The attack of the Wall Street snowflakes on progressives
Given all the recent focus on health policy, you might think that the medical-industrial complex would be going all out to block Elizabeth Warren. And a coalition of drug companies, insurers and hospitals is indeed running ads attacking “Medicare for All.”
But the health industry’s political role has been relatively muted so far. While the American Medical Association still officially opposes single-payer, at a recent meeting, 47% of the delegates voted to drop that opposition.
No, the really intense backlash against Warren and progressive Democrats in general is coming from Wall Street.
What’s behind that virulence?
First, let’s talk about the rational reasons Wall Street is worried about Warren. She is, of course, calling for major tax increases on those with wealth exceeding $50 million, and the financial industry is strongly represented in that elite club. And since raising taxes on the wealthy is highly popular, it’s an idea a progressive president might actually be able to turn into real policy.
Warren is also a big believer in stricter financial regulation; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was highly effective until the Trump administration set about gutting it, was her brainchild.
That does not, however, explain why a money manager like Leon Cooperman — who just two years ago settled a suit over insider trading for $5 million, although without admitting wrongdoing — would circulate an embarrassing, selfpitying open letter denouncing Warren for her failure to appreciate all the wonderful things billionaires like him do for society.
Nor does it explain why Cliff Asness, another money manager, flew into a rage at Warren adviser Gabriel Zucman for using the term “revenue maximizing” — a standard piece of economic jargon — describing it as “disgustingly immoral.”
The real tell here, I think, is that the Wall Street vitriol now being directed at Warren was previously directed at, of all people, President Barack Obama.
Objectively, Obama treated Wall Street with kid gloves. In the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, his administration bailed out collapsing institutions on favorable terms. He and Democrats in Congress did impose some new regulations, but they were very mild compared with the regulations put in place after the banking crisis of the 1930s.
He did, however, suggest that financial-industry excesses were responsible for the 2008 crisis because, well, they were. And thus Wall Street became consumed with “Obama rage.”
It’s not surprising that Warren is getting very little money from the financial sector. It is, however, surprising that the top recipient isn’t Joe Biden but Pete Buttigieg. Is Biden suffering from leftover Obama rage?
Wall Street billionaires, even more than billionaires in general, seem to be snowflakes, unable to handle criticism. It may be that they suspect the critics have a point.
What, after all, does modern finance actually do for the economy? Unlike the robber barons of yore, today’s Wall Street tycoons don’t build anything tangible.
Moreover, there’s growing evidence that when the financial sector gets too big, it actually acts as a drag on the economy — and America is well past that point.
Human nature being what it is, people who secretly wonder whether they really deserve their wealth get especially angry when others express these doubts publicly. So it’s not surprising that people who couldn’t handle Obama’s mild, polite criticism are completely losing it over Warren.
So beware of Wall Street claims that progressive policies would have dire effects. Such claims don’t reflect deep economic wisdom; they’re coming from people with vast wealth but fragile egos, whose rants should be discounted appropriately.