Warren Signals Defiance Of Trump's Financial Picks And Media Misses The Point

The NY Times, having done their best to make sure Hillary Clinton did not get elected by focusing on the "clouds" hanging over the Clinton Foundation and EMAILS!! when, in fact, all the illegal and unethical activity was done in the Trump Foundation and campaign, has taken to the front page of the Business section under the byline of Andrew Ross Sorkin to castigate Elizabeth Warren for criticizing a Democratic donor because he is expressing some joy that Trump's picks to monitor the financial industry were not crazy. The donor in question is Whitney Tilson, an admittedly rare hedge fund manager who supports Democrats, including Warren, as well as Dodd-Frank and the CFPB. The statements from Tilson that drew Warren's criticism were, "I worried that he [Trump] was going to do crazy things that would blow the system up. So the fact that he's appointing people within the system is a good thing". Now it is easy to understand where Tilson is coming from. But this is exactly the kind of normalizing behavior and language that we all have been warned to guard against. The idea that we should be happy that Wall Street will be allowed to run amok again simply because that means that Trump hasn't intentionally blown up the system is not the proper response to Trump's picks. And Warren makes that perfectly clear, saying, "Tilson knows that, despite all the stunts and rhetoric, Donald Trump isn't going to change the economic system. The next four years are going to be a bonanza fro the Whiteny Tilsons of the world".

Sorkin even seems to admit he has it in for Warren. After describing all the good things she has accomplished with the CFPB, Dodd-Frank, and her pursuit of Wells Fargo, Sorkin criticizes Warren for her abhorrence of the revolving door between financial firms and financial regulators and says, "This column has covered what I've described as her misguided view". He continues by comparing Warren's view of the revolving door to the idea of going to a psychologist when you need heart surgery. In Sorkin's eyes, only Wall Street insiders are capable of regulating themselves. He continues by point out that Warren called Tilson a billionaire when he is not and engaged in an ad hominem attack. I kept on waiting for the "both sides do this" section in the article but it never came.

At least Sorkin admits that some observers could look at this situation and say it demonstrates that Warren will stand up for what she believes even if it means criticizing an important Democratic donor, showing "she can't be bought". In fact, it is exactly the same type of behavior that got John McCain the "maverick" label and years of unwarranted free and positive press. When Warren does it, it is an ad hominem attack.

But Warren is right to stick by her guns, even, and especially, if it means angering an occasional donor or two. One of the things that Republicans have done successfully for years is signal their voters continually about where they stand. There is a reason that the House voted almost 50 times to repeal Obamacare when they knew it wouldn't go anywhere. Senate Democrats had a chance to do that last week by holding the government hostage to stand up for miners'' benefits but they caved instead and most Americans will never even know about the Democrats' concern. Warren is signaling to Democratic voters and all voters who distrust Wall Street that she refuses to "go along" with Trump's picks simply because they are sane. She is signaling that she is entirely serious about doing everything in her power to rein in the excesses of the financial community. And, if that means she ends up criticizing a Wall Street insider who supports Democrats, that sends an even stronger signal in that it helps distance the Democratic party from Wall Street. In the end, Tilson's feeling are understandably hurt but he readily admits he will still support Warren's efforts to rein in Wall Street. As Republicans have shown for years, these kind of signals work and the donor class will still be there, especially when you win. Warren is showing the rest of her party how that game is played.