to become the Board’s Chairman, which would require a skill set he isn’t in the same zip code of possessing. The specter of a certified Trump yes man at the helm during a financial crisis his policies could create is fodder for nightmares.
Perhaps University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers captured the broad spectrum disdain for Moore’s nomination best when he asserted: “Call your favorite economist. Whether they’re left, right, libertarian or socialist, none of them will endorse Stephen Moore for the Fed. He’s manifestly unqualified.” Ouch! And Moore’s brand of economics? Think World Wrestling Federation. Instead of facts, data and principles, Moore provides, as International Economics Director at the Council on Foreign Relations Benn Steil notes, “relentlessly partisan, illogical and fact-fudged” analysis.
Whether it’s providing fact-free economic alarm regarding imaginary US financial obligations to global climate-change strategies, or near comical fabrications about how the recent Trump Tax Cuts will actually reduce federal deficits, Moore’s contentions are far more likely to produce eye rolls than nods of agreement. Often on CNN, he simply isn’t taken seriously, so baseless are his claims.
Of course it’s hardly a surprise that, in an ocean of economic thought and academic talent, Trump would land on the guy whose latest project was authoring a gushing tribute to his singular greatness. Sadly, the selection provides yet another opportunity for “thoughtful” Senate Republicans like Susan Collins, Lisa Markowski, and Lamar Alexander to illustrate how callow they are.
Confirming Moore for the Fed will be just one more stake in the heart of the long- held bipartisan demand that certain positions require quality at the expense of politics, competence instead of servility. Moore’s confirmation will assure, should the reckless policies of this White House hit the fan, the critical Fed response will have the added burden of one wholly unqualified and partisan voice gumming up the works… just another knife jammed into the machinery of our government as a result of 2016’s civic catastrophe. BC