Is this about actually breaking up banks or is it simply about pressuring Clinton to say something about breaking up banks? And if, as the article states, "Similar to legislation he introduced in previous years, when Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate, the bill has little chance of advancing," then we're just talking about "talk," right?
The problem is, for years around here we've heard never-ending choruses of plaints whenever President Obama makes a pitch for something we support: "Yeah, yeah, It's just words," people always say. "I want to see action."
What confuses me here is that we're now celebrating words (as opposed to successful action) as the highest mark of progressive pedigree.
So what's the big deal if Clinton (or Sanders) espouses breaking up banks if it's not going to pass Congress?
Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit: I do believe that words matter. Repeated enough times, they may start to change attitudes. And laws won't change until attitudes do. But it might take years, even decades. If, say, a President Sanders called for breaking up the banks and didn't achieve it in his first 100 days, or first year, or first term, would we be railing against him as a puppet of corporate interests? Does he, too, have the supposed magic powers that people bemoan Obama for not using? Do we have double standards for candidates pre- and post-election?
Or are we merely flapping our lips?
= new reply since forum marked as read
