"Whatever the man did, do not forsake his ideas: they are more important" is the subheadline of the Economist magazine's take on the fall of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. As argument, the magazine offers this:
Whatever his personal failings, Mr Strauss-Kahn was an outstanding head of the IMF. Before the financial crisis, the fund risked irrelevance. With him there, it has again played a central part in managing the world economy.
The barely unstated assumption here is that the "world economy" needs to be, or can be, managed. Wouldn't it be better if the IMF were irrelevant? And if it became more relevant recently, is that because of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, or because of the financial crisis? I searched the piece in vain for an example of what DSK's ideas are that are supposedly so important. The only one I could detect was the idea that the French socialist party should be slightly less socialist, which isn't a bad idea, I suppose, but I'm not sure it quite justifies the vehement tone of the Economist subheadline.
