“What’s so bad about elites?” asks Clarence Page in a recent column. I’m glad you asked that question, Mr. Page. To understand my reasonable misgivings about self-styled elites you’ve got to recognize the difference between expertise and a good-looking resume.
I’ve read hundreds of resumes. Back in the day I used to get stacks of ’em unsolicited in the mail. After a while you come to look at them more analytically, some would say cynically. A good resume doesn’t necessarily mean its bearer is competent nor does its absence mean that the bearer isn’t. I’ve been thinking of this quite a bit since reading this post over at OTB.
What struck me was that very few of the commenters questioned Steve Rattner’s expertise for being the Obama Administration’s “car czar”. I found that astonishing. When I look at his resume (BA in Economics, Brown; hired by the New York Time;media adviser;friend of Pinch Sulzberger; fund raiser; financier; wife the former DNC Finance Chair), I don’t see somebody who’s capable of reorganizing a car company or even managing the reorganization of a car company.
I see a schmoozer and Democratic Party apparatchik. This is elite?
That’s the problem I have with elitism.
Elites are defined by the elites. It’s a sort of perpetual motion machine. (Or maybe it’s a perpetual stasis machine.)
I also read his bio, but came away with a different impression. He worked for the Times for a while, but then went to Morgan Stanley. He started their media division. He then went to Lazard for 11 years and eventually became Deputy CEO. Adviser seems to mean that he facilitated M & A activity, IOW, a dealmaker. He then left with a few other guys and started his own private equity firm, Quadrangle.
That firm, at least on its website, claims to deal with leveraged buyouts and distressed firms. Fairly appropriate background I would think.
Many people, I think even you, have noted that the autos have become finance companies that also sell cars. This would seem to indicate that you would want someone with a background in finance, maybe an investment banking background. Should it have been someone within the auto industry? Havent we seen plenty of complaints about the revolving door, about keeping in place the same guys who caused the problem? Look, I dont know if there were better qualified people available. This guy, based on what I can find out seems pretty well qualified. Maybe Drew might know better, but how many were willing to drop what they were doing and spend $400,000 in lawyer fees to do it? Would someone from the industry have cut a better deal for the autos and a worse one for the taxpayers?
Steve