What's that? The democratic party preferred a lifelong & loyal member of the party who they could trust & dependent on to an outsider maverick who has never once called himself a member of the party?
Surprising!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Compared to what Trump does every day, I don't know why we're bothering to talk about this.
ReplyDeleteIts absurd. How about, instead, talking about the act of aggression and maybe casus belli that is Russia hacking into the DNC's email servers to affect the election.
ReplyDeleteRobert Bohl: For the most part it seems we're not. But the folks who still think it's an outrage are loud and obnoxious on the internet.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I've noted enough of a correlation between (a) folks thinking it's a ridiculous outrage and (b) folks being loud and obnoxious on the internet that I'm beginning to wonder whether causation might run from (b) to (a).
The ridiculous outrage is how many people are perfectly fine having the party machine select their candidate.
ReplyDelete"Of course the party machine is going to favor the candidate most loyal to the party machine...that makes total sense"
Is just a fancy way of saying "fuck voting, just tell us who our next leaders are".
Or it's saying, "I have observed how reality works and am reporting it accurately."
ReplyDeleteThe distinction is reporting it accurately and being fine with it.
ReplyDeleteBeing "not surprised" that this was happening is reporting it accurately. i wasn't surprised, Bernie wasn't surprised. If fact, the opposite of surprised...expected.
But not caring, because hey...this time the bullshit worked in our favor so why be upset about it... That's the outrageous part.
This is the way it works every time. The Parties always put their thumbs on the scale for their person. It doesn't shock me because I'm a grown-up about politics.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would've preferred if the Republican Party had done a better job of being undemocratic.
We'll see how fine you are with the DNC being "undemocratic" when they select a candidate you can't stand.
ReplyDeleteI fully expect that the dividing line between "I'm fine with cheating" and "I'm outraged by the cheating" will come down to whether the cheating benefited you or not.
Maybe that's your definition of being a grown-up.
Here's the grown-up bit: I know this happens. It doesn't surprise or upset me too much, because it's the way it's always been.
ReplyDeleteI don't like that it's hot in the summer but I don't spend every minute of the summer complaining about it.
Ralph: You may be right! Maybe that's what people are upset about. I'm going to put forth my position, and I'm interested in whether you think it's just a fancy way of telling you to fuck off.
ReplyDeleteI think that the purpose of parties is to capitalize on economies of scale in organization, and to permit candidates who have captured a great deal of public attention (and the resources that go along with it) to make a difference in races that are less publicized. The party works best, to my mind, when it functions according to the old-fashioned Marxian "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Folks throw in to help state-legislature and local races, because they know (from hard experience in governance) that the aggregate of those races make a big difference to the direction of the country ... and also because they care about the people working at those races, serving largely out of the spotlight, and holding common ideals even when it involves the hard slog to every single apartment and house in their tiny district. The folks with bigger campaigns want to help give those little gals a leg up.
So when you talk about loyalty to "the party machine" I see it as loyalty not to those at the top, but to those at the bottom ... those fighting the hard fights in out of the way places. And I see the loyalty offered in return as also arising from the bottom. The folks who won (or lost) their elections with support from "the party" remember that it was actually support from other candidates, who wanted to help them out, and who they now want to help out in turn.
I am, in fact, down with that. That seems an uplifting structure, to me ... sort of like how Vinny and Rebecca put together the Double Exposure conventions, over the years.
Oh, and by the way Ralph: In 92, when the party pushed Harkin to support Clinton, and he did ... I was fine with that. I shrugged, and said "Hey, we did everything we could ... I'm not the only person involved here, and while I'm certainly disappointed, I'm willing to give Bill a try. Not my kind of candidate, but then they won't always be."
ReplyDeleteJust, y'know, anecdote.
Sooo...being a grown up is accepting defeat because, why bother...nothing is going to change anyway?...ok.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm Team Lost Boys than.
But for the record, this is a level of blatant we don't often see outside of obscure regulatory agencies. Its been completely normal for a federal regulator to rig the regulations to favor big business and then leave the agency to go work for the business for a huge payoff salary for decades. But that's because the rules and people involved are so obscure that nobody but insiders even know it happened.
