Which Elizabeth Warren Misconception Is More Dangerous?

So is she a good candidate or isn’t she? If so, then as JK/PK said earlier BO needs to push for her. Stop letting good people/causes get hung out to dry.

You know, Adam, I appreciate the effort you’re putting into this false equivalency, I really do. But I just don’t see how you can take “a basically moderate, reasonable, well-intentioned person” and twist it to mean “some sort of regulatory messiah”. It just doesn’t work, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

‘The world will move on and there are other people who can competently carry out her vision at the CFPB.’

…who the republicans will also demonize and block.

‘But the idea, sometimes voiced by liberals, that seems to suggest she’s some sort of regulatory messiah, the only human being who can rescue America from another financial crisis…’

Adam,
Care to name names? Because the only person I’ve ever read or heard that said ‘…the only human being who can rescue America…’ is you.

So, you go down the list of potential office-holders until the party that doesn’t want this Bureau to even exist says OK?

But the idea, sometimes voiced by liberals, that seems to suggest she’s some sort of regulatory messiah, the only human being who can rescue America from another financial crisis.

Which liberals? Links, please.

Oh; and please don’t equate something some person said in an obscure lefty blog to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

Most of what I’ve been reading has stated that she’s a good fit for the job, which is something you echo, Adam.

That’s just silly.

That good people get demonized for their positions on policy, or that because of that, there’s no hope for reform?

Consumer protection is popular and has the potential to do the American people a real service.

If you haven’t noticed, Adam, popularity and utility for the American people hasn’t really been much of a motivating factor when it comes to reform. Lately, it’s been ‘whose financial interests does the reform best serve,’ the answer to which is ‘not the broad swath of the American people.’

Adam, got more links on which R’s are calling her power-hungry? The Reuters crosslink buried in the Reuters Frank story buried in the… etc. is tepid at best. Looks like you need to post an update for us to provide links requested by all here.

If you listen to members of all 3 parties calling into C-span’s Washington Journal, you would hear almost unanimous support for Elizabeth Warren. Many of those viewers watched the hearings in which she testified, have seen her on WJ, or read articles she’s written.

She’s is seen as someone who fiercely fights for the middle-class. I can’t think of another person in government who is held in such high regard regardless of party……unless of course you’re talking about the Republican members of the House or Senate.

correction…………meaning the Republican members of the House or Senate DO NOT hold her in high regard.

“No matter the outcome, it’s not the ground that reform lives or dies on.”
.
Obviously, you’re dead wrong. Replacing the incompetent (see Alan Greenspan) with the competent, whether at the Fed, the White House, Congress or Time, is exactly how reform happens (your colleague, Joe Klein, can explain how it applies to those at the bottom of the power/wealth food chain, at least). It’s about hundreds, thousands of Elizabeth Warrens. These are the people who will decide not how but whether capital restrictions and leverage ratios get enforced. The Wall Street meltdown happened because of elite greed and incompetence that corrupted government’s ability to create and enforce the rules.
.
It was their “personal approaches” that created “what is fundamentally a structural risk.” And only competent people of good will occupying positions of power will fix that.

But then he goes and says, “If a basically moderate, reasonable, well-intentioned person with such a good track record can be demonized, there is truly no hope for reform.” That’s just silly.

Are you saying that there is, in fact, really good hope for reform? By whom? Which of Wall Street’s two political parties will enact this reform?

Consumer protection is popular…

Ah, I get it. Mr Smith goes to Washington and all that.

Elizabeth Warren is a battle worth fighting – and I say that as somemone who is often a pro-compromise wimp. The Republicans are not fighting eleizabeth Warren as much as they are fighting the idea of Elizabeth Warren, i.e. anyone who has the temeritry to suggest that finance industry should subjected to any kind of rule of law. More importantly, I have yet to see the Republicans make any kind of specifc complainty about her excdept the vague notion that she has a “bad attitude”, i.e. doesn’t take their assutance at face value. At very least, I want to hear what is is exactly about Ms. Warren’s “Fair Deal” for credit consumers they object to. While I grant that these are issues that are difficult for many to understand, it should be yet another forum to expose thefaux populist Republicans for the financial sector water carriers they really are.

Both pro and anti Warren arguments are mostly more nuanced than my hyperbole suggests and I’m certainly not saying they are equivalent (note the title of the post: I think one is worse.) But I’d say the point I’m driving at here is that it makes me very uncomfortable to hear stuff like this:

“They not only denied Elizabeth Warren the post she deserved and the power the country needed in her hands, they co-opted her as cover for frustrating the very purpose of the CFPA.”

