Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Matt Yglesias says it’s puzzling that Ben Bernanke isn’t adopting a more expansionary monetary policy in order to jumpstart the job market.  Brad DeLong says, “I am puzzled too.”  A bunch of other liberally inclined economists have said similar things recently.

I dunno.  I guess I wish we could stop pretending to be surprised by this.  Ben Bernanke may be a specialist in economic contractions, but he’s also a mainstream conservative economist.  And mainstream conservatives have always been more concerned with inflation than with unemployment.  Likewise, they tend to be opposed to entitlement spending, opposed to serious financial regulation, and opposed to expanded consumer protections.  And guess what?  Bernanke is more concerned with inflation than with unemployment and he’s opposed to entitlement spending, serious financial regulation, and expanded consumer protections.

This was all pretty plain several months ago, when virtually every liberally-minded economist supported Bernanke’s reappointment.  So what’s the point of bellyaching about it now?

For what it’s worth, I’m surprisingly bitter about this and I keep stewing over it.  Maybe I’m just being an asshole.  But I’ve been reading liberal economists yammer on for years about liberal economic policies, so when an actual opportunity came along to appoint a liberal economist to an important position it was really disappointing to see them all circle the wagons around Bernanke almost instantly.  It felt like the worst kind of professional backscratching.

I guess I should get over it.  But we all have our dumb little pet peeves to be bitter about, don’t we?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate