This is why she’s my top pick for 2020:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren had a confounding exchange with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin at a Senate Banking Committee hearing today. Mnuchin indicated that the Trump administration supports a 21st century version of the Glass-Steagall Act, except for the part about separating commercial and investment banks, which is substantially what is meant by Glass-Steagall.
Warren wasn’t having it.
Responding to Mnuchin’s earlier testimony that the White House didn’t support “a separation of banks from investment banks,” the Massachusetts senator pointed out that “The president and this administration have repeatedly said that they support a 21st century Glass-Steagall.”
Indeed, Mnuchin said these words in his confirmation hearings. National Economic Director Gary Cohn has said the same. And the 2016 Republican Party platform adds explicitly, “We support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which prohibits commercial banks from engaging in high-risk investment.” As Warren said to Mnuchin, “Now you’ve just said the opposite.”
Mnuchin responded that there wasn’t any reversal, despite Warren’s incredulity. He said that the administration merely supported a 21st century version of the law. “Which means there are aspects of it, OK, that we think may make sense. But we never said before that we supported a full separation —”
“There are aspects of Glass-Steagall that you support but not breaking up the banks and separating commercial banking from investment banking?” Warren interrupted. “What do you think Glass-Steagall was if that’s not right at the heart of it?”
Vanity Fair provided the complete transcript of the exchange:
Elizabeth Warren: You said we need a 21st-century Glass-Steagall at your confirmation hearing. And now you’ve just said the opposite. In the past few months, you and the president have had a number of meetings with big-bank C.E.O.s and lobbyists—is that the reason for the reversal on Glass-Stegall?
Steven Mnuchin: Not at all; there actually wasn’t a reversal.
Warren: There wasn’t a reversal?
Mnuchin: Let me explain.
Warren: I’m ready.
Mnuchin: The Republican platform did have Glass-Stegall. . . . The president said we do support a 21st-century Glass-Steagall, that means there are aspects of it that we think may make sense. But we never said before we support a full separation of banks and investment banking.
Warren: Let me just stop you right there, Mr. Secretary—
Mnuchin: You’re not letting me finish—
Warren: Yeah, I'm not, because I really need to understand what you’ve just said. There are aspects of Glass-Steagall that you support, but not breaking up the banks and separating commercial banking from investment banking? What do you think Glass-Stegall was if that's not right at the heart of it?
Mnuchin: Again, I’m well aware of what Glass-Steagall was, as you may know the original concern of Glass-Steagall was about conflicts not about credit risk, and if we had supported a full Glass-Stegall we would have said at the time we believed in Glass-Stegall, not a 21st-century Glass-Stegall. We were very clear in differentiating it.
Warren: I still haven’t heard the answer to my question; what do you think Glass-Stegall was if not separating commercial banking from investment banking, from ordinary banking?
Mnuchin: Again, the fundamental part of Glass-Stegall was, as you just outlined, it was separation of investment banking from commercial banking because people were concerned about conflicts.
Warren: And how do you separate without breaking up the big banks that have integrated these two things?
Mnuchin: Again, the integration of commercial banking and investment banking has gone on for a long time, that’s not what caused the financial crisis, and if we did go back to a full separation, you would have an enormous impact on liquidity and lending.
Warren: So let me get this straight. You’re saying you’re in favor of Glass-Steagall, which breaks apart the two arms of the banks, except you don’t want to break apart the two parts of banking. This is like something straight out of George Orwell. You’re saying simultaneously you’re in favor of breaking up the banks— that’s what Glass-Steagall is—
Mnuchin: I never said we were in favor of breaking up the banks. If we had been, it would have been very simple .
Warren: Let me try one more time—what does it mean to be in favor of 21st-century Glass-Steagall if it does not mean breaking apart these two functions in banking?
Mnuchin: I’d be more than happy to come see you and follow up—
Warren: Just tell me what it means. Tell me what 21st-century Glass-Steagall means if it doesn’t mean breaking up those two parts. It’s an easy question.
Mnuchin: It’s actually a complicated question—
Warren: I’ll bet.
Mnuchin: There are many aspects of it. The simple answer is we don’t support breaking up commercial and investment banks. We think that would be a huge mistake, but, again, I’m more than happy to listen to your ideas on it, you obviously have strong views.
Warren: This is just bizarre. The idea that you can say we’re in favor of Glass-Steagall but not in breaking up the banks.
Mnuchin: We never said we were in favor of Glass-Steagall, we said we were in favor of a 21st-century Glass-Steagall. We couldn’t be clearer.
Warren: Thank you . . . this is crazy.
