The "change" is bringing in people who value expertise and evidence-based policymaking over ideology

[swag]

From a very long, wonkish article at Econbrowser:

On a side note, I've just been watching Nancy Pfotenhauer on Larry King characterizing the new Obama economic team as "not change" because they are centrists. I think she misses the point entirely (not surprising). The "change" is not a matter of the economic ideology of the new team members -- rather the "change" is bringing in people who value expertise and evidence-based policymaking over ideology and dogma.

[Lilith Velkor]

1. I knew that all along

How is it that so many of my fellow leftists did not?

[Winterblues]

2. It is indeed that but it is also a change over what has occured the last eight years.

IMO it has nothing to do with a Change from all the good that was accomplished under the Clintons. some people here think because Obama is choosing people that served in the Clinton Administration that it doesn't represent change... What part of the "greatest economic expansion in history" do they want to change I wonder?

[wuushew]

3. its a self-fulfilling prophesy

if you never appoint any one on the left then they will never gain experience and if they don't have experience they will not be appointed!

[Romulox]

4. And it's a MERE COINCEDENCE that all the most qualified people are from the Rightwing

of the Party...

right? :shrug:

[TNOE]

5. James Carville tore her ass up last night

on Larry King (Nancy Pfotenhauer). It was beautiful.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

6. I've also been saying (ranting about) this.

The "change" is one of process...of attitude. It represents a return to considering the "means" as being just as important as the "ends." Bushco cared very little about the means, even if they were Constitutionally fundamental. Their closed, authoritarian style--heralded as "American" and ultra-patriotic, was actually just the opposite.

This goes back to another argument--that "liberalism" is not a set of positions, it's a temperament...democracy-centered, open, inclusive, non-dogmatic...one that is (fortunately) embodied within the founding charters of this country. By that measure, Obama is indeed a liberal.

[bigtree]

7. That certainly is one of the aspects of change promised

But if that, or any other approach just results in more of the same policy or effects of the Bush mess, it won't really be a change we can believe in.

It's perfectly legitimate to look at these veteran appointees and question their commitment to policies they haven't fully supported in the past or their commitment to changing policies which they supported into enactment.