Excerpt from Bernie's July 3rd email: So over the course of the next few weeks we will be releasing a series of policy proposals to address the major issues facing our nation. We’ll be discussing these issues at a number of nationwide organizing meetings taking place on July 29th.
In support of the upcoming July 29th #FeelTheBern National Campaign Meetings, I created a 3 part diary series on
Media Literacy. This diary is the first in the series:
- PART#1: ‘Clintonian Triangulation’-vs-Bernie's bold decisive stand #TBTF[#July29 #MediaLiteracy 1of3]
- PART #2: Bernie:“I believe change takes place from the bottom up” #5ViralAds[#July29 #MediaLiteracy 2of3]
- PART #3: Bern:‘People will make their own judgments about Hillary’#Listening[#July29 #MediaLiteracy 3of3]
Media Literacy (or 'media education') is a repertoire of competencies that enable people to analyze, evaluate, and create messages in a wide variety of media modes, genres, and formats.
Did you know that the fine art of political "triangulation" was created by the Clinton political machine? And that it is also called, the
Clintonian Triangulation?
I. Did. Not. Know. That. ...interesting...
CASE STUDY - TBTF POLICY VISION
Executive Leadership Strategic Objectives
-vs-
Political Intent/Triangulated Rhetoric
Okay, this is going to be an exercise, call it a game, the "he said, she said" game, with the focus being a case study of each candidate's strategic objectives as defined by their comments on Too Big To Fail (TBTF) Economic Policy.
You are going to need a pen and paper for this, figuratively. Included below are a series of hypothetical questions/notes that a "private sector" NYC I.T. Team (Database Systems Engineer / Management Consultant) might provide as part of the initial (Feasibility Study / Management Due Diligence) review phase of a multimillion dollar multi-year Mission Critical project that requires extensive Business Process Re-engineering (BPR). These questions/notes serve to explore each candidate's Strategic Objectives in the context of (A) Technical Viability and (B) Political Rhetoric, and assumes that each candidate "says what they mean and means what they say."
Management due diligence is the process of appraising a company's senior management team(s) with the intention of evaluating each individual's effectiveness regarding an organization's strategic objectives.
I ask your indulgence to patiently review this diary thoroughly
(as if you were a stakeholder, you are) and answer the poll question honestly. The results could prove valuable to the election, if they reveal a pattern in public perception/mis-perception and the quality/intent of political rhetoric. We need to raise bar in this election by providing an industry standard
"public sector" best practices protocol for holding candidates accountable. Detail thoughts & feedback in the comments are appreciated.
(For clarity, please provide the "QUESTION NBR" [Q#], when responding to specific items).
(I am starting with Bernie because for me he is the baseline / benchmark.)
Bernie's position on Too Big To Fail (TBTF) from his interview with Katie Couric:
KATIE: I know that you’ve said that banks that are too big to fail should not exist...
BERNIE: Exactly.
KATIE: ...do you think that Hillary is too cozy with Wall Street. In other words, do you disagree with her on that particular point?
BERNIE: I think, well... I don’t know how much she has spoken out on it. What I believe, is that given the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, where you have six financial institutions that have assets that are the equivalent of 60% of the gross domestic product of this country, who have caused the worst recession in the modern history in this country, many of these banks are bigger today than before we bailed them out. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Yes, we should break them up! I’m not quite clear where Hillary Clinton’s position is on that issue.
Well, from Hillary's economic speech on Monday (7/13), now we know Hillary Clinton’s position, or do we?
HILLARY [7/13/15]: (transcript / video): “Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too risky. And the problems are not limited to the big banks that get all the headlines. Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called “shadow banking” system – including hedge funds, high frequency traders, non-bank finance companies – so many new kinds of entities which receive little oversight at all.
“Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial industry are shocking. HSBC allowing drug cartels to launder money. Five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for conspiring to manipulate currency exchange and interest rates. There can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.
“And while institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences – or none at all, even when they’ve already pocketed the gains.
“This is wrong and, on my watch, it will change.
“Over the course of this campaign, I will offer plans to rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and ensure that stock markets work for everyday investors, not just high frequency traders and those with the best – or fastest -- connections.
“I will appoint and empower regulators who understand that Too Big To Fail is still too big a problem.
