Kerry Elvend argues in this post from the front page that Elizabeth Warren has "all the perch she needs to effect both policy and the national conversation right there in the Senate." I find myself compelled to respond.
Friends, it's time to be honest with ourselves.
The repeal of the Dodd-Frank provisions in this week's CRomnibus Act is a terrifying show of the clandestine power of the banking lobby. Only a few short years have passed since financial institutions crashed the economy, appropriated many citizens' homes, and then demanded public money. And yet the lobbyists for these hellishly unpopular organizations are somehow poised to write their own legislation without even a semblance debate.
Many of our country's citizens are still reeling from the last financial-sector-induced catastrophe. Wages have stagnated, consumer confidence remains low, and the only people who seem to be profiting from the financial turnaround is the wealthy with market investments. Bank of America, AIG, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan Chase all still have some of the worst reputations among the nation’s most visible companies. Not only is the legislation unpopular among Democrats, it's unpopular among many Republicans who view the change in legislation as an attempt to shift private risk to public coffers.
How is it possible that this legislation appears to be set for passage? The vast majority of our elected politicians do not believe it will cost them, and those with presidential aspirations see passage as a way to curry favor with the powerful lobby. That is to say, under any possible analysis, the progressive wing of the Democratic party has most assuredly not arrived. And the fact that this legislation is set for passage despite the efforts of Elizabeth Warren shows that she hasn't arrived either.
The day Elizabeth Warren has arrived is the day she stands victorious over the political corpses of Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and the rest of her neoliberal primary challengers. That is winning and only that is winning.
Ms. Elevend noted that "the energy behind the hope for [a Warren] candidacy is more important than the candidacy itself." I couldn't disagree more. We've had years of protests about misdeeds in the financial sectors. The only way to manifest a voice in this debate is to send a stiff, unequivocal message to all candidates with presidential aspirations that a willingness to crash the economy for a few extra campaign bucks will kill their national ambitions. The only way to send this message in at least the next five years is through a Warren nomination.
We can acknowledge that we're fighting an uphill battle; that we will need to show perseverance, focus and tireless effort; but there is only one definition for winning here. Let's not pretend otherwise.