Views » August 17, 2010
Stand Up for Elizabeth Warren
It’s time the democratic wing of the Democratic Party demands that our elected officials promote a progressive agenda.
The sacking of Shirley Sherrod is emblematic of the mess the Democrats and President Barack Obama have gotten themselves into.
Yes, this is a sad story about race in America, and about a race-baiting charlatan named Andrew Breitbart. But the Sherrod affair also exposes how the White House operates internally, and which voices it really responds to. Guess what? They’re not the voices of those Americans who elected Obama. This fearful administration consistently ignores progressive concerns, while reacting to every right-wing talking point and cowering before the howling of Fox News banshees.
It’s no surprise that the Democrats’ most reliable constituencies are wavering. On August 3, at the AFL-CIO executive council meeting, President Richard Trumka lamely exhorted America’s labor leaders to support Democrats in November. Trumka told his union brothers and sisters, “We know you’re angry. We know you’re frustrated. We know we haven’t achieved everything that we worked for. But we’ve made progress, and we have to keep it going.”
Does that sound like a message that can fire up the base for Election Day? Not likely. The lack of enthusiasm among progressive Democrats is rooted in White House policy decisions. Consider Obama’s current reluctance to appoint Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor who chaired the congressional oversight panel for TARP, to head the newly-created Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection–a watchdog agency that was her idea.
Some in the administration don’t like the feisty Warren. Perhaps Timothy Geithner, who is a creature of Wall Street, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who earned $16.2 million during a two-and-a half year stint as an investment banker, don’t want to upset their pals in the financial industry, a sector in which these two characters will likely find employment should Obama come a cropper in 2012.
The financial industry knows that Warren will stand up to the 148 former federal regulators who since last year have registered as Washington lobbyists. According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the New York Times, this phalanx of influence peddlers used to work in the executive branch at agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Reserve. Their job now is to eviscerate the financial reforms passed by Congress in July. Under the new bill, the SEC will develop 95 rules to regulate areas like the trading of derivatives, standards for credit rating agencies and disclosure of executive bonuses.
It’s time the democratic wing of the Democratic Party demands that our elected officials promote a progressive agenda. We urge you to join our friend Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in his campaign on behalf of Warren. Go to his website (www.sanders.senate.gov), and sign his petition. As Sanders says, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection needs a director like Warren who is “serious in standing up to Wall Street and providing the consumer protection [Americans] need.”
While you are online, help In These Times make some decisions about the magazine’s editorial direction. In the next several months, we will be taking a hard look at our future. Please contribute a few minutes of your time and take the In These Times Community survey, which you can find here.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Joel Bleifuss, a former director of the Peace Studies Program at the University of Missouri-Columbia, is the editor & publisher of In These Times, where he has worked since October 1986.
SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
I have the greatest admiration for Elizabeth Warren.
She almost immediately pointed out that Henry Paulson did not account for $85 Billion of TARP money.
She has a clear picture of what was done to cause this bailout scam, who was involved and what needs to be done.
However, all her reports and protests have come to naught.
Little Timmy Geithner said he would have no problem with her as Consumer Protection Czar, even though he disagrees with virtually everything she stands for.
Hmmmm? My guess is he would love to have her shunted off into the useless and unneeded dead-end functionary position.
People need to simply take personal responsibility for their own purchases — no government advocate Nanny necessary.
Hang in there Liz! Give’em hell! Tell it like it is!
Perhaps the masses will hear you and we can get some genuine reform of this cycle of financial scamming and the idea that some are “Too big to be allowed to fail” or punished.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 17, 2010 at 5:49 AM
Hm. So Democratic Voters are disappointed in the Democratic Leadership. So are Republican Voters in Republican Leadership though. A greater percentage of Republicans express their disgust with their leadership than Democrats with their own.
Polls show that when the choice is confined to just Republicans or Democrats, Republicans feed on discontent to come out ahead. but when “other” is added, it wins, with Democrats in second and Republicans in third - even when other is listed as “tea party”.
Both parties are in a bind. Their best campaign slogan is that they are not the other. Unfortunately for those who hope to use that slogan, it is false. It is very hard to rally the base with “I know you are angry at me but please vote for me anyway otherwise the hated other will win.”
At least since leadership changed in the Libertarian Party we aren’t disgusted with our leadership anymore. Wayne Root is an aberration, not a spokes-person.
Posted by Ayn R. Key on Aug 18, 2010 at 10:29 AM
The Libertarians don’t seem to have much to offer the American people since most Americans aren’t filthy rich and are getting poorer and poorer despite the much touted free market model of economics that we’ve had over the last thirty years. Libertarians can’t seem to explain the existence of the current liquidity trap or the overproduction/over investment crisis that has left the economy in a state of permanent stagnation. We’ve have chronic demand shock due to low and declining real wage growth. Only Keynesians can explain the current crisis; Libertarians don’t seem to even know the facts. I wonder if we can ever get past our irrational fear of the “S” word and build a new Progressive Socialist Party as an alternative to the current cluster of political choices.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 20, 2010 at 6:10 PM
When did we get a free market in the United States? Seriously, when? Not any time in my lifetime. Oh it is true that we can’t explain the liquidity trap, since we can’t explain things that don’t exist such as liquidity traps and instead can explain malinvestments that occur during the boom that must be later liquidated during the boom caused bust.
It’s not a liquidity trap, it’s a broken banking system. Saying we cannot explain liquidity traps is like saying evolutionary scientists can’t explain baraminology.
And when have we had a free market in the United States? You have to go back in history quite a bit to get to anything that resembles a free market in the United States ... and not only were most people alive now not born yet then, it’s too far back to lay any immediate blame for the current crisis.
Posted by Ayn R. Key on Aug 21, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Shop the latest Coach Handbags handpicked by a global community of independent trendsetters and stylists.If you are on the enthusiasm for Coach Bags Coupon ergo considering to worth the discount, hence you fault finish palpable in that contrasted methods. The Coach Purses are rule trend these days since of the pertinent habit of these handbags.
http://www.us-coachsale.com
Posted by Coachsale on Oct 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.