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/10/03/the-warren-commission-and-financial-reform/

Another common version of this among some liberals is something like “If Obama doesnt nominate Warren the whole venture is a joke and he doesnt care about doing this properly.” More or less voiced here http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/ot-obama-administration-needs-to-nominate-elizabeth-warren-to-run-the-cfpa/

I think Warren’s more than qualified. The GOP’s characterization of her intentions doesn’t match what she’s been doing — she’s been going around to banks telling them she wants to streamline some regulation, make mortgage forms simpler for example. But I’m not a fan of cults of personality, and substantive reform doesn’t just hinge on a person or a few people. It’s structural. That’s my point. My beef with what Krugman said wasn’t that she was reasonable, it’s that if X happens to Warren, “there’s truly no hope for reform.” I just hear that way too much. It’s silly.

Also, you know, liberals need to chill out, because the GOP is just unreasonable by nature, they can’t really help themselves, and it’s our Centrist responsibility to meet the GOP “half way”, meaning wayyyyyyyyy over there.

Try here:
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2288493/

substantive reform doesn’t just hinge on a person or a few people
.
Substantive reform hinges on a few people in the Senate, and that’s why it won’t happen.

I need to channel my inner Stuart Zechman in order to refrain from calling Adam Sorensen a complete f—ing idiot. Whoops! Too late.

I want to be civil. Really, I do. But when confronted with such unabashed willful obtuseness….

The objection to Warren is that she would be good at her job. By definition, anyone who is competent will be objected to. This is because the large banks do not want consumers to be protected. It cuts into their profits.

This is a very, very, very simple fight. Sometimes the financial interests of a company or narrow industry do not align with the interests of society as a whole. It is the job of government, pursuant to the Constitution, to regulate interstate commerce so that businesses don’t run the economy into the ground even if they can make a buck doing so. This simple fight is between those who are looking out for the banks and those who are looking out for the greater social good. It is a zero-sum game.

You’d be much better off, say, tightening capital restrictions and leverage ratios at banks across the globe.

Sorensen’s argument that there is some opportunity cost to fighting for Warren is pure nonsense. I will point out three of the several reasons this is so.

First, FinReg passed last year. The train has left the station. Fighting for Warren will not impact capital reserve requirements one iota.

Second, there is no evidence that the White House EVER wanted stricter statutory capital-reserve requirements than were already passed. Sorensen is basically saying that the WH shouldn’t fight for Warren because it will make it harder to pass reforms that the WH doesn’t support.

Third, a properly-functioning CFPB would have tremendous power to prevent institutional financial fraud that does create structural risks. Reducing leverage might make bank failure less catastrophic. But reducing institutional fraud makes bank failure less likely.

I could easily go on.

“My beef with what Krugman said wasn’t that she was reasonable, it’s that if X happens to Warren, “there’s truly no hope for reform.”
.
Well maybe you should have had someone explain what he meant before you put up a blog post getting it completely wrong. Krugman (and the Firepups) aren’t saying that it has to be Warren, they’re saying that, if the administration isn’t willing to fight hard enough to get her confirmed, they probably never really cared that much about doing real reform and, either way, they aren’t willing to put up enough of a fight to make it happen – it was just more Kabuki for the base. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention.

“I could easily go on.”
.
What would be the point? As long as they’re required by their industry to treat Republicans as if they’re respectable and worthy of consideration, the stupidity will continue unabated.

“a properly-functioning CFPB would have tremendous power to prevent institutional financial fraud that does create structural risks.”

Yup. But your baseline assumption seems to be that there is no properly-functioning CFPB without E. Warren. That’s what I disagree with.

I’m not arguing against arguing for Warren. (No opportunity cost, it’s not one or the other. Magic wand scenario is just to make point.) I’m saying that the argument that policies depend on individual personalities can be dangerous.

‘But your baseline assumption seems to be that there is no properly-functioning CFPB without E. Warren’
.
Adam,
I’m not sure where you found that ‘baseline assumption’ in square1′s post. But, in the same way that you are discovering ‘baseline assumptions’, could I declare that your baseline assumption is that the republicans won’t demonize and block someone other than Warren who shares Warren’s competence and dedication to the CFPB? Would you care to make a bet on that?

Not to speak for square1, but I think the baseline assumption is:
.
GOP opposes any qualified nominee; hence WH should fight for some qualified nominee, of which Warren is a particular instantiation.

“…the argument that policies depend on individual personalities can be dangerous”
.
See also: Presidency, Congress, governorships, mayors, councilmen, aldermen, dog catcher, etc. etc. etc.