“We’ll ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee."
Upon my initial read (and initial watching of the video), I got the impression she intended to address TBTF: (a) that she admitted that "Too Big To Fail" companies were "Too Big to Exist" .... and (b) that this was a part of her strategic objective ... and (c) that in
"the coming weeks" she would present comprehensive impressive detailed sweeping economic policy proposals, which would include TBTF policy. But upon my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th reads, I had a rather different understanding, hence I felt the need to review exactly what she did say, which lead me to the theme of this diary and why I felt it was important to study triangulation more deeply --- to study what is being said and what is not being said by each candidate.
The fact that Hillary did not mention Glass-Steagall (an integral component of TBTF policy) in her speech is significant, however, after the speech conflicting messages were released from the Clinton campaign, so at this point, her position is still, I believe, unclear:
After the speech, Alan Blinder, an economist who the Clinton campaign says is advising the former first lady, told Reuters that Glass-Steagall was not going to be part of the candidate's economic platform.
"You're not going to see Glass-Steagall," Blinder said.
A Clinton aide, however, refuted Blinder on Wednesday.
"She will be announcing her ideas for dealing with the continuing problem of 'Too Big To Fail' in the coming weeks, and nothing has been taken off the table," the aide said.
Is this triangulation?
Please follow me under the fold for a review of ‘Clintonian triangulation’ and a series of questions, notes and reviews of Hillary’s economic policies as proposed in her speech, because words have meaning, or they should, if we are going to trust a candidate's leadership vision.
What is 'Clintonian Triangulation?'
By intention and design, triangulated rhetoric can be deceptive and misleading. I read a comment a few days ago which captures the essence of triangulation succinctly:
...Hilary's case is complicated, because they have to craft language that sounds to the casual listener like she supports their position while not saying something that sounds like it's against somebody else's position.
One might call this the craft of being vague without appearing vague. It involves not taking a clear decisive position on anything controversial, which is problematic when a clear decisive position is needed.
Triangulation works, but is it healthy?
It's interesting and somewhat disconcerting to see the Clintonian Triangulation at work (especially on such a critical far reaching economic policy as TBTF), and further, to be fooled by it, which I initially was, is most troubling. It is clear that poll-tested, focus-grouped, parsed-triangulation rhetoric works. It worked for Bill Clinton in '92/'96 to build a coalition from both sides of the political spectrum by making both sides (falsely) believe he was on their side. It probably works because people often hear what they want to hear, I did, and I suspect many who read or listened to her speech on Monday only once did too --- impressive ...and somewhat devious & deceitful.
What is most disconcerting is to have an executive leadership that intentionally specializes in the craft of deceiving the public by being vague. This is not a good thing, and if such deception were used when managing a multimillion dollar technology project in the private sector, it would be a prescription for disaster, costing a corporation millions of dollars, precious time, and untold opportunity cost. And, if it were a mission critical project, such vagueness would most certainly cause the corporation to fail, not exactly a best practice anyone should want to adopt, in fact, it is the exact opposite of the type of executive leadership that is needed ...for this nation ...or for the democratic party. This is especially true, if we want to beat the Republicans in the general election, as well as, to secure the alignment of vision necessary for political support in congress.
The chief executive of a corporation in the private sector must provide a clear vision and direction --- to the stock holders, to the employees, and to the customers. That is his primary role and responsibility. The democratic party needs leadership that will educate the public, fostering an informed populace, not a misinformed or mislead populace. This is why I feel Media Literacy is so important in this election and should be integral to the campaign, and why I feel it is especially important to understand the craft of political triangulation --- the art of deceptive rhetoric by being vague but not too vague:
Triangulation is the term given to the act of a political candidate presenting their ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. UK or US) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
Origins
The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election. In Dick Morris' words, triangulation meant "the president needed to take a position that not only blended the best of each party's views but also transcended them to constitute a third force in the debate." In news articles and books, it is sometimes referred to as "Clintonian triangulation". Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic Party. These policies included deregulation and balanced budgets. One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over."
(Image credit: Leigh Heydon)
Interesting. Educational. Enlightening.
