RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Consensus Problem

by Elizabeth Palmberg 05-22-2009

The folks at NPR’s Planet Money podcast have already sort of repented for verbally badgering Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor and high government official who happens to be female, in an interview. But what interviewer Adam Davidson’s sort-of apology didn’t reexamine is the reason he gave for getting so combative in the first place: Warren’s thoughtful and reasonable economic critique differed from that of every other economist he’s interviewed in the past months. Faced with someone who was bucking the consensus he’d heard, Davidson temporarily lost it.

You know what else we’ve done in the recent past by consensus? Created the huge, destructive speculative bubbles – in housing prices, mortgage-backed securities, and other abstract financial instruments – that drove the world economy off a cliff.

If you think about it, financial market bubbles and crashes, which we now realize affect the rest of us so deeply, are by definition problems created by consensus. A large number of smart, reasonable, usually nice people, many of them with positions of prestige, advanced degrees, and/or sophisticated computer models, get together and, by failing to see the larger picture, create a huge disaster.

So here’s some advice to Davidson and journalists in general: When talking about the economy, throw out your normal rulebook of choosing sources based just on position of authority, or confirmation from an independent source. Instead, look for experts who bucked the consensus by seeing the problem ahead of time. Ask Brooksley Born, the Clinton-era government official who was considering regulating derivatives, over Alan Greenspan’s objections, until Congress passed a law to stop her. Ask Dean Baker, the economist who for years warned anyone who would listen about the housing bubble.

And the Obama administration – whose consensus-building efforts are laudable in so many areas – might want to consider just doing the opposite of what Wall Street consensus urges them to do. Actually, Dean Baker’s blog keeps pointing out back-door government giveaways to Wall Street, like converting the government’s preferred shares (i.e. “we get paid first”) to common stock at way-above-market prices. President Obama, you’re a great communicator – can you persuade Brooksley Born to come out of retirement and head the Treasury Department?

Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners. Read about how the out-of-control buying and selling of money led to our current crisis in the latest issue of Sojourners Magazine.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • ando
    The roots of the current problem were created by the Reagan administration's focus on greed and materialism, which was excacerbated under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Let's dig a little deeper than blaming it all on one thing. The public was complicit in this get-rich-quick mentality. There's a lot of blame going around. The Obama adminstration could rise above the fray and call for a little sacrifice, especially among those of us -- me included -- who are still doing okay in the current economic mess.
  • dgonos
    We also need to have a common definition of consensus. In my professional life, our industry groups are governed by a consensus process. Our definition of consensus says that all opinions must be respected and valued, that a position cannot be adopted unless a "substantial majority" agrees, and that if a single interest group unanimously disagrees, that the position can't move forward. If we used a similar set of rules to build consensus in society, I think the results might be rather gratifying, even if it slowed the process a bit.

    I believe that much of the current problem has been created, yes by greed and shortsighted thinking, but more significantly by an unwillingness of people on all sides to listen to opposing views and try to reach an accommodation.
  • letjusticerolldown
    The interviewer did raise the issue of the interviewee's views in contrast to other economists. I am not sure I heard a defense of consensus.

    One day Sojo puts up posts arguing for dialogue, common ground and an agreeable spirit. The next day, it is for principle, righteousness, and standing up against everyone else.

    I'm the same way. But how do you know, and how do we know which to do? How do we keep from beating up other people because they choose to work for consensus on the day we think they ought to be standing up for principle, etc? How do we have integrity about this and not use our calls for principle or consensus as just another weapon to subtly attack those we disagree with? How do we keep our attention on the substance of the issues at hand?

    In regards to public policy and administration of govenment, one way is to have journalists who will go toe-to-toe with public officials to articulate and defend their actions and views. I don't think the economic meltdown happened so much because there was a massive consensus arouind wrong thinking. I view it more as a massive self-delusion.

    It was similar to the massive self-delusion around invading Iraq. There again the defenders simply argue there was a consensus view on WMD's that turned out to be wrong. But anyone who could add 2+2 could recognize a complex, long-standing conflict with many fronts and many motivations for taking action; and could recognize serious issues with the WMD argument. But in Washington and in the Press there was a willing self-delusion--or laziness.

    I guess we enter self-delusion to cover up some other sin. We don't want to change our financial habits. We don't want to change our patterns of energy consumption. We don't want to give up our 'freedom' to trash our families and run off with another partner.

    Are you arguing the administration of TARP, and the entire bail-out regieme, ought not be seriously scrutinized by journalists? I think the interviewer's technique could be improved but I don't think it crossed the line. Or was your point about this was a woman being interviewed implying that she is not strong enough or smart enough to be challenged?

    And finally, what about simply addressing the substance of the issue. Is this TARP oversight board a politicized group carrying out their personal agendas--or a group delivering the best analysis and thinking to a more singular, emergency issue of a solvent banking system?
  • modern_ancient
    A few observations:

    1) What was the point of emphasizing the gender of Elizabeth Warren? Makes no sense. The writer of this post was temporarily blinded by her own agenda to actually deal with the issue at hand.

    2) I actually thought the interviewer made a great point that Warren refused to acknowledge. As much as I agree with Warren on the over-arching issue (specifically the middle class), I think she failed to demonstrate why the majority of economists aren't focusing in on her argument... which was the point of the interviewer. She should have simply said, "because they are short-sighted and wrong not to consider the middle class and their vital role in the recovery of the economy."

    3) I think the writer of this post has allowed her own issues to cloud her judgment here. To suggest that Davidson's theories are akin to those "who drove the world economy off a cliff" is inflammatory and useless in pursuing positive dialogue.

    4) Overall, I think these are the types of interviews needed... I especially liked that Davidson and Warren walked away still respecting each other.
  • TedVothJr
    What kind of fool could think the middle class/working-middle class/working class/working-poor class/lower class is not under threat?

    What kind of fool would think that was merely a theoretical hypothetical sort of problem, not a matter of life or death to us down here at the bottom of the food-chain?

    Those of us here on the bottom who do all the actual work, who produce all the actual goods and provide all the actual services of society, those of us who are the vast majority of the population, on whose backs the ridiculously wealthy and their pundits and political hacks are riding? What would they do without us? What couldn't WE do without their parasitism?

    What kind of fool could believe that even if it were a problem, it'd be a problem that could wait till the bankers are all feeling happy and safe and secure and wealthy again?

    And those political hacks I mentioned, Congress and 'Stay-the-Course' Obama ,are only ensuring the middle and lower classes' destruction with their on-going theft of our money and giving it away to a bunch of thieving incompetent bankers who should've been thrown in the slammer long since. I'd recommend Gitmo.

    I've been trying lovingly to bite my tongue in my posts lately, but this willful blind stupidity in service of personal greed all across the alleged 'political spectrum' from Whacko Right to Dead Clintonista Center is truly provoking. I don't even have to imagine what Isaiah or Jeremiah or Amos would say because it's all written down in the Book.

    May God have mercy on the United States. We're in jeopardy of judgment.

    Right on, Ms Warren! You GO, girl!
  • domc83
    Can anyone tell me how to format text in these forums?

    Thanks

    ''format test italics''
    '''format test bold'''
    __format test underline__
    ''format test italic __underline__''
  • domc83
    ''italics'' format test italics
    '''bold''' format test bold
    __underline__ format test underline
  • Nice post there. Raised a few things I hadn't thought about before. Thx.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008