The enthusiastic reception to the appointment of Stanley Fischer as governor of the Bank of Israel – mostly by those who understand economics – and the negative reactions by so many other public figures help illuminate why our civil service seldom recruits top talent.
The criticism of Fischer’s appointment, and some of the praise, reflected more the collectivist ethos that still governs our public life, than the suitability of the appointment. For even the shrillest critics conceded that Fischer is an accomplished economist and banker, and that his high standing in international finance reflected talent and extensive knowledge.
Many public figures are oblivious of the crucial role the economy plays in Israel’s destiny. They don’t appreciate the impact that decisions by a central banker can have, and how knowledgeable, skilled, and responsible he must be not to cause harm. The central banker must also be perceived by the public as having these qualities.
Only ignorance can cause critics not to appreciate how difficult it is for a small and peripheral country like Israel to recruit a person with Fischer’s rare attributes, and what good fortune it is that he chose to help reform our ailing economy.
Otherwise, they would not seek in a governor such nebulous qualities as empathy for the “weak strata” or a “social consciousness.” These qualities have little to do with the professionalism the job requires.
As usual, our social lobbyists – who, after the bankruptcy of socialist Zionism, were left with “caring for the weak” as their only shield against despair and cynicism – are opposed to anyone who does not believe that salvation lies in greater welfare expenditures, and in ritually supporting wasteful government programs just because they profess good intentions.
They do not seem to care whether the programs they push so fervently, involving huge expenditures of taxpayers’ money, are also likely to get good results, or their cost/benefit balance.
So why should they suddenly pay attention to the fact that a governor of Fischer’s stature could help advance policies that will greatly enhance stability and growth; that he would be more likely to succeed in convincing foreign financial institutes to raise Israel’s credit rating, and that his policies and ability to market them can mean the addition of many billions to our GNP?
These additional billions can foster higher employment and salaries (as well as lower prices, which derive from enhanced competition). This will do much more for the weak sectors than all the empty rhetoric and counter-productive programs our self-appointed protectors of the poor (like Channel 1’s Oded Shahar, who has made a career out of fulminating against the rich) ceaselessly generate.
SOME OF the loudest criticism against the appointment of Fischer was simply mean-spirited. The appointment was another opportunity for partisan media attacks on Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. “When we hear Bibi, we do our best to make fun of him,” confessed Idan Greenbaum, channel 10’s economic editor, at a recent Tel Aviv University media conference.
“We try not to follow his line but our own truth,” Greenbaum stated.
Lest you believe that this kind of subjective journalism is a Channel 10 exclusive (ironically, Channel 10 is owned by an excellent capitalist, Ron Lauder), along comes an Avi Weiss, deputy news editor of the more popular Channel 2 (also owned by capitalists), and states: “We present an opposite reality to what Bibi says. I believe this is our duty ”
No matter, it seems, whether Netanyahu is right or wrong.
Weiss describes how for a month he and his colleagues exploited the media outlet entrusted to them to provide the public with factual information, in order to wage a personal campaign against the finance minister. They tried to force him to change government policy and to pay hundreds of millions of shekels to municipalities that had gone broke thanks to politicized, inflated job rosters.
Weiss did not bother to explain what gave him the right to abuse the public trust by trying to brainwash his audience with an ideological campaign designed to undermine the policy of an elected government.
Another media pundit, Yediot Aharonot’s Sever Plocker, tried to use Fischer’s appointment to advance his one-man campaign against banking reform.
He dared Fischer to oppose the Bachar Commission reform proposal, ostensibly to test his well-wishers’ trustworthiness – a heavy-handed attempt to manipulate the governor into opposing government policy.
As for the academy, Ariel Rubinstein, a Tel Aviv university professor, who holds a parallel US appointment, reportedly objected to Fischer’s appointment because he chose for years the fleshpots of America.
If Israel is not always successful in convincing its best to do a stint as public servants, if our system of governance leaves so much to be desired, perhaps the attitudes toward Fischer’s appointment can explain why.
