Economics blogger David Warsh reviews the record and argues that Larry Summers is the right man in the right place at the right time.

For all the litany of trial and error, it may seem strange to conclude that it’s a good thing that Summers has got his current job. In fact his understanding of the real economy and historical perspective have only begun to be tested. But recession, long-term fiscal imbalances, two foreign wars, health care reform, climate change, banking re-regulation, an automotive crisis and, above all, the rise of China in global markets, with the various imbalances it entails are challenges on an unprecedented scale. Summers talks to everyone about everything. He doesn’t tune out opinions he doesn’t want to hear. He has a terrific spreadsheet mind. He is a man of progressive convictions. He has every reason to want to succeed.

As the first speaker on an economic team of rivals, he reports to a man who has much better political judgment than Summers possesses – Barack Obama. Now that he has settled into the National Economic Council office, let’s hope that he remains there for many years to come.

For the country’s sake, I hope Warsh is right. But I am not so bullish on Summers. I disagree with some of the characterizations, for one thing; I am not so convinced that Summers listens to all opinions, despite the rhetoric to this effect that surrounds him, that he encourages. I don’t think Summers hears dissenting voices; I think he hears them out. There is a difference.

In Summers’ current job, his great strength is his certitude, the aura of absolute faith in his own rightness that he projects. He conveys a sense of omni-competence, and this is a good thing for the administration politically, for consumer confidence, and for Wall Street confidence. Widespread confidence in economic competence can help the economy recover.

But that aura of certitude, as so many at Harvard know, is also Summers’ greatest weakness, because it’s not a hollow projection; he really does believe constantly in his own rightness. Problem is—and this is where I take leave with David Warsh—he’s not always right.

Summers was wrong, IMHO, about the best way to address the financial crises of the late 1990s; his fiscal policies, which worked to preserve the sanctity of Wall Street loans to Mexico and Asian and Eastern European nations, were needlessly harsh to poor people and resulted in long-term capital redistribution from poor to wealthy in those nations.

He was wrong in a different sense in accepting millions of dollars from Wall Street banks for “speaking fees”—essentially, bribes, but if you wanted a nicer word you could call them “investments”—even as he was advising presidential-candidate Obama on economic policy. Those investments have paid off well for the Street, which knows that it has a friend in Larry Summers.

He was wrong about many things at Harvard, including how to fashion and implement policy. The disastrous curricular review is just one example.

He was tragically wrong in killing Brooksley Born’s plan to regulate derivatives, which contributed to the economic crisis we are still in, and about the repeal of Glass-Steagall, about which ditto.

And this is what is worrisome to me about Summers: When he makes mistakes, they are doozies. Because his actions are not tempered by any measure of self-doubt.

And it is wishful thinking to suggest that Obama can keep a handle on Summers. Economic policy is too byzantine, and moves too fast, for the president to do more than monitor its broad strokes. Summers has in the past proved himself skillful at manipulating those with more power than he, and it’s entirely possible that this pattern will reemerge, if it hasn’t already.

I may be too hard on Summers; he may have changed, grown. Let’s hope I’m wrong and David Warsh is right.