- adopt ideas of one's political opponent
- take credit for the opponent's ideas
- insulates the triangulator from attacks on an issue
- take a position that blended the best of each party's views but transcended them to constitute a third force
QUESTIONS / NOTES
["Q" = QUESTION]
- [Q#1]: Having read what Hillary had to say on the TBTF policy at least once now, can you say with certainty her position is that Too Big To Fail corporations are Too Big To Exist?
Let's review... Hillary's words (with highlights added) while you consider that question...
HILLARY: “Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too risky. And the problems are not limited to the big banks that get all the headlines. Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called “shadow banking” system – including hedge funds, high frequency traders, non-bank finance companies – so many new kinds of entities which receive little oversight at all.
“Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial industry are shocking. HSBC allowing drug cartels to launder money. Five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for conspiring to manipulate currency exchange and interest rates. There can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.
“And while institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences – or none at all, even when they’ve already pocketed the gains.
“This is wrong and, on my watch, it will change.
"Over the course of this campaign, I will offer plans to rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and ensure that stock markets work for everyday investors, not just high frequency traders and those with the best – or fastest -- connections.
"I will appoint and empower regulators who understand that Too Big To Fail is still too big a problem.
"We’ll ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee.""
Money quotes...
HILLARY: "Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too risky."
HILLARY: "Over the course of this campaign, I will offer plans to rein in excessive risks on Wall Street..."
HILLARY: "We'll ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee."
- [Q#2]: (a) What does "manage/oversee" mean? (b) Does Hillary's policy proposal include a new "manage/oversee TBTF" Business Process (BP) for the financial industry and (c) a new financial industry regulator or (d) is there an existing regulatory body who will be burdened with this added responsibility? (e) How is this different from the current regulatory oversight of the financial industry?
- [Q#3]: How does providing "managerial oversight" prevent the US Government from having to bail out a TBTF corporation, if it fails?
NOTES: All corporations might fail. This is the cornerstone of free market capitalism, so nothing can be done that will ever prevent a TBTF corporation from failing.
- [Q#4]: (a) What does "too complex" and "too risky" mean in database programmable algorithm terms? (b) Is there an industry standard definition of a "too complex" metric and a "too risky" metric? (c) Will Hillary's policy proposal include a definition of the BP to generate those metrics ? (d) How frequently will those metrics be calculated? (Daily/Weekly/Monthly/Yearly)
NOTES: (a) These two metrics ("too complex" & "too risky") are meaningless terms-of-art. They need to be defined. And, (b) without a well-defined realistic "doable" BP to generate those metrics, the strategy will fail.
- [Q#5]: (a) Does Hillary's policy proposal include building a federal Meta-Database to generate those metrics, if not then, (b) How would the regulator reliably calculate those metrics? And, if a federal Meta-Database is required: (c) Who would build and maintain it, or (d) Is there already a Meta-Database that can handle this processing? (e) Will the Meta-Database require electronic interfaces with continuous Data-Feeds from each of the TBTF corporations? (f) Has any research been done to determine if each of the TBTF corporations has the ability (or even knows what it would take) to provide that Data-Feed reliably and continuously? (g) Will the process of each TBTF corporation providing this Data-Feed be prohibitively costly and burdensome for the TBTF, such that, they will be unable to comply.
NOTES: The TBTF Data-Feed task is especially problematic, because it is unlikely that any of the Fortune 100 corporations (or even the Fortune 1000 corporations) have the internal ability (operationally or technically) to provide integrated Data-Feeds from all of their internal operations, because it is unlikely those TBTF corporations have ever consolidated/integrated their internal operations. As my friends in Vermont like to say, "You can't get there from here!"
- [Q#6]: If you did come up with some sort of a "too complex" operational metric and a "too risky" financial metric and a reliable/trustable method to generate them, how do those metrics prevent the collapse of a TBTF corporation?
Let's review...
HILLARY: "Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too risky. And the problems are not limited to the big banks that get all the headlines."
Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called “shadow banking” system –
- [Q#7]: (a) Was Hillary's repetitive use of the words "too too..." (too complex -- too risky) --- and with the next sentence mentioning "big" --- intentionally designed to give the casual listener the subliminal (false/misleading/deceitful) impression that she was acknowledging that "Too Big To Fail is Too Big to Exist, when in fact, she had not acknowledged this?
