As a Bernie Sanders supporter from way back in da day (c. 1988), I fully understand why he has incessantly called on Secretary Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street — he believes that these transcripts will revel that her true relationships with the captains of capitalism are far more cordial than she wants the public to know about. And though I actually agree with him on this, I think it is far better for his arguments against her that she continues to hide the transcripts. Why? Simple. Her hiding them makes for a far better compare-and-contrast between a true “walk-da-walk” progressive and a true “talk-da-talk” whatever...
During November of 2014, long before Hillary Clinton announced that she was running for President, Politico published an extended article by William D. Cohan on Why Wall Street Loves Hillary. The first few paragraphs are dead on regarding why, in spite of her populist rhetoric, Wall Street rains millions of dollars of “love” upon their chosen one:
Speaking at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston as she did her part to try to rescue the failing gubernatorial campaign of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, Clinton paid deference to Senator Elizabeth Warren, the anti-Wall Street firebrand who has accused Clinton of pandering to the big banks, and who was sitting right there listening. “I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve it,” Clinton said to cheers. But then, awkwardly, she appeared to try to out-Warren Warren—and perhaps build a bridge too far to the left—by uttering words she clearly did not believe: “Don’t let anyone tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” Clinton said, erroneously echoing a meme Warren made famous during an August 2011 speech at a home in Andover, Massachusetts. “You know that old theory, trickle-down economics? That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
{snip}
But here’s the strange thing: Down on Wall Street they don’t believe it for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase and Bank of America—consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to populist rhetoric. To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.
Now why in the world do you think that “Down on Wall St they don’t believe it [Hillary’s populist rhetoric] for a minute”? Why do you think that “Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein — … [that]… none of them think she really means her populism”? And that “While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president.”
Could the simple reason for their not believing Hillary’s populism be that, behind closed golden gates doors, Hillary has let them know, in no uncertain terms, that she really is no threat to their continued dominance of the economy of the United States? That her “forays into fiery rhetoric” is nothing more than “political maneuvers” that they can quickly dismiss?
And that those long sought-after transcripts would be the final nail in the coffin of her “you will never find that I have ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I’ve received” artful dodge? Actually, this may be no dodge at all, as there would be no need for her to change a view that has always been focused on both befriending (with benefits) the uber-rich while keeping this side of her love-triangle with Wall St and Democrats far out of sight.
This in-depth Politico article regarding Hillary Clinton’s “love affair” with Wall Street also details why she would be far more likely to regulate Wall Street than any Republican:
her recognition of the growing economic inequality; her complaints about government regulators that had “neglected their oversight” of Wall Street and “allowed the evolution of an entire shadow banking system that operated without accountability.”; her call to “reform our tax code to ensure that the carried interest earned by some multi-millionaire Wall Street managers is recognized for what it is: ordinary income that should be taxed at ordinary income tax rates.”
But if being better than a Republican is the best one can do then one had better hope that a mo’ better Democrat doesn’t come along.
To William Cohan, the article’s author, however:
..all of these efforts seem at best a combination of campaign trail rhetoric or minor tweaks around the edges—rather than the wholesale change that an Elizabeth Warren-type populist would want to impose on the financial industry.
Mr Cohan concluded that it would be highly unlikely for Senator Warren to mount an outsider challenge to Hillary in 2016, such as Barack Obama had done in 2008, because “Warren’s message alone wouldn’t get her very far” in a primary battle with the Clintons — especially as she lacked both a strong national ground organization and a robust financial network.The Clintons have been to the primary party before, and they were not going to let another idealism-based new-jack steal “their” spotlight.
But what the Clintons did not expect to happen, way back in November of 2014, was the ascension of Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as the progressive torch-bearer of the anti-Wall Street movement — to be that Elizabeth Warren-type populist who would impose wholesale change on the financial industry. Sanders, a founding member of the Democratic Progressive caucus, has been a consistent critic of policies that concentrate power in the hands of a few at the expense of everyday people. By organizing a national ground operation financed by small donations from millions of ordinary Americans, Bernie has taken on Hillary’s second attempt at securing the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.
Hillary may have thought that a little populist rhetoric would be enough to earn her bona fides with the left-wing of the Democratic party, and if Bernie had not entered the race it might have been enough. But he did. And now that is all history. Now 2016 is starting to look like 2008 all over again. Now Hillary’s clear path to the nomination has turned out to be a competitive marathon and not the 100-meter dash the Democratic establishment had originally planned.
So please proceed, Madame Secretary. Please continue to keep secret your dirty laundry well-compensated speeches to the financial institutions that took this country to the brink of disaster in their blind pursuit of “profit”. Both you and they have made the choice to form a pact to ensure that only incremental change is acceptable. That the redistribution of wealth will continue, more or less, it’s upwards trajectory. That, fundamentally, the structure of the American capitalistic system is just A-OK — even if it requires a little tweaking here or there to keep the masses pacified.
Because if those who have paid you dearly do not themselves believe that your populist rhetoric is anything more than easily dismissed political manure maneuvering, then why should I?
P.S.: That BFF of Hillary’s in the title photo had this to say about my chosen one:
The head of Goldman Sachs said… that Bernie Sanders' insurgent candidacy "has the potential to be a dangerous moment."
{snip}
In January, Sanders was asked by Bloomberg Politics to list an example of corporate greed, and he listed Blankfein.
“I don’t take it personally since we never met," Blankfein responded.
Guilt by association? Hardly! It’s just simply a matter of one judging another by the company that keeps them.