Elizabeth Warren and the Definition of "Controversial"

Over the last few days, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have made the case that Harvard professor and Congressional Oversight Panel chairwoman Elizabeth Warren is too controversial a figure to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This, then, raises the revealing question of how Washington defines "controversial?"

Recall that the charge of "too controversial" was not made by Senate Democrats (or at least not at the volume they are being made against Warren) against Gary Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs executive appointed by President Obama to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It was not made by most Senate Democrats against Larry Summers, a hedge fund executive subsequently appointed to a top economic position in the administration.

It was not made against Citigroup executive Jack Lew when last week he was appointed to head the Office of Management and Budget. And it wasn't made against Tim Geithner, who orchestrated massive taxpayer giveaways to major banks during his time at the New York Fed.

And yet, according to Democratic-run Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Warren - an academic not connected to the financial industry or past corrupt governmental decisions; a regulator working to protect taxpayer's bailout money - may apparently be too controversial to be confirmed by a Democratic Senate.

The message to both today's generation and the future generation of citizens who may aspire to work in government is pretty clear: If you are personally/financially connected to private for-profit corporations that underwrite political campaigns - even the ones that helped destroy the economy - then Washington has no problem with your appointment to a position overseeing those same private corporations.

But if you forge an independent path and are not connected to those corporations and to that sluice of corporate campaign cash, you are suspect - and probably will have trouble getting a job in government. Why? Because the former cadre of insiders poses no real threat to the economic status quo - while the latter kind of independent outsider like Elizabeth Warren might actually rock the boat.

Defining "controversial" this way, thus, creates a perverse incentive system: Going through the revolving door is rewarded as noncontroversial, while refusing to go through the revolving door is effectively punished as too controversial.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/20-8

And a good candidate doesn't take sides, but works for the average person and treats all equally.

For what it is worth, email and phone, be a pain in the ass about this. Write your local newspapers too for support.

and she is well respected in the media. I think they are afraid of her :)

She has no problem upending them and dumping the money out of their pockets and back into the treasury funds they stole it from.

It's amazing, but she's the crystallization of everything they fear- a smart, not-bought off, by the laws Woman who isn't intimidated by the good old boys.

washington, especially the right-wing, doesn't care much for accuracy. they want to attach emotional reactions to people or bills they like or don't like. the truth helps, but it's hardly viewed as a requirement.

this is how you wind up with people thinking obama is a nazi and a socialist at the same time.

warren is "controversial" because the people using the term want oppose her appointment and want to make people feel uncomfortable with her in a consequential post.

:puke: The article is right on the mark.

of the Administration on this one? Can they admit the Administration is wrong.....ever?