Yeah, crazy. Warren recently spoke at the Center For American Progress’ event and FDR wasn’t the only Roosevelt she was channeling in her call to drain the swamp:
Long known for demanding that the big banks be broken up, Warren invoked the legacy of the trust-busting president, Theodore Roosevelt, in extending her call to other industries. The Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general all have the legal power to force mega-corporations to split up where there is a reasonable case that they are obstructing real competition, she said.
“It is time to do what Teddy Roosevelt did: pick up the antitrust stick again. The stick has collected some dust, but the laws are still on the books,” Warren said.
There is virtually no chance of Warren’s proposals becoming law while Republicans control the White House and Congress.
Under Democratic rule, many of her ideas would undoubtedly be a tough sell as well based on recent experience. Critics accuse Obama of doing little to curb monopoly growth during his tenure, for example.
But Warren is keenly attuned to progressive grassroots forces, who are demanding dramatic solutions to the challenges of concentrated wealth and rising inequality. Rather than focus too closely on Trump’s personal flaws and his campaign’s possible collusion with Russia, these liberal activists believe that exposing him as a corporate shill and offering a positive vision for economic growth are the only ways to defeat the GOP at the ballot box. When Democrats regain power again, these activists will have sweeping policy plans ready to be enacted and grassroots energy backing them.
Their proposed new path for the party is supported by some poll evidence. Forty-two percent of Americans who voted for both Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016 believe that the policies of current congressional Democrats favor the wealthy, according to an April survey conducted by the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA. Just 21 percent of that group see Trump’s policies in an equally dim light ― so far.
In devoting her remarks to the often overlooked but hugely consequential field of antitrust policy, in particular, Warren is helping to ease ideas germinating in think tanks into the political mainstream.
For years now, lax enforcement of antitrust laws has allowed smaller numbers of companies to dominate various industries. The total value of corporate mergers and acquisitions was greater in 2015 than any previous year on record. Some two-thirds of the 900 U.S. industries tracked by The Economist are now concentrated in the hands of fewer companies than they were in 1997.
And if Warren decides to me the jump into the 2020 race, she’ll be battling for the soul of Democratic Party:
After her speech, an email blast from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, longtime Warren backers, declares victory. "Today we see how well top Democratic leaders have learned the right lessons from 2016 – that the only way to defeat Trump is with a bold message of challenging power, from corporate power to systemic racism," the grassroots group's co-founder, Adam Green says, hailing Warren as "a North Star, showing Democrats the direction to march."
It's unlikely to be quite that easy. For one thing, the old, moderate guard is still firmly entrenched in the Democratic leadership. Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi easily defeated a challenge from the more progressive Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan late last year, and Obama appointee Tom Perez beat out Sanders' favorite Keith Ellison in a surprisingly competitive race for DNC chair.
The PCCC isn't not alone in their enthusiasm for Warren, though; according to a recent survey, the senator is near the top of the list of potential Trump challengers in 2020. Public Policy Polling found she would beat the president by 10 points, second only to Joe Biden, who would wallop him by 14. (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson would supposedly win by 5.)
If she chooses to run, Warren could find herself at the center of a rift that continues to play out as Sanders tours the country giving or withholding his seal of approval to Democrats seeking office in local and special elections; he bestowed it on Heath Mello, a pro-life progressive in Nebraska, but not Jon Ossoff, a moderate in Georgia.
The fight for the heart of the party doesn't look like it's going to be over anytime soon, but, for now at least, centrists and progressives can find common ground in Donald Trump.
"I have news for Donald Trump: No matter how much he might admire Vladimir Putin's Russia, here in America, we will never accept autocracy," Warren says Tuesday. "Here in America, we embrace and defend democracy. And we do that by demanding that everyone in our government is accountable, even the president of the United States."
Hard to argue with that.
And as for Trump, we can count on Warren for this:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) signaled her support for impeaching President Donald Trump if evidence emerges confirming the worst accusations against him.
In an interview with Jezebel published on Thursday, Warren emphasized that she is awaiting the results of a thorough inquiry into Trump’s conduct.
“We absolutely need to get a hold of [former FBI director] Comey’s notes, any other written papers, any tapes that may have been made, and we need to get witnesses in here under oath,” she told Jezebel. “Let’s do our fact gathering so we’ve got all of the facts on the table in front of us and then evaluate whether or not those facts lead to a charge of impeachment.”
But in the event that there is proof Trump pressured the FBI to drop its investigation into the Russia ties of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, or discussed classified information with top Russian officials, as has been reported, Warren would support impeaching the president wholeheartedly.
“Absolutely. You know, how could we not?” Warren said.
But before we begin to get her ready for 2020, let’s get her ready for 2018. Click here to donate and get involved with Warren’s re-election campaign.