The Barometer knows many a professor just like MIT professor, Jonathan Gruber. They are professors who have theories that they believe (with the operative word being “believeâ€) will help businesses, government agency, and, on occasion, presidents. Full of desire to be something more than just being another college professor with a list of publications, they seek power. The goal is to become the architect of a major movement in business or government. And when they do get close to that brass ring, they are not prepared. Desire trumps discretion. Fame clouds judgment. And the consulting fees bump them up into a lifestyle they don’t want to surrender. So, for power, fame, fees, and fortune, they will do whatever it takes to stay in that inner circle. They toss aside basic principles of their field. They make unsupported assumptions and recommend courses of action that are folly.
Jonathan Gruber is an Internet sensation because of at least six videos that find him describing his critical role in the construction and passage of the Affordable Care Act. What most commentators have missed about the videos, in which Professor Gruber mocks the American public as stupid and touts his ability to game the political system, is the gleeful look on his face. He sees himself as the man, and the audience is with him ) the audience is a topic for another occasion.
Oh, but what he admits that he did. He talked about sensitive subjects such as redistribution of wealth via health care. Oh, and subsidization. And then there is his conclusion that transparency is no good in the political process – you have to obfuscate because it’s more important to pass the law. These thoughts are different from what emerged in the public eye as the ACA slogged through the legislative process. Costs will come down (despite the basic economic principle that you can’t lop 30 million more people into an already strained system and expect that health care will cost less). If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Moral relativism carries its problems when exercised willy-nilly. When exercised by those in power to get what they want, it is fraud. There are no political sides on deception of the public by those in power– Deception of the public is wrong whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or a couldn’t-care-less constituent.
Professor Gruber is learning this difficult lesson: You never trust the people you cheat with for they will throw you under the bus when your mutual scheming becomes public. Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the house, claimed she had no idea who Professor Gruber is – until video emerged of Mrs. Pelosi praising Professor Gruber and her reliance on his figures for COB analysis of the ACA. When asked again in light of the video, Mrs. Pelosi told reporters to find Professor Gruber and talk to him. Likewise, the President and White House Officials issued their denials of Professor Gruber until records showed that Professor Gruber visited the White House 19 times, including a four-hour meeting with the President. And other records showed Professor Gruber was paid almost $400,000 for his work on ACA for the administration.
As noted, the Barometer knows many Professor Grubers. They have sad endings because of the fatal combination of hubris and insecurity. Being published and respected, and Professor Gruber was so with articles in the American Economic Review, health care policy journals, and the status of funded researched. However, when the speeches became public, the powerful abandoned him, but so also did the academic world. The University of Pennsylvania removed the video of Professor Gruber’s October 2013 panel appearance. In that discussion, he laughed about “the stupidity of the American voter.†Penn put the video back up after it received backlash. The University of Rhode Island removed a 2012 panel discussion in which Professor Gruber explains that the law was passed by “exploiting†the American voters’ “lack of economic understanding.â€
So, there he sits, alone. The man who was once cited, quoted, and well compensated can’t find a friend or supporter. His role as a consultant is finished. In the academic world he will be viewed with suspicion because, by his own admissions on numerous videos, he revealed his ethical core. You do whatever it takes to do what you want to get done. Does the same standard apply to his research? Does he think reviewers are so stupid that you massage the results to give them what needs to get through and get it out in published form? The politicos who so willingly cited him when he could be used as a credible tool for hoisting duplicity onto the public have now thrown him under the bus.
We in the academic world would ordinarily come to the rescue of a politically discarded academic, but the trust issue causes us to doubt his standards. One more thing. The Barometer also knows a number of academics who, like Professor Gruber, get involved in government policy issues and debates. They testify. Some consult. But, they do not compromise the use of their research and knowledge. If they know that their recommendations mean a tax increase, they say so. If honorable academics know that what they are proposing is cross-subsidization, they say so. They are not partners with those who are advancing political battles by withholding information. Indeed, they would not exploit even the differing levels of knowledge of those affected in order to attain the goal. Deception is wrong, but so also is taking unfair advantage of another. For the academics who labor mightily for truth in their research, Jonathan Gruber is an affront. All of our work and efforts come under suspicion when one of our own behaves as Professor Gruber has. All are punished, thanks to the fatal conceit expressed via hubris resulting from insecurity.