But here we have it happening right in the open...you do know she's joined the Clinton campaign now right...and nobody cares.
That's a much bigger deal.
Your answer is more akin to "summers have always been hot, so why bother complaining about climate change"
Ralph Mazza Being a grown up is accepting that sometimes you lose elections. That's democracy.
ReplyDeleteHow the private political parties organize themselves is a private matter. The party leadership can choose whoever it wants, however it wants. By voting, caucus, lottery, or by saying "Hey, you're not a fuckup and everyone else is. Wanna be president?"
If you don't like political parties, fine. But don't confuse a political party choosing its candidate with an election.
Tony Lower-Basch that may be the platonic ideal of parties. And maybe it achieved close to that when parties were more ad hoc temporary alliances around a key issue of the day that then dissolved and members joined other parties.
ReplyDeleteBut I tend to view the primary purpose of modern parties to be a key piece in the system that brokers money for favors and enables rampant cronyism and agency capture. Whatever benefit might accrue to the local party candidates is dwarfed by the damage they do.
Clinton was not the party's choice because she was more popular with the voters. Clinton was the party's choice because she's a full fledged participant in the status quo that comes from taking money from big biz in order to ensure that government regulations continue to serve the interests of big biz.
Sanders and Warren will never have the favor of the DNC, not because they're outsiders, but because they'd threaten that status quo.
We will never have any meaningful reform of the status quo as long as political candidates are chosen by the party, because the party is a key enforcer of the status quo.
This is why so many Bernie supporters support Trump (I'm not one). Being white straight males they are willing to risk major set backs to social justice issues in order to strike a major blow against that status quo...and they've become convinced (rightly or wrongly) that Trump represents that.
The DNC had a chance to put forward a candidate that would have been just as challenging to the status quo, but not also a human shaped piece of excrement, and not only did they not jump at the chance to do so, they actively rigged the system against him.
Thats what has people outraged. For many Democrats it is a new discovery to realize that the party of the people is really just another party of business as usual.
Clinton was more popular with the voters than Bernie. Non-white people (and a few white people) wanted Hillary. That's all that matters when it comes to this nomination.
ReplyDeleteWhat an odd turn of events. So many people essentially saying "the primaries shouldn't be a democratic process". Do you really believe that?
ReplyDeleteIn other news, nothing in the leaks indicates that the primary was not a democratic process. Yes, the establishment worked behind the scenes to support Clinton while claiming to be neutral. No, they did not stuff ballot boxes.
So why the heck are people jumping straight to "I don't want the voters to choose their candidate", when that doesn't even appear to be what happened? There seems to be a strong anti-populist strain in the Democratic party. The white collar professionals who make up the leadership and base of the party don't seem to have a lot of faith in the "average American".
Maybe she was. Maybe it just looked that way thanks to the system that actively worked to make her look that way.
ReplyDeleteBut even if she was, that's not why the DNC favored her. If Bernie had clearly had the popular vote you would have still had the DNC insiders trying to give the nod to Hillary, just as the GOP tried to quash Trump.
David Hertz Your post is misrepresentation of the comments here. I do not know if that is intentional or not. Please understand the comments before commenting. If you are meaning to reference something outside this post, please state that.
ReplyDeleteWho's saying "shouldn't," David? I'm saying it is not a fully-democratic process. We can try to make reforms to change that, but whining about it now doesn't change much.
ReplyDeleteAnd this primary was decided electorally. Bernie lost the election, period.
Ralph Mazza - Maybe she was. Maybe it just looked that way thanks to the system that actively worked to make her look that way.
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck kind of nonsense is this, Ralph? Maybe she was? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying that the reporting is lying without any evidence? Could it be because chaos among liberals is to your preference? Your concern trolling is exhausting to deal with.
But even if she was, that's not why the DNC favored her. If Bernie had clearly had the popular vote you would have still had the DNC insiders trying to give the nod to Hillary, just as the GOP tried to quash Trump.
It's awful good of you to go to that alternate universe and tell us how it went. It must've been very expensive and inconvenient to get that accurate answer.
