The NY Times reports this morning that Ken Lewis will retire at the end of the year as CEO of Bank of America. This news, while not totally surprising, is disappointing especially following on the heels of the departure of Green Jobs Czar (or is it Tsar) Van Jones several weeks ago. What bothers me about both is that either person might have been retained and should have been defended by the President and neither was.
Yes, Van Jones ran his mouth a bit regarding 9-11. He called his political opponents something he should not have. He has also been a major force in moving our economy in a direction it needs to go while moving large groups of people out of generational poverty. If this administration is about change, Van Jones has a record of bringing it.
I’ve already talked about Ken Lewis and Bank of America’s contributions to the prevention of global economic collapse. He motivation was by no means selfless, but it has been mixed with what I perceive as a real understanding that his duty was to help the economic system weather this crisis. Much like Lance Armstrong, Ken Lewis strikes me as someone I respect but am not interested in hanging out with. He seems wound a little tight.
In both of these cases, however, the late departed would have benefited significantly from support from the Obama administration. Both deserved the support. Instead, each has been left hanging. The overwhelming weight of the health care debate and the growing controversy over the war in Afghanistan have shrunk the President’s room to maneuver. These strategic decisions to sacrifice individuals in order to preserve the momentum of the agenda might be seen as examples of remarkable political discipline.
But these are also people, as are Jeremiah Wright, Tom Daschle, and whoever is next. The calculus seems to be that as the people who have formed the agenda become obstacles to that agenda, those people must go. The President’s personal popularity is more valuable than the contributions of his supporters. While his predecessor seemed at times to exercise loyalty beyond prudence, this President seems at times to regard loyalty as a one way street. By both I am equally disturbed.