It's been a rough year and a half, and we're slated for another rough few months ahead. As progressives, we've seen the White House and Congress (mostly, but not exclusively, the Senate) water down or eliminate much of the change and reform they promised voters at the behest of powerful corporate interests. And despite throwing bone after bone to the opposition conservatives, Democrats have received nothing in return.
One of the side effects has been a significant enthusiasm gap that threatens many of the electoral gains we've made the last two cycles.
There aren't many opportunities left this year for the Administration to make nice with the progressive activists. Much of the damage has already been done. But there's one thing they can do to send a message that the people are more important than the bankers: Nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
That bureau is one of the few constructs of the recently passed financial reform bill that has a real chance of having an impact. But as we've seen in the past, an oversight board or agency only is as effective as its leadership. And if the banks (and their allies like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner) have their druthers, they'll have an industry crony at the top making sure the bureau has as little impact on their shenanigans as possible. This is particularly important as the agency takes shape -- its first head will define much of the role and scope of the agency.
The administration should nominate Elizabeth Warren.
Yglesias:
[Elizabeth Warren's] doubters inside and outside the administration raise a variety of objections, ranging from a lack of administrative experience to concern over whether she’d be a good “team player.” They also observe, correctly, that other candidates, like current Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr, have a strong record on these issues and would do a good job. And so they would. But in terms of emotional impact, nothing will make a difference like Warren. As one attendee put it to me, “what a great signal it would send.” Tellingly, he’s an environmentalist. His work has, really, nothing to do with Warren or financial regulation. But he wants—and needs—a signal that the president cares about the people who’ve been fighting the good fight for years and may or may not continue doing so in the future.
Wall Street boosters in the Administration also whine that she might not have the votes in the Senate, but hold the vote and see where the chips fall. Scott Brown wouldn't vote for her -- he (rightfully) sees her as a potential 2012 challenger. But Grassley has been complimentary of Elizabeth Warren, lauding her TARP oversight work, and its passage was also supported by the Maine twins. That could be enough to offset asshole Ben Nelson (who hates Warren).
And if the Senate wants to carry water for Wall Street instead of the rest of America, then a recess appointment would be in order. She only needs a year anyway to establish the scope and culture of the bureau.
The choice for this committee is so inside-baseball that it'll have little impact outside of two small but important constituencies -- progressives looking for a sign, ANY sign, that the administration cares about its base and the American public, and bankers desperate to defang one of the few provisions in the financial reform bill that might have an impact on their business.
That's the choice. Wall Street or the people. It shouldn't be a hard one.