Ralph, your participation here is less than useless. Your only purpose is to damage the left.
I have a meeting. Be polite. I don't want to need to do moderation. Robert Bohl , that's a lot more than necessary profanity.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols +Robert Bohl Some examples from your comments on this thread:
ReplyDelete"This is the way it works every time. The Parties always put their thumbs on the scale for their person. It doesn't shock me because I'm a grown-up about politics.
And I would've preferred if the Republican Party had done a better job of being undemocratic."
and
"If you don't like political parties, fine. But don't confuse a political party choosing its candidate with an election."
If you feel I have mischaracterized your statement, please set me straight.
David, you have definitely misrepresented me. You do not see me saying that nominating contests should be undemocratic. You saw me wishing that Republicans had been undemocratic, but that's not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, it's irrelevant. Bernie lost the election. Far fewer people chose him.
My apologies, William. I'll just block Ralph Mazza to make it easier for me not to lapse on the thread again.
ReplyDeleteRalph: For what it's worth, my opinion of how the party runs comes from my experience interacting with said party in my ongoing efforts to go out, knock on doors, raise awareness of down-ticket races, and help folks get registered to vote. These are the folks who got me my lists, assigned neighborhoods, and made sure the coffee got delivered to people handing out sample ballots outside of polling places.
ReplyDeleteThe similarities to the "just organized enough" feeling of Double-Exposure conventions was very strong. And it was very, very common to find out that the most important organizing things we were getting (help on legal and logistics, collated information, facilitated networking with nearby districts) was coming to us courtesy of HRC and her organization.
I've never encountered this whole "in bed with big business, screw the voters" conspiracy that you assert exists (and note ... both my wife and I have worked in the regulatory agencies you're talking about), but I have personal hands-on experience with the party that you dismiss as a "platonic ideal" having no basis in reality. I've seen it.
David Hertz You're new to me, and I'll be nice.
ReplyDeleteI've said the primaries are not democratic. That is simply a necessary matter of law and fact. To characterize it as a democracy is a polite fiction; I for one would rather it were rather more democratic than it is.
To confuse my previous statement with a statement of what ought to be shows, at minimum, a fundamental misunderstanding of who I am, as well as a failure to read charitably. But, you're new to me, so a misunderstanding of my positions -- few of which are in this thread -- is expected. The second crime, of not reading charitably, is one I find far harder to forgive.
Harder, but not impossible. Charitable interpretations and seeking first to understand are not well practiced. Many people seek to win in political discussion, which I find less than useful. Throwing pull quotes from my own comments back at me to attempt to prove me wrong is along those lines, and not helpful. This thread is not something that can be won.
You are welcome to participate in the discussion as an interlocutor; you are not welcome to try to "win".
Now you're mischaracterizing me. I'm not trying to "win".
ReplyDeleteMaybe I didn't read your post charitably because I've seen the kinds of sentiments I've attributed to your statement posted elsewhere by those who identify with the party, and it infuriates me. I'm sorry about misunderstanding you; but it didn't come from a place of carefully calculating how to win an argument.
Excellent. Then you are completely welcome to participate!
ReplyDeleteDavid: William didn't say you were trying to win. He said some people do try to win internet threads (objectively true) and that the tactic of pull-quoting that you're using is one of their common tools (also objectively true).
ReplyDeleteSo long as you recognize that rhetorical tactics have emotional freight to them, and that part of being polite is to consider that, it sounds like you're well on your way to contributing usefully to the discussion. So no worries, eh?
William's putting his hand out in friendship here, saying "Hi! You're new to my discussions! Here's how I like them to work. Welcome!" I recommend nodding and saying "Thanks for the warm welcome, and the opportunity to make a second first impression."
Tony Lower-Basch knocking on doors is a pretty far cry from the level DWS operates at. That's kind of like saying you worked at the local Wal-Mart and so you understand the goals of the Walton family.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what regulatory agencies you've worked for but the parade of folks from the SEC to Wall Street is pretty well documented.
A top FCC regulator who voted to approve the Comcast NBC merger waited all of 4 months before joining NBC as a senior vice president.