- [Q#8]: Was Hillary's statement that the problems are "not limited" to the TBTF ("big banks that get all the headlines") designed to get people to be more concerned about the other problems, (like the ominous sounding "shadow banking" which is a "serious risk") thus overshadowing and diverting attention away from the importance, severity and seriousness of the TBTF issue?
Let's review...
HILLARY: "I will appoint and empower regulators who understand that Too Big To Fail is still too big a problem."
- [Q#9]: (a) Was Hillary's intention with these words to give the casual listener the subliminal (false/misleading/deceitful) impression that she, herself, personally, "understands" that Too Big To Fail (
is still too big a problem) is Too Big To Exist, because why else appoint a regulator who "understands" this?
NOTES: Of course, since Hillary does not explicitly say that she (personally) understands that Too Big To Fail is Too Big To Exist, she has insulated herself from any criticism from those who oppose TBTF policy, thus achieving a "perfectly misleading" triangulated rhetoric.
Let's review...
Last but not least, let's review Hillary's comments/rhetoric regarding the
"Five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges" and then compare them to Bernie's Press Release to provide insight into the ideas, vision and leadership of both candidates to determine which provides (1) an
executive understanding of the overarching problem and (2) a
leadership vision to address the overarching problem.
“Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial industry are shocking. HSBC allowing drug cartels to launder money. Five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for conspiring to manipulate currency exchange and interest rates. There can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.
- [Q#10]: (a) Does the "HSBC allowing drug cartels to launder money" have anything to do with the "banks pleading guilty to felony charges?" or was the intent of this rhetoric merely to sound knowledgeable? (b) Is there is a unifying strategic vision in this rhetoric? ...was there a point? ...what was the point? (c) Does her rhetoric sound authentic and heartfelt? (d) Is Hillary's rhetoric a passive voice or command voice?
NOTES:
- HILLARY: "There can be no justification or tolerance for this...
- HILLARY: "Stories ... are shocking."
Seems reminiscent of...
In contrast...
Bernie's Press Release on the "Five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges":
Senator Bernie Sanders - Press Release
[Dated: Wednesday, May 20, 2015]
After 5 Big Banks Plead Guilty to Crimes, Sanders Says Wall Street Business Model is Fraud
"Today, the six largest financial institutions have nearly $10 trillion in assets, equal to nearly 60 percent of our gross domestic product. They control more than two-thirds of the credit card market and one-third of the mortgages. These huge institutions are not only involved in fraudulent activities, they have grown even larger and more powerful since the Wall Street crash of 2008. They are not only an ongoing threat to taxpayers, but a burden on our entire economy. “In my view, the only effective way of dealing with theses enormous financial institutions is to break them up. Today’s news is just another example of why these too big to fail banks are too big to exist.”
I have seen
several comments of late attempt to deny that Hillary's economic policy speeches are triangulation. Is this
cognitive dissonance or denial?
What do you see:
- Hillary did not take a stand on TPP fast track; Bernie did. (I don't think a link or quote is required.)
- Hillary did not take a stand demanding employers provide paid vacation days; Bernie did.
- Hillary did not take a stand on Keystone XL Pipeline; Bernie did:
HILLARY: “And I’m sorry if people want me to. I have been very clear: I will not express an opinion until they have made a decision, and then I will do so.”
BERNIE: “It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline.”
- Hillary did not take a stand on $15 national minimum wage; Bernie did:
Hillary Clinton on Thursday wouldn’t commit to supporting a $15 national minimum wage but said she is working with Democrats in Congress who are determining how high it can be set.
“I support the local efforts that are going on that are making it possible for people working in certain localities to actually earn 15,” Clinton said in a response to a question from BuzzFeed News during a press availability in New Hampshire on Thursday.
What kind of leadership do you want? What kind of leadership do we need?
Senator Elizabeth Warren's keynote speech at Netroots Nation:
We have a presidential election coming up. I think anyone running for that job - anyone who wants the power to make every key economic appointment and nomination across the federal government -- should say loud and clear that they agree: we don't run this country for Wall Street and mega corporations. We run it for people. Anyone who wants to be President should appoint only people who have already demonstrated they are independent, who have already demonstrated that they can hold giant banks accountable, who have already demonstrated that they embrace the kind of ambitious economic policies that we need to rebuild opportunity and a strong middle class in this country.