“I’m saying that the argument that policies depend on individual personalities can be dangerous.”
.
No one’s making that argument. The argument that someone is uniquely qualified (and please feel free to name someone who you think would do a better job) isn’t the argument that “policies depend on individual personalities”. I hope that you’re running out of straw men because I think we’re running out of patience (but thanks for participating in the discussion, just the same).

Well on pure speculation, I don’t know who they’d block. Qualified nominees have been confirmed to other government positions during the Obama administration, so I don’t see it as impossible as a general rule.

But last year when this first came up, a number of qualified names were floated. I didn’t hear anyone saying the Obama administration wasn’t serious about the CFPB because they let Michael Barr go back to Michigan.

@Adam Sorensen:
.
Congratulations. You disagree with a strawman argument that I did not make.
.
Interestingly, bobcn1, Art Pepper, and Shepherd Wong seemed to have no difficulty grasping what assumptions I was making. I will leave you to ponder whether their clear grasp of my post sheds any light on whether our miscommunication is based on sloppy writing or sloppy reading.
.
Should you choose to identify potential candidates who you believe are both qualified to competently protect consumers and more likely to the survive confirmation process than Warren it would strengthen your argument and advance the conversation.

Warren is the best person for the job. The fact that the GOP detests her so much speaks volumes. It is her competence that will ensure she doesn’t get confirmed because the GOP will settle for nothing more than the most incompetent person to held up the office. They would rather not have to deal with an office of consumer financial protection at all, but having to deal with one that is run by an incompetent and morally corrupt is the next best thing.

Well there are a lot of possible candidates I think could probably do fine in the job. As Dodd Frank intimates go there’s Michael Barr, there’s a number of state attorneys general who are experienced consumer advocates (Lisa Madigan, Martha Coakley — seriously, check out what she did with discount health plan scams in Massachusetts — Lori Swanson, etc.), and there are numerous Warren deputies. Cant really speak to anyone’s confirmability, but it’s likely higher than Warren’s.

‘Cant really speak to anyone’s confirmability, but it’s likely higher than Warren’s.’
.
Why would that be?

“I didn’t hear anyone saying the Obama administration wasn’t serious about the CFPB because they let Michael Barr go back to Michigan.”
.
To quote Charlie Sheen, well, duh. That’s because it left Warren to be the head of CFPB, which would be a quite serious appointment. That’s the whole point, Adam. Not that the policy must fail without her. Not that she must head the agency for it to do the job. Not that liberals are going to eat worms if she doesn’t get confirmed. Simply put, by training, experience and disposition, she is uniquely qualified, perhaps the best person for the job.
.
More to the point, there’s no good reason she shouldn’t be confirmed, other than the traitorous obstruction of “conservatives” and the inability of our opinion-makers to separate “conservative” political sh!t from policy and personnel substance.

Also, thanks for your responses.

@bobcn1 “Why would that be?” Because I don’t think Warren has much chance at all, so almost anybody’s would be better. I’ve heard talk of some weird possible choices too. Also: youre welcome.

“Because I don’t think Warren has much chance at all…”
.
I tend to agree. Highlighting once again, how much of price we pay as a nation when our political media simply can’t be bothered with telling the public the important truth about who and what actually represents their interests, rather than obsessively handicapping the partisan horserace and fooling themselves into believing they’re doing their jobs.

Thanks for the feedback, Adam. I’d consider FDL legit and non-obscure enough, but I think you’re missing the gist of that article from last year.
.
But I’d say the point I’m driving at here is that it makes me very uncomfortable to hear stuff like this…
.
That’s because you are interpreting this as a cult of personality surrounding Warren by the left versus the expression of support for a qualified person and disappointment that our government seems to have learned nothing from the near-Great-Depression-part-two that we’re still digging ourselves out from.
.
…substantive reform doesn’t just hinge on a person or a few people. It’s structural. That’s my point.
.
Generally, I agree with that…problem is that unless you get the right people in that can address the structural issues and give them the authority to nudge things into the proper shape, it won’t get done.
.
And that is mostly what the kvetching from the left is all about; it’s bad enough that the CFPB has been basically neutered before it’s even done anything; now everyone has to settle for an appointee to a consumer protection agency that won’t be too harsh on business…a milquetoast Bureau head for an already-watered-down-and-under-fire agency.
.
My beef with what Krugman said wasn’t that she was reasonable, it’s that if X happens to Warren, “there’s truly no hope for reform.”
.
I don’t hear that in Krugman’s post. What I hear is, “If we can’t get one of the best people for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau post past Congress, what sort of reform can we really expect?”
.
I just hear that way too much. It’s silly.
.
I disagree with your interpretation, Adam. You can argue that there’s small cults of personality orbiting around various public figures with no argument from me…I but I don’t see that in anything you’ve provided here.

