Sweet Mediocrity

Robert Zoellick, who doesn't seem to have done the country any good as US Trade Representative or as Deputy Secretary of State, but who also has the rare distinction of having served at a high level of the Bush administration without directly causing any major fiascos is set to head the World Bank.

A record of solid mediocrity and basic lack of distinction seems like the best we can reasonably hope for from this president, so I'll consider it a reasonably strong pick. Zoellick even has some background in financial and economic issues, unlike his predecessor. Nevertheless, I still feel that Bush should consider appointing Jim Leach to some kind of job at some point rather than endlessly relying on the team of Khalilzad and Zoellick when called upon to give a position to a non-discredited person.

Comments

No mention of this?

Posted by Jacob | May 30, 2007 1:05 AM

Khalilzad? Non-discredited? So soon you forget. Khalilzad did sign the PNAC Statement of Principles. Right along side Rummy, Shooter, Scooter, Jeb Bush and Bill "William the Bloody" Kristol. A wonderful crew he associates himself, eh?

P.S. Can't forget our dear Wolfie and Dan Quayle signed it too!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 30, 2007 1:44 AM

Holy crap!

Khalilzad was approved as our new U.N. ambassador last month?

Talk about failing up.

Guess I missed that amid all the chaos.

Has he said anything fun yet?

Posted by alphie | May 30, 2007 3:47 AM

As a real conservative, I refuse to support any politicians who support free trade:

http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

.

Posted by David | May 30, 2007 7:17 AM

Robert Zoellick is a big Israel-Firster neocon.

He's a neoliberal globalist who could care less what is in the interest of the U.S. or hard-working Americans.

Posted by Clarence T | May 30, 2007 7:21 AM

Matt, Zoellick does have the one crucial characteristic of every other Bush appointee - unswerving loyalty. Competence is not a requirement. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Posted by J. | May 30, 2007 8:56 AM

It's not just me, right? Zoellick couldn't get the Doha trade deal done because it was such a bad deal for the less developed countries that they refused to sign it. Isn't putting the guy who was the face of our effort to get that deal in charge of the bank that's supposed to help those same LDCs a slap in their face?

And what's with appointing deputies from Defense and State? Can't we at least pretend the World Bank is not the strong arm of the US hegemony-or-nothing foreign policy apparatus? Aren't there any qualified people at USAID? How about the Peace Corp? I'm asking seriously.

Posted by The Black Monk | May 30, 2007 10:07 AM

Conservative Exodus guy should get together with the dude who always posts the same verbatim comment about how he's a true liberal who opposes legal immigration. I think they would be friends.

Posted by JP | May 30, 2007 11:17 AM

Zoellick even has some background in financial and economic issues, unlike his predecessor.

OTOH, while Wolfowitz could at least have been described as having a basic understanding as to some of what is wrong about the World Bank/IMF's (if you'll pardon the use of this term) neo-liberal policies, Zoellick is clearly part of the problem (as mentioned in more detail above, I've just noticed) even if Wolfowitz turned out not to be part of the solution.

Why do we have to put a 'Murkin in charge? How about what put someone who actually has experience in, shall we say, World Banking? Didn't some feller named Yunnus win some sort of prize or somethin' recently?

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 1:43 PM