A weakness in Democratic plank
On nailing Wall Street, there’s little more than lip service
WASHINGTON Though it is supposed to be a bold statement of principles, the draft of the Democratic platform approved this weekend offers proposals for Wall Street reform that are pretty weak tea.
For all the chatter about Bernie Sanders’ impact on the platform, the proposals on his signature issue of reining in the big banks reflect the view of presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton that the Dodd-Frank financial reform pretty much takes care of the issue and only needs a little tweaking.
Not that it matters, given party platforms have long since ceased to represent any real commitment to policy or legislation, and Clinton backers have already let it be known that some of the environmental measures in the platform don’t represent her views, which are clearly stated on her website.
But even though Sanders scored a few points — setting $15 as the target for the hourly minimum wage or expanding Social Security, for instance — the Clin- ton delegates succeeded in blocking any significant influence on bank reform or on Sanders’ other core issue of opposition to trade agreements.
“Democrats will not hesitate to use and expand existing authorities,” the platform declares, “as well as empower regulators to downsize or break apart financial institutions when necessary to protect the public and safeguard financial stability.”
The language rings hollow, however, when one considers that for nearly eight years of a Democratic administration there has been no effort to use these “authorities” and instead officials and regulators have stood by as the biggest banks increase their size and market share.
It reflects Clinton’s claims during the campaign that the government already has sufficient authority to downsize banks if it feels that is necessary — without adding that neither Barack Obama nor a President Hillary Clinton will ever see it as necessary in the absence of another destructive financial crisis.
The platform does go on to mention the possibility of an updated Glass-Steagall act to stop banks from engaging in speculative activity, but only as one of “a variety of ways” supported by the party to achieve this goal.
The commitment is so vague as to hardly merit the description of lip service.
There is support for a limited financial transactions tax to curb speculative trading and high-frequency trading — a la Clinton — and a condescending acknowledgment “that there is room within our party for a diversity of views on a broader financial transactions tax” — a la Sanders.
Otherwise, the thrust of the proposals on financial reform — which take up one page in the 39page document — is that Democrats will defend Dodd-Frank tooth and nail, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau it created to centralize regulation of consumer products.
It is saying in essence, don’t expect anything new from us except a nip here and a tuck there.
This perfectly reflects the views of Hillary Clinton, who has taken millions in campaign donations and speaking fees from Wall Street, and millions more from these firms in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Except for some token lip service, it ignores the core message of Bernie Sanders, who fired up thousands at his rallies and millions in the primary elections with his crusade against the crushing power of the big banks in slowing down the economy and fostering inequality.
The other Sanders “wins” are hardly big concessions for any Democratic candidate.
With its mealy-mouthed prescriptions for financial reform, the Democratic Party declares its intention to follow the Clinton-Obama line of appeasement with Wall Street.
Democratic leaders and a largely subservient mainstream press is at pains to portray the platform as a significant shift leftward in the hopes of winning over the millions of voters disillusioned by Sanders’ loss and the triumph of the status quo represented by Clinton.
Once the convention is over and Clinton has secured the nomination, the Democratic platform will disappear into the obscurity that is the destiny of all political platforms.
With this platform and with its acceptance of the Clinton corporatist strategy, Democrats surrender their last, best hope of achieving meaningful financial reform that truly could “protect the public and safeguard financial stability.”
Obviously, a general election that pits Hillary Clinton against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is about much more than financial reform.
And the Democratic platform has much that will appeal to Democrats and many independents.
But voters should be under no illusion that whatever else happens we have lost our chance to complete the reform of a financial system that plunged the world into recession less than a decade ago and in all likelihood will do so again in the not-too-distant future.