Spencer Abraham one time chief of the DoE and former Secretary of Energy just joined a big energy company lobby firm earlier this year.
Monsanto practically has a recruiting office at the FDA and vice versa. Several of the top FDA officials had previously been lobbyists for Monsanto.
POGO has several reports on the revolving door between Wall Street and the SEC. It's quite common (and thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, well documented) that within 2 years of leaving the SEC former regulators are representing the firm's they used to regulate against the SEC.
That's been standard operating procedure for years.
But a DNC chair rigging the primaries in favor of the insider candidate and then leaving to join the insiders campaign. That's a whole new level of blatant.
Ralph Mazza Have you been to any federal office? Ever?
ReplyDeleteRalph: Thank you for making clear your dismissal of my personal experience as irrelevant in the face of your second-hand opinion. It makes it much easier for me to conclude that you're not worth talking to.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I did that. If I did I apologize. You characterized your experience as knocking on doors, have you also worked directly with the top party leaders at the national level? You hadn't mentioned that.
ReplyDeleteRalph: I do not have experience in the party central offices. Is experience with the folks who are knocking on doors irrelevant to the question of the character of the party? There are a lot more door-knockers than there are party officials.
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to connect the dots for me. I'm not seeing how the experience of how the party operates at the local grass roots level is at all related to how the party operates at the national funding and policy level.
ReplyDeleteSaying that it works super well at one level while being super corrupt at the other level doesn't seem to be incompatible assertions...so I'm not seeing how your experience of it working super well at a local level offers insight into how rigged it is at the top.
I mean isn't that kind of the same situation we've seen in labor unions. Where the guys at local 347 are really looking out for their members and fighting the good fight while at the top of the organization they were funneling pension funds and unions dues into mob run investments? Saying the people running the union are corrupt is not an indictment on the good being done by the locals...
What am I missing?
Ralph Mazza Again. Do you have any personal experience with any government agency or political campaign?
ReplyDeleteRalph: You get that what you're saying right there is precisely dismissing the relevance of my experience, right? Why did you bother to apologize?
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols: I strongly suspect that for my next response on this topic I will be choosing between a simple "I'm out" sort of sign-out, or a profanity-laced snap-back against offensive nonsense. Am I right in assuming that you'd prefer the former?
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch On the contrary! Ralph has proved time and again that he's not interested in conversation, but in winning. That's made all the more apparent by his refusal to answer my question.
ReplyDeleteI was going to try to gently lead him down a path, to try to show that hard earned wisdom from his elders should not be simply dismissed. That he should talk less and smile more. But, as he seems intransigent, I've been hovering about a step from blocking him from my spaces.
I'd rather a world in which conversations can occur with anger or ire. But, Ralph's lack of honest contrition, and what is either an inability or an unwillingness to honestly engage negate any protections of manners that I would normally extend.
In short: You have my blessing to treat Ralph as you wilt, with my hope that doing so will improve your mood.
I'm sorry +Tony Lower-Basch i don't. I honestly don't see how you asserting your experience is relevant and me asking how, is dismissing your experience. I really truly don't see how involvement in the party at a local level has anything at all to do with how the party operates at the top level. I don't feel that asking you to connect those dots for me is unreasonable. I trust you when you say it looks that way to you, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing it.
ReplyDelete+William Nichols, I'm not sure what question of yours I've refused to answer. Scrolling back I see a reference to have I ever been to a federal office but I'm not sure what that means. So, now that I've seen it I don't know how to answer it because I can't parse it.
As for my experience with federal agencies, if you mean direct experience. No I've never worked for one. But indirectly, quite a bit. It's my job to stay on top of what federal agencies are doing and how that will impact the economy and corporate earnings. So yes, I have quite alot of experience watching top level agency personell rule in favor of a corporation only to turn around and go to work for that corporation. I do have quite alot of experience watching a corporation fail to get approval for something, manage get one of their own employees appointed to that agency and voila suddenly the agency approves the thing they previously rejected.
Do you actually think I made those items above up? Those are just the ones I can do largely from memory.
