Partisanship and Hypocrisy: Thoughts on The Wolfowitz Affair
I haven’t yet posted on the Wolfowitz scandal at The World Bank, but I can’t resist quoting this piece in The Telegraph:
Paul Wolfowitz, the embattled World Bank chief, launched into a threatening tirade against members of his staff when news of his controversial pay and promotion package for his girlfriend began to leak out, it emerged yesterday.
The revelation was one of the more damning elements of a report by a special investigative panel, which concluded that the scandal “had a dramatic, negative effect on the reputation and credibility” of the bank.
The whole affair is “banal and tawdry,” as Heraclitus put it a while ago, and I tend to agree. Is it bad? Yes. Is it that bad? Well, no. What is that bad is the scandal, not the “pay and promotion package,” which is precisely what the report implies.
To the extent that Wolfowitz has damaged the credibility of the institution, not to mention whatever was left of his own credibility after his role in getting the Iraq War off the ground, he would do well to resign. As The Washington Post is reporting, after all, the report determines that “[his] actions manifest a lack of understanding for and a disregard for the institution as a public international organization,” and that he may no longer “be able to provide the leadership needed to ensure that the bank continues to operate to the fullest extent possible”.
Matthew Yglesias is right to point out that “hypocrisy matters” — consider the extent of hypocrisy in the White House and throughout the Bush Administration, for example, as well as on the religious right — but I do think that some of Wolfowitz’s critics are exaggerating their criticism in this case because he “was an architect of the Iraq War,” as James Kirchick wrote at The Plank (in a post that I otherwise find to be excessively apologetic). If it had been some random economist who had given his girlfriend a raise and a promotion, or if it had been a Democrat, would the criticism be what it is now? If it had been a Democrat, Republicans would be exaggerating their criticism. If it had been some randon economist, I doubt anyone would be paying much attention. (It would be yet another scandal at an international institution, just like any of the usual scandals at the U.N.) In other words, hypocrisy matters, but so does partisanship.
Which is not to say that the partisans are wrong. Far from it. Whatever the motives of some of his critics, Wolfowitz acted in an inappropriate, and indeed unethical, manner, and he is now embroiled in a scandal that has tarnished the institution of which he is the head, this according to the institution itself. Wolfowitz has fought back in force, rejecting calls for his regisnation (or firing), but a report by ABC News suggests that “all options are on the table” for the White House, that “it is an open question” whether he will remain in the job. Even the White House realizes that Wolfowitz’s position is untenable, that the scandal has simply grown too large to dismiss. Bush has expressed his support for Wolfowitz in the past, and just recently, but, as Sir Humphrey Appleby once remarked, you have to get behind someone before you stab them in the back.
Wolfowitz is likely done, but it won’t be because of Iraq or because of any policy failure at The World Bank. That may be fine for some, but — and I say this as someone who dislikes Wolfowitz immensely — I’m not so sure.
He has done far worse in other capacities, and in more serious ways, but perhaps such an undignified end is some sort of justice after all.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “Partisanship and Hypocrisy: Thoughts on The Wolfowitz Affair”
Is it even possible to know if Wolfowitz is doing a good–or poor, or indifferent–job?
George, that would require having a consistent set of objective metrics for organizational performance of the World Bank. Unfortunately, the World Bank bureaucracy (the same people who are after Wolfie’s head) are the same ones who have long resisted the establishment of ANY metrics for organizational assessment, accountability, or transparency.
Hmmmm……
Very good point, Jason. From what I can tell, based on the limited reading I’ve done, he doesn’t seem to have done a bad job.
My complaint is with the media coverage, or rather with the lack of serious media coverage. Because, God knows, this is being covered! There’s endless superficial coverage of the scandal, including the colorful novelistic detail of his dropping a few f-bombs. The sound of axes being ground–sorry, I meant to say, informed opinions being expressed–is overwhelming everything else. Where’s the reporting? Beyond the whole, you know, “girlfriend” thing? Aren’t there billions–even trillions–of dollars at stake?
When it’s all over, the World Bank will go back to being invisible. Not that I’ve ever given much thought to the World Bank. But now that I am paying attention, is there nothing available beyond this Paris Hilton level of journalism?
The latest word is that the WH is in negotiations with the Board over Wolfie’s impending departure. My guess is that many of the Europeans didn’t like having the architect of the Iraq War heading the Bank, and didn’t like the fact that he brought over henchmen from the Pentagon, and insulated himself with them. The girlfriend thing was just the last straw. It just was a bit hypocritical, considering his anti-corruption stance. Well, he got a fair hearing…….
Fair hearing? Horseshit. You obviosly have not been following this closely.
In a nutshell, he requested to be recused, was refused, then requested advance guidance from the Ethics board, which he followed, then reverified the guidance, which was affirmed.
And, you should check out the villa’s, vacations, payoffs, etc., done for wives, children, girlfriends, and lovers of other World Bank members.
That is the hypocrisy. Wolfie was trying to shake things up, and for all of everyone’s complaints at times about our government and corruption (and we all do it, from one side or the other), almost nobody in our system can hold a candle to the sense of entitlement, graft and corruption of either the EU, World Bank, or UN.
This is just getting rid of a threat to the status quo.
That’s not what the head of the ethics board testified to -unless you believe the WSJ editorial.
That’s a valid excuse?
Chris -
First, I think he is being railroaded, as I stated above.
Second, I never presented that as an ‘excuse’ of any sort. I used it to tee up my point of the real hypocrisy at the World Bank, that it is but another terminally corrupt multi-national NGO that now exists strictly to enrich itself and protect the patronage jobs it creates.
AR,
Point taken. Certainly there are far worse people at the World Bank and UN than Wolfie, but that doesn’t mean that Wolfie deserves our pity.
The ‘others were worse’ line is cropping up more and more. ‘
For me, that argument holds no water. The “Johnny did it first” excuse is childish IMO.
If Wolfowitz and the WH wanted cover under those conditions, then they would have done well to drop their arrogance long enough to make friends among
the other staffers. If you don’t want to join the club, there is no reason to expect favors from it.
My self-professed radical friend in DC has worked at, among other places (like the IRS, where she never saw so many truly obese people in her life), none other than the World Bank, whose members have exploited their fellow foreign nationals. (Read: treat them as slaves)
The thing is, I’m wondering what he did to deserve the job in the first place. He was the architect of Iraq and I don’t think anyone is arguing anymore that it isn’t a terrible quagmire. He doesn’t seem to have felt that he had to build up any kind of following there- which may be why he’s on his way out.
I think they saw him as just another arrogant American trying to push his weight around without regard to the rest of the organization. Now, he refuses to leave unless someone at the Bank shoulders a big share of the blame. Just give him his job reference and show him the door. Regardless of what the official reason is, he’s failed at leading the Bank and failed at planning the war. Just Why did he get the Medal of Freedom again?