Salon: Elizabeth Warren's Populist Insurgency Marches On

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20384-focus-elizabeth-warrens-populist-insurgency-marches-on

If asked, Americans of all political persuasions will say overwhelmingly that they prefer "tougher rules" for Wall Street. But what does that actually mean?

You can frame this conventionally: supporting regulators, punishing rules violators, mopping up 2008-style disasters to limit the damage and attempting to prevent such chaos from happening again. But by "tougher rules," maybe Americans are really signaling a vague but persistent dissatisfaction with an economy that has become dominated by the financial sector. And you can see within that how transforming banking back to its traditional purpose - as a conduit for putting capital in the hands of worthwhile business ventures and driving shared prosperity - would be one antidote to an unequal society full of financial titan gatekeepers, who confiscate a giant share of the money flowing through the system.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren - in many ways the avatar of a new populist insurgency within the Democratic Party that seeks to combine financial reform and economic restoration - will speak later today in Washington at the launch of a new report that marks a key new phase in this movement. Released by Americans for Financial Reform and the Roosevelt Institute - and called "An Unfinished Mission: Making Wall Street Work for Us" - the report is a revelation, because it finally invites fundamental discussions about these issues. Its 11 chapters from some of the leading thinkers on financial reform do look back at the successes and failures of the signal financial reform law of this generation, the Dodd-Frank Act. But the report also weaves in a story about how we can reorient finance as a complement to the real economy, rather than its overriding force. Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and the co-editor of the report, tells Salon, "The financial sector is still eating up a lot of GDP [gross domestic product], and it's not clear what we're getting out of it. We want to get the conversation at that level."

This report fills in the details, creating definable action items and goals that could serve as a marker for legislative and regulatory action, as well as primaries in the next several election cycles.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Rec.

[pscot]

2. Great read

Warren has no fear.

[Whisp]

14. she has the kind of 'toughness' I can admire.

She means it, she does it - it's not just a useful adjective.

[libdem4life]

3. We cannot afford to lose her to the political morass. No one can do what she is doing and will do

in the years to come. This popularity and presidential encouragement is wonderful and a compliment to her work and her abilities and political respect. It's also publicized it ... corporate financing ... in a way that could not be done from her more limited perspective before this election season.

There is a reason Big Money has overtaken politics and, in a kind of backwards kind of way, might make her even more successful in bringing out some new solutions to the problem.

I think it is wonderful that the banksters are afraid of Elizabeth, and the Republicans are afraid of Hillary. A bit of irony lurks there. Perhaps it's just a coincidence they are both women.

[eridani]

5. Even if she doesn't run, she's still a symbol

And who knows? Clinton may sensibly decide to move further left. IMO she'll have to if she wants to win.

[libdem4life]

10. I think this is likely. Clinton is nothing if not pragmatic and I believe she will bring Elizabeth

into her administration in a principle role..if would definitely be a smart thing to do. I often wonder if these arrangements don't go on in private between important political people. Elizabeth has definitely had a near meteorite-speed entrance onto the national scene and warrants a prominent position in the financial world so she can keep up her pressure on them.

[rhett o rick]

4. The conserva-Dems are trying to bully posters into ignoring the 2016 presidential

race. They want to distract so that their corporatist candidate Ms. Clinton gets a good head start.

[Wilms]

8. Why do you hate Murdoch?

[jeff47]

9. No, the best thing for Ms. Clinton is a Republican win in 2014.

A Democratic win in 2014 damages the "Center-right country!!!" argument that forms the basis of Ms. Clinton's 2016 campaign. OTOH, a Republican win is a massive boost to her campaign.

Running for president is not something you can "draft" into happening. See: Thompson, Fred. Running for president is hell. The candidate has to want to do it. Any liberals who want to run in 2016 have already started their efforts without our help. A liberal who does not want to run will not effectively run, no matter how much you urge them.

So yes, we should ignore 2016 for now, because the best thing we can do to help a liberal 2016 candidate is to bust our asses for 2014.

[rhett o rick]

11. Again I think it is a huge mistake to ignore 2016. We dont have to give up on 2014 either.

What you you see that we should be busting our asses doing right now for 2014?

Neither of my Senator's seat are up in 2014 and I called my Representative and they said that his campaign will start some time next year. And there is no one so far expressing an interest in running against him.

I feel that the left has a large mountain to climb to get a progressive candidate for president in 2016. It may be futile but we must try and start now.

[jeff47]

13. Shockingly enough, you are allowed to leave your congressional district.

It's not that hard to find a district where your help would be beneficial. Even if it's far away, they could use help phone banking. And it's trivial to find a race where even a small donation would be helpful.

I feel that the left has a large mountain to climb to get a progressive candidate for president in 2016. It may be futile but we must try and start now.

By doing what, specifically?

If that liberal wants to run, they've already started laying their groundwork. They just aren't as clumsy as Clinton's team, so we don't hear about it.

If that liberal does not want to run, they will never successfully ascend that mountain. It's not something you can "draft" someone to do. It's something they have to want to do on their own, because it will destroy their current life whether or not they win.

[rhett o rick]

15. I think it would be hard to find a district where they are currently in

campaign mode.

I hear you saying that if a progressive candidate hasnt "started laying their groundwork" then it's already too late. So who are these progressives that have started laying groundwork? I havent found them yet. So I guess that means the left gives up on 2016.

Ironically Ms. Clinton will get the benefit of Citizens United this time around and the only person that has even the slightest chance is a true populace candidate such as Sen Warren.

[jeff47]

16. No, that's not what I'm saying.

I hear you saying that if a progressive candidate hasnt "started laying their groundwork" then it's already too late.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with "too late". What I'm saying has to do with desire.

If they do not have sufficient desire for the job to have already started laying that groundwork, then they do not have sufficient desire to actually win the campaign.

So who are these progressives that have started laying groundwork? I havent found them yet.

That's because they don't particularly need any help at the moment. We "rank and file" are needed closer to the election.

So I guess that means the left gives up on 2016.

No, that means we bust our asses for 2014, because a Democratic win in 2014 will do far more for a liberal candidate than "I like (candidate)" posts.

Clinton is trying to run yet another inevitability campaign. That is why her team is making noises now. It's a terrible strategy - it's the same strategy that lost 2008, and losing that race makes it even dumber for 2016. But the one thing that would really, really help is for us to be busy searching for and fighting over 2016 candidates instead of winning 2014.

[rhett o rick]

17. I think we can do both. nm

[Laelth]

6. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[woo me with science]

7. K&R

[closeupready]

12. I just LOVE that woman!

K&R