It’s easy to conclude that the president did Warren a favor, removing her from a process that would have been long and fruitless. Another Cambridge academic with good intentions, MIT’s Peter Diamond, went through something just like that when the president nominated him as a Federal Reserve governor. The Nobel Prize winning economist was sent home and told he wasn’t qualified. But the experiences of Warren and Diamond are two different stories.
Warren is many things Republicans don’t like. Most of all, she is virtually the mother of new business regulation in Washington and a de facto lightening rod. She even looks like a librarian set to scold you for an overdue book.
But Warren is also a relentless and articulate advocate for average consumers. Among Obama administration insiders who work on financial issues, she is one of the few (along with FDIC chief Sheila Bair) who do not reflexively side with bankers. These are all fine qualities in my book and seem like qualifications to head a consumer protection bureau.
That watchdog agency was and remains a worthwhile idea. It has endured years of attacks from bankers motivated by money and Republicans moved by ideology. But the basic premise of protecting consumers from real abuses is hard to refute.
Perhaps the Cordray selection is part of some larger strategy, setting Warren up to run for the US Senate against Scott Brown next year. Some Democrats in Washington like that plan on paper. Real life here in Massachusetts may disappoint them.
The president would have done better simply by nominating Warren to run the national consumer agency she invented. He should have done exactly that months ago, instead of naming Warren as an assistant to the president and a special adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. What did that accomplish?
READER COMMENTS »
View reader comments » Comment on this story »