obstruction of Republican senators who had blocked his appointment since he was first nominated more than a year ago.
Of course, these days it is not unheard of that a worthy presidential nominee for executive appointment would be shot down by the opposing party. And I generally blame both parties for such behavior, realizing that Democrats pull similar stunts when they smell political opportunity.
What makes this particular instance remarkable, however, is Diamond’s stunning level of qualification. That would be Dr. Peter Diamond, Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1966, and last year’s winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics for his study of unemployment and labor markets. Amid the worst economic slump of the last four decades, the nominee for an open seat on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors just so happens to be one of the most eminently qualified people on the planet, but he has been denied the opportunity to serve. 
How are we to explain this rather stunning development? The easy answer is to point to political partisanship. It sounds rather petty when you say it out loud, but let’s hope that really is the case. Why? Because as bad as it seems, the alternative is too awful to bear.
The Republican opposition to Diamond has been led by Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee. Diamond’s nomination needed to clear that committee before being voted on by the entire Senate. Most of the party got in line with Sessions from the get go. Initially, only three Republican Senators had the temerity to support Diamond: Robert Bennett of Utah, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Mike Johanns of Nebraska. But shortly thereafter, Bennett lost a Republican primary battle in Utah. Then Judd declined to run for re-election. With Bennet and Gregg out of the Senate, Johanns held on as Diamond’s lone Republican supporter until last month, when he finally caved in.
The party was now completely united, making Diamond’s appointment an impossibility and leading him to officially withdraw yesterday. 
If Diamond was a victim of predictable partisanship, then the compelling circumstantial evidence lies in his record. As one might expect, the Nobel prize winner has published books with some of the most prestigious academic presses in the world, including Cambridge, Princeton, Oxford, and MIT. However, he has also published two works with the liberal Brookings Institution. One of those, Saving Social Security: A Balanced Approach, was co-authored with Peter Orszag, who was twice an economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, and who served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Barack Obama for nearly two years.
So the obvious conclusion is that despite his overwhelming qualifications, Diamond was denied because his politics and economic philosophy do not jibe with the neo-liberal doctrines that currently dominate the Republican Party. The problem of course is that politicians of any stripe rarely speak bluntly. Senator Sessions did not primarily frame his opposition as a partisan issue, probably because that would open him up to accusations of putting petty partisan politics ahead of the national interest. How did Sessions frame his attack on Diamond? Amazingly, he actually questioned Diamond’s qualifications.
That’s right. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, who himself has no university training in economics, did everything he could to deny the President’s appointment of a Nobel Prize winner and one of the most respected economists in the world on the grounds that Diamond was not suitably qualified to the task at hand. 
Instead of pettiness, Sessions chose arrogance, knowing that the latter plays better politically. Diamond’s op-ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times easily and eloquently makes hash of Sessions’ utterly absurd contentions. And beyond that, Diamond’s record clearly speaks for itself.
But let’s hope that Sessions’ actions do not speak for themselves. Let’s hope that a high ranking U.S. Senator is only pretending to be so profoundly arrogant that it boggles the mind. Let’s hope that the obvious truth, unwilling to be publicly admitted, is the real story: that this was a case of crass political partisanship, motivated by ideological differences. Because the alternative is a level of hubris so staggering that it makes one fear for the future of the republic.