My point was that that kind of corruption is completely common behind the scenes where it never reaches above the fold mainstream news. But here we have a visible example going on in real time right in front of everyone...and shit, not only does no one care...but you're acting as if it's reasonable.
And not only are you acting as if it's reasonable, you're acting as if people are crazy to suggest it isn't.
I mean if you honestly don't see how a top official influencing a system in favor of a particular organization...and then promptly going to work for that organization is corrupt...I'm flabbergasted. It's the very textbook definition of corruption.
And I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone's experience knocking on doors has anything to do with whether or not DWS joining Hillary's campaign is or isn't corrupt.
This entire thread is dumbfounding to me. Why'd they even bother stripping her of her speaking role at the convention -- apparently nobody even really cared...
Ralph Mazza Tony has worked for the federal government. So have I.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are saying, over and over again, maybe without even realizing it, is that we should discount our own lived experience for your research experience. You are demanding that we simply believe the things that you say, no matter what our experiences are.
You are, in short, being both demeaning and offensive. I request and require that you listen more, and talk less. Think about what Tony Lower-Basch is actually saying. Read charitably. Do not attempt to bulldoze.
These are the terms under which you are permitted to continue to engage in my spaces. Do you accept them?
I'm more than happy to listen more. I've asked more than once to have something to listen to. I'm still interested in hearing how your own lived experience gives you insight into top level party politics. I was 100% sincere when I said I couldn't see the connection.
ReplyDeleteI remain uncertain as to how asking to have the dots connected is demeaning or offensive. But if you say it is, I'll take your word for it because I trust that you wouldn't use such accusations as a tactic. And therefore I apologize again for my inadvertent foul.
If it seems I've been talking more than listening that would be because I actually wanted to provide factual evidence for my assertions rather than just assert them. I did so by necessity as Tony indicated that he hadn't encountered such things in his career working for the regulators.
There are many things that exist in the world that I haven't personally encountered either. Thankfully, there are records to demonstrate things so that we can learn how the world works outside of our personal experiences.
Your space, your rules, do as you will...although if you wish to retain tight control over how your posts are to be engaged with, you may wish to consider posting to circles rather than publicly. That will give you a better filter.
Ralph: You might want to go back through what I wrote, and consciously not filter it through your assumption that the people at the top of a given hierarchy (either a political party or a Federal agency) are the ones driving its direction or making up its identity.
ReplyDeleteI don't share that axiom, so when you talk about (e.g.) the Democratic Party being corrupt, I find it very hard not to hear a direct insult against the grandmothers, students, and tireless activists at ground level ... the ones who actually give the party direction and determine its destiny.
Those are the people Hillary won over, by helping them better do the job they volunteered to do... for decades. The folks at the top of the party fell in behind that, in the same way that a turn signal indicates where the car was going anyway.
Tony Lower-Basch thank you. I completely understand why you might take it that way, and as that that was not my intent, I do apologize again.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, you might want to go back through what I wrote, because while I'm guilty of a bit of the sort of sloppy imprecision here and there typical on social media, I believe I did refer to the DNC repeatedly in my assertions.
And while the grandmother's, students, an activists you mention are a part of that pyramid, the Democratic National Committee, of which DWS was the Chair, is many layers removed from them and has their own political agenda.
Ralph Mazza: I absolutely agree that the chair has an agenda. My point is that the level of outrage one can expect a person to have about the chair favoring politician X is probably linked to whether that preference is the same as the preference of the rank and file.
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that whatever the reason DWS preferred HRC, the facts on the ground are that an awful lot of the folks who do the work of the party, election after election, shared that preference for their own sensible reasons. On a very real level, DWS could be lending her support because of disembodied voices that sound in her ears with the brimstone shriek of the damned, and I still wouldn't care, because she's not saying anything the least bit surprising to those who have campaigned with the dems in this millennium.
