There
is no commodity more precious, more delicate, more vulnerable to
lasting and irreparable harm than the feelings of a Wall Street
executive. The titans of the financial industry have faced zero criminal
liability for nearly destroying the economy in 2008, they still enjoy
unrivaled influence over the policy platforms of both major political
parties, and no one except Bernie Sanders even considers making a run
for the president without hitting up the hedge fund managers for
donations. Life is very, very good for the rich and powerful. But it
isn’t quite good enough, in their view, largely because certain
politicians are apt to say unflattering things about Wall Street.
Politico
reported
yesterday that, in the aftermath of the Tories’ unexpected rout of
Labour in last week’s elections in the United Kingdom, Wall Street
executives are warning Hillary Clinton and other Democrats that if they
keep it up with the populism, then they’re going to meet the same fate
as freshly resigned Labour Party leader Ed Miliband:
These
bankers and their ideological supporters say if likely Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton keeps tacking to the left on Wall
Street issues — as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, other
progressive Democrats and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are demanding —
she could wind up facing the same fate.
“[Prime Minister David]
Cameron embraced the role of the financial sector in growing the U.K.
economy and creating jobs, never once criticizing hedge funds, banks or
the wealthy,” said a top executive at one of Wall Street’s largest
firms. “Miliband ran against hedge funds and bankers, promising bonus
and mansion taxes and lost big. Is that a lesson for Hillary as well?”
Is it? IS IT??? A few months ago we were told that the kings of Wall Street were
none too perturbed
with Hillary Clinton’s populist rhetoric because they largely
understood that she has to say such things to win the Democratic
nomination. In the meantime, they’d keep funneling cash to her campaign
and trust that she wouldn’t make life too difficult for them once in
office. Now that a politician somewhere in the world has lost badly
while campaigning on a platform to attack inequality, they’re seizing
the opportunity to make the case that populism is bad and that average
people, deep down, carry the fire for hedge fund managers and recoil at
the prospect of slightly higher tax rates on unearned wealth.
It’s an inspiring defense of the overly-maligned
banks and the wealthy. And, of course, none of the wealthy people
mounting that defense want their name attached to it because they’re
afraid they’ll look bad, thus undermining the entire defense:
This
executive, like several others who cited the U.K. election result as a
warning to populists, declined to be identified by name or by firm for
fear of eliciting a heavy backlash.
This is all part of the
broader pathology
of the masters of the financial universe in which they’ve so thoroughly
convinced themselves of their own superiority that they feel they
should be above criticism. As far as they’re concerned, populist anger
at the banking industry is largely illusory, a campaign gimmick egged on
by the media – after all, no one was ever prosecuted after the crash,
so that means
no one did anything wrong,
right? And while they’re willing to allow a little populist posturing
from the candidates they try to purchase, even a light wrist slap from
someone like Hillary Clinton, who makes campaign-trail references to
outrageous CEO salaries while also
hitting up Goldman Sachs executives for contributions, can easily become too much to tolerate.
This
overriding sense of self-importance of course leads them to believe
that elections are won and lost based solely on who said what about the
bankers. Again, from Politico:
“I would say that this
is the second major election in a row where bank bashing no longer seems
to move voters,” said a lobbyist for the banking industry. “Even where
voters may continue to have anger about banks, other issues seem to be
driving their votes. We saw that last year in the U.S., and now we seem
to be seeing an echo in the U.K.”
Imagine that. A
bank lobbyist believes anti-bank political rhetoric is a loser. No
motivated reasoning there! Maybe it’s possible that voters in the U.K.
decided to throw Miliband out on his [checks British-English dictionary]
arse because he was too hostile toward the financial industry. It could
also be that they thought he was a wanker and was not effective at
tapping into the country’s
overwhelming dissatisfaction with the banking system. Alternately, Miliband could be paying the long-deferred price for
Tony Blair’s wankery.
Whatever the reason, I’m not entirely sure it has much relevance to a
presidential election that is still over a year away in a different
country with a different political system.
But if you’re a
self-absorbed Wall Street dimwit, the connection is clear: the British
man criticized my friends, and the British people didn’t vote for him,
so clearly this Elizabeth Warren type-stuff won’t play well in New
Hampshire.
Simon Maloy is Salon's political writer. Email him at
. Follow him on Twitter at
No comments:
Post a Comment