To put this in context: a few days earlier, Clinton gave a major speech, and talked about financial reform. It did not have the teeth of Warren's orations on that subject. For example, Clinton said "too big to fail is too big a problem", which is about as weaksauce a parroting of Bernie Sanders' "too big to fail is too big to exist" as you could imagine.
Really, though, what Clinton's toothless statements do is give her the ever-important out with her rich, banker donors. She didn't say anything that she couldn't pass off later as necessary campaign rhetoric. Sanders, of course, is all-in. He neither wants nor expects to get the banks' support. Clinton already has taken their money, and a lot of it -- which puts her in the awkward position of needing to seem like a reformer, without alienating the people she'd ostensibly be reforming.
DailyKos Comment: Lambert Strether over at Naked Capitalism did an exhaustive analysis of Clinton's big economic speech, and came up with precisely one specific proposal with numbers attached: a $1500 tax credit for training. Everything else kind of evaporated when the magnifying glass was applied to find details.
Hillary Clinton gave a second speech on her economic policies on Friday, 7/24/15, at New York University, but no Q&A open-mic session at the end for citizens to ask those hard questions on her economic policies that Hillary seems to want to avoid:
Hillary Clinton gave a speech Friday that pledged to combat dodgy corporate management but offered only soft-touch policy solutions that included significant tax breaks for wealthy investors.
Advisors billed the talk as a major rollout of Clinton’s economic agenda. The candidate herself pitched her proposals as a way to break from failed policies that had damaged the economy. But the speech eschewed any emphasis on income inequality, runaway finance, companies "too big to fail" or any of the economic issues animating the Democratic Party. Instead, Clinton offered a mild-mannered, small-bore critique of "quarterly capitalism," a common corporate strategy that maximizes short-term profits over long-term investments.
Such short-term thinking is almost universally recognized as a problem. It's just not very high on the list of the country's economic woes. Companies can sacrifice long-term investments and ignore long-term risks by pursuing strategies that maximize returns to shareholders over the next few months. In the long run, that's bad for society and bad for corporate profits.
In closing, to be fair, the main question/critique that arises from Bernie's bold policy strategy as compared to Hillary's is
how...
KATIE: You know a lot of people say, you’ve got these big ideas but there’s just no way that you’ve outlined how to get them through a gridlocked, hopelessly, some would say, gridlocked congress.
BERNIE: (shaking finger) NO!
KATIE: (laughter) You’re shaking your finger.
BERNIE: (laughter) I. HAVE. OUTLINED. IT!
And I’ll tell you how we do it. And this is where, I should tell you, I respect and personally like the President of the United States very much. He is a friend, and I think history will record him as having done a heck of a lot better than his contemporaries feel. But this is one area where I disagree with Barack Obama. As you remember, in 2008, Obama ran a brilliant campaign. One of the great campaigns in American history. He galvanized the American people. He brought young people together, created an enormous amount of excitement. The mistake that he made is the day after he was inaugurated, in my view, he might not agree with it, but I think it’s accurate, he said, "Thank you very much for helping me get elected, I’ll take it from here. I can sit down with John Boehner, and I can sit down with Mitch McConnell, and I can sit down with Republicans, and we’re gonna work it out." Well, guess what, from day one, they never wanted to negotiate. My view is, that the only way we can bring about an agenda that works for working families is when millions of people are actively involved in the political process. If a million people young people march on Washington and they say to the Republican leadership, "We know what’s going on, and you’d better vote to deal with Student Debt; you’d better vote to make public universities and college’s tuition free!" That’s when it will happen. We’re already seeing that with the minimum wage. You know why minimum wage is going up around the country? Because workers are going out into the street.
So we need a political revolution, in my view. Where people begin to stand up and fight and take on the big money interests. If we don’t have that, NO PRESIDENT, not the best President in the world, will ever be able to accomplish anything... because the powers in Washington, they have too much money, they’re just too powerful.
#FeelTheBurn
{signup donate}
#volunteer #organize #mobilize
#GOTV #2016PRIMARY
|