As the Senate confirms Ben Bernanke for his second four-year term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, much criticism has fallen upon the man and his methods for combating the financial crisis. Although positive, yet arguably unsustainable growth has accompanied his economic policy, he is still under fire for the bank bailouts and still high unemployment rate. While the aforementioned strictures are focused on his role as the chief economist and economic policymaker for the United States, critics are neglecting, perhaps, his most important role – his role as a public intellectual.
Stephen Mack asserts:
That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.
Mack is quite right in his assertion, and rather than debating whether Bernanke’s credentials deem him worthy of the public intellectual title, a discussion of the duties of the public intellectual in the context of heading the Federal Reserve and the extent to which Bernanke successfully meets those duties will yield much more useful results.
Unique to the duties of the public intellectual in the Fed Chairman position is the responsibility to bestow one’s expertise upon both U.S. Congresspersons and the general public. The Chairman must synthesize a large amount of complex economic data and figures to formulate economic policy, which must then be simplified to a comprehensible and communicable format for U.S. Congress and the general public. The general public is the mainstream audience requiring the greatest degree of simplification and explanation, whereas while not being entirely familiar with the economics discipline, U.S. Congress is regarded as a more highly educated and experienced crowd, at least in theory. While the typical public intellectual may be required to translate their proficiency for mainstream readership on the general public level, the Fed Chairman must also do so on a level for Congress.
Critics should center their assessment of Bernanke on his degree of success fulfilling the role of the public intellectual. It is quite common to find individuals in the general public disgusted and frustrated with their tax dollars being used to bail out massive financial institutions, but when asked why such bailouts were occurring, that individual frequently offers no explanation. Failure on Bernanke’s part to fully execute his duty as a public intellectual is to blame. When constituents ask their Congresspersons why unemployment remains high despite signs of economic recovery, those Congresspersons often point fingers rather than offer an explanation. It is quite possible that prevention of worldwide financial collapse and a lagging economic indicator are the respective answers to the posed questions. The reasons for which such answers are not reaching parts of Congress and the mainstream could very well be traced to Mr. Bernanke.
Regardless of who is to blame, critics of Bernanke are not bringing the correct issues to light. What appears to be the most prominent issue – Bernanke’s methodology for tackling the financial crisis – is clouding the true central issue – Bernanke’s fulfillment of his duties and obligations as a public intellectual.