Oops. Sorry for the errors in grammar. Just goes to show what happens when I try to post when I’m supposed to be working.

Thanks again for the reply.
.
I didn’t make myself clear. What I was hoping to have you comment on was what the actual motivations are of those who would deny Warren confirmation, and how/why those motivations would be different towards others.

Because I don’t think Warren has much chance at all, so almost anybody’s would be better.
.
@AdamSorensen: That strikes me as an incredibly bizarre analysis. There are reasons why Republicans oppose Warren. And yet you do not ask what those reasons are. You do not ask whether the other possible candidates embody the characteristics that generated opposition to Warren.
.
Over and over and over, the point has been made that the opposition to Warren is directly correlated to her competence. Yet you ignore this critical issue. Instead, you suggest that it is “speculation” to anticipate who might be blocked.
.
Really? Speculation? Let’s imagine that there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was created when a conservative justice retired. Let us further imagine that Republicans announced that they opposed a judge with a pro-choice track record for nomination. It would not be “speculation” to believe that ANY candidate with a pro-choice background would be opposed just as strongly. Not only wouldn’t it be “speculation,” the opposition would be easily and entirely forseeable.
.
There are two, and only two, intelligent arguments to support the claim that Republicans would be more likely to confirm another candidate:
.
(1) The other candidate is less competent than Warren — meaning that he or she would be less likely to cost the bankers money; or
.
(2) The reason that Republicans oppose Warren is some reason other than that Warren is competent.
.
That is the entire universe of possibilities. So, if you want to be taken seriously, you can either admit that Republicans will always block ALL competent candidates. Or you can attempt to argue that there is another explanation for their opposition.

If Warren is the best person for the job and, as Adam says, “more than qualified,” why on earth not push for her appointment?? If she can’t get the votes, fine, nominate someone else, but don’t give up without even trying. At the very least, people get to see Republican/Tea Party true colors about reform.

@Adam Sorenson: If you could wave a magic wand and change one thing to make the financial sector safer, less prone to another globally felt implosion,… your best bet sure wouldn’t be… putting ponzi schemers and inside traders in jail.
.
Why the hell not? Even Bernie Madoff is asking why some of these people aren’t keeping him company in prison.

If you could wave a magic wand and change one thing to make the financial sector safer, less prone to another globally felt implosion, your best bet sure wouldn’t be using it to get Elizabeth Warren 60 votes in the Senate. It also wouldn’t be cutting pay on Wall Street or hiring certain regulators or putting ponzi schemers and inside traders in jail. Start with Lloyd Blankfein.

I rented “Despicable Me” over the weekend, and enjoyed again one of the best little jokes in the film, as Gru is entering the bank, looking for a loan, and inscription above a doorway reads: BANK OF EVIL (Formerly Lehman Brothers).

I’m sorry, but it doesn’t seem like you grasp Wall Street. Pay, for example, is part of the structural problem. Consumer protection laws that are barely enforced are part of the structural problem and yes, insider traders who have advantages over everyone else are part of the structural problem. Leverage ratios and capital requirements are important, but only if we’re going to continue to bail out failed financial institutions.

Elizabeth Warren shouldn’t be deified. Others can do the job, I’m sure. But they need to be imaginative people. A quishy moderate with a soft spot for everything just north of Battery Park City won’t do. Krugman’s point, by the way, was not that Warren is the only person for the job, it’s that she is in fact a moderate as a regulator. He’s speaking the truth there.

“Because I don’t think Warren has much chance at all…”

Well, clearly … because she supports strong consumer financial protection, so naturally the GOP does not want her to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And round and round we go.

(Thanks for engaging the rabble, btw.)

Consumer protection is popular and has the potential to do the American people a real service.
-
Surely you don’t seriously believe that Republicans fear opposing something because it is popular and it is good for America.
-
The public option was popular and would have reduced the deficit. The Bush tax deferments are unpopular and terrible for America, and every single Republican in Congress would rather walk across broken glass than cast a vote against them.
-
Congressional decisions are notoriously unresponsive to the opinions of the bottom 50-80 percent of the population, wealth-wise. There’s no reason that bad, unpopular things that please a narrow base and/or interested donors can’t go on forever. Farm subsidies are another example.