While making the case for Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Protection Financial Agency/Bureau/whatever it ends up being named, Paul Krugman puts his finger on the political reason for appointing her.
Mr. Obama’s attempts to avoid confrontation have been counterproductive. His opponents remain filled with a passionate intensity, while his supporters, having received no respect, lack all conviction. And in a midterm election, where turnout is crucial, the “enthusiasm gap” between Republicans and Democrats could spell catastrophe for the Obama agenda.Yes. What has infuriated me most about President Obama is his seeming willingness to keep trying to work with Republicans. That party has shown over and over again that it has absolutely no interest in achieving any of the President's or the Democrats' goals, and that it will obstruct any efforts to do so. See, for example, this chart showing how few of Obama's appointments to the federal judiciary have been confirmed relative to other Presidents' appointees (it's under 45%, even for district courts, which have never been filibustered or held in the numbers they have during Obama's brief Administration).Which brings me back to Ms. Warren.
[snip]
choosing a high-profile consumer advocate to lead the agency providing that protection — someone whose scholarship and advocacy were largely responsible for the agency’s creation — is the natural move, both substantively and politically. Meanwhile, the alternative — disappointing supporters yet again by choosing some little-known technocrat — seems like an obvious error.
But President Obama, whether by reason of temperament or lousy advice on the part of his political people or both, rarely stands up on his hind legs and yells about this obstructionism. Even when he does, it's often in his weekly video/radio address, which has about as large an audience as this blog does. FDR relished throwing verbal brickbats at his opponents; Harry Truman ran his successful 1948 re-election campaign by calling the Republican-controlled Congress "do-nothings." Obama, for whatever reason, hasn't seen fit to do that.
Is it any wonder we liberals are discouraged? When the leader of your party doesn't take the fight to the enemy, there's not a lot of reason for the troops to do more than hunker down behind the lines.
Nominating Elizabeth Warren to head the agency whose creation she's been championing for two years and fighting the Republicans and the bankers would be a welcome change and might galvanize your base to get re-involved. It's a no-brainer from a political point of view.
Posted by Linkmeister at July 30, 2010 09:42 AM | TrackBack