Poučen komentar Stephena Mihma o blamaži, ki si jo je privarčeval Larry Summers, s tem ko je odstopil kot “predsednikov osebni favorit” v vlogi kandidata za predsednika Fed. Podobna zgodba se je zgodila leta 1914, ko je tedanji predsednik Woodrow Wilson, sicer začetnik boja proti monopolom in “robber barons” za predsednika Fed nominiral Thomasa D. Jonesa, predsednika osovraženega monopolista International Harvester. Jones je naletel na huronsko nasprotovanje znotraj demokratske stranke, za katere je predstavljal vso zlo vsemogočnih monopolistov za ameriško družbo. Tako približno liberalni demokrati danes sovražijo velike banke in Summersa kot glavnega protagonista deregulacije bančnega sektorja v administraciji Billa Clintona. Jones je moral odstopiti po ponižujočem zaslišanju pred senatnim bančnim komitejem, Summers se je temu ponižanju izognil še pred zaslišanjem.

But Wilson couldn’t repay the favor any more than Obama could repay Summers for his loyal service. In nominating Jones, Wilson seemed to signal a retreat from his campaign promises to put an end to the trusts and industrial combinations that dominated the U.S. economy at the time. In Wilson’s era, combines such as Standard Oil and International Harvester were hated by many of the rank-and-file in the Democratic Party no less passionately than liberals hate big banks today. “Those who create monopolies,” warned a Democratic senator, “war against us, the Democratic Party.”

When Jones went before the Senate Banking Committee, he found himself mired in a confirmation battle no less nasty than the one Summers would have faced. It didn’t help that International Harvest was under investigation for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Jones was named as an individual defendant in the case. Worse, Wilson foolishly — and falsely — told the Senate that Jones was a secret reformer who had been brought in to cure International Harvester of its monopolistic practices. When the truth came out, Democrats from farm states and a loose coalition of liberals assailed Jones and the economic forces he represented.

“The Harvester Trust has been robbing the people of the country scandalously,” declared New Jersey’s Democratic senator. “I won’t stand for this kind of robbery, and I won’t stand for anybody connected with it.”

But it was Senator James Reed, a Missouri Democrat, who landed the body blows. Labeling the nominee a “criminal,” Reed compared Jones’s decision to join International Harvester to “a man who volunteers to serve on board a pirate ship with an already established criminal history.” Becoming a board member of the company, Reed howled, “may be worse than one who enlisted with the original crew…He sees the black flag at the masthead; he steps upon decks slippery with the blood of the slaughtered. A gentleman of that kind knows what he is doing.”

As the Democratic Party began to split over the issue, Jones unexpectedly withdrew his nomination, citing concerns that he had become an “embarrassment” to the administration. Though some in the press billed the debacle as a major defeat for Wilson, others took the long view, observing that “a victory for the President at the cost of a party split” would have been too injurious. Jones, the Washington Post argued, “saved the administration from a grave political mistake.”

Vir:  Stephen Mihm, Washington Post