Ralph Mazza The distinction Tony brings up is a good one, and aligns itself to the proposed level of corruption within the federal bureaucracy. Most of the work and direction is done by feds who're trying to serve their country and keep a roof over their heads. Period.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that lawyers and management personnel shouldn't move from regulatory organizations to the companies being regulated and back is naive; they are the best people in the world to manage such organizations.Look at CDER, at the FDA. The director of CDER is Dr. Janet Woodcock, who manages thousands of employees while fighting with the commissioner and HHS over what authority CDER has. She's is one of the highest paid federal employees -- she makes considerably more than the Vice President. She could, in a heartbeat, have a job at BSG or J&J or a dozen other big companies that she regulates. She wouldn't be given that job as a matter of corruption, but because she's uniquely qualified.
That's not corruption; not only would she be a fantastic director at either big pharma, but her experiences there would make her even better at leading CDER, if she decided to return.
While it is usually difficult to prove the existence of a quid pro quo relationship between regulators and companies who later offer them huge windfalls, I think we should hold regulatory agencies to a higher standard than just "no quid pro quos". Desire to secure a high paying private sector job can certainly influence, often implicitly, the behavior of some public sector officials. Those public sector officials may indeed be extremely qualified for the private sector positions due to their experience, but I would hope ethical concerns would lead them not to follow that path.
ReplyDeleteDavid Hertz Obama tried; during the first term, he said he wouldn't appoint people who had, say, worked for banks to regulate banks.
ReplyDeleteHe could find zero qualified personnel. There was nobody who was both willing and capable of regulating banks who, for the last two years, hadn't worked in banking.
I'm fairly certain zero is an overestimation, but what you're talking about isn't what I'm describing anyhow. If someone goes from banks to regulation, that doesn't necessarily bother me. It's more when they go the other way that I have a problem. If, while regulating, you need to think about whether your actions will make you more or less employable in the banking industry later, that's an ethics issue.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was running out the door. He couldn't find enough, and had to open positions to people from banks.
ReplyDeleteGeitner, for ex, was running the federal reserve of new York before becoming sec Treasury.
The other direction is important, sure. Many if those positions are political, do geitner would not be employable by a Republican president. What's he supposed to do if his party out if power?
It's also really common for regular feds to become contractors or work for big business. They pay a lot better.
I agree it is less than ideal, but I don't know what would be better. We already make feds of a certain rank publicly file their ownership in stocks and such, and not own stocks in companies they regulate. Are they also supposed to never leverage their experience to go into private sector?
I'm not sure!
David: Two things. First, the idea that there are no rules regulating this sort of thing in the Federal Government is ... well ... very distant from the truth. Two out of every three work conversations from somebody working for the Feds is likely to ground at some point or another on the reefs of "Of course, this is an obviously true thing that everyone in my office knows and none of us can say, because we have to be careful to avoid even the hint of a whiff of the appearance of having our own opinions." In fact, most people I've known who go from government to some non-Fed job cite "freedom to actually have opinions" as the major benefit offered by the change. Asking "Why don't Federal employees worry about the ethics of their situation?" is sort of like asking "Why don't Muslims condemn ISIS?" The answer is "They do ... most likely more than any of the rest of us."
ReplyDeleteSecond, if people are not supposed to go from regulation to any job that their expertise would have made them good at regulating ... what sort of jobs should they go to? Asking our best and brightest to stop professionally using their expertise once they're done in government would be a very, very steep price to ask people to pay as public servants.
Remember: it is illegal for feds to facebook like a political post.
ReplyDeleteAlso, apologies for the misspellings: I am now on mobile.
Last: I find it interesting that tony and I said much the same thing without discussion. It's like we both live here.
Please don't take my arguments to extremes that I never stated. I never said that no Federal employees ever worry about ethics. Simply that there are a lot of ethical considerations, and I'm not satisfied with how they're currently handled.
ReplyDeletePersonally, my preferred solution would be to provide a pension to regulators who can't find work in civil service for partisan reasons. Then they can either work in a new field or retire. It would be difficult to get this done in the current political situation, obviously.
Still on mobile.
ReplyDeleteHow much do you know of the regulations governing the work feds can do afterwords?
Is there a specific rule or set of rules you want think would enlighten me? Please go ahead.
ReplyDeleteDepending on what you know, that's be either futile or a waste of juice. What do you think happens when a fed leaves?
ReplyDeleteDavid: So that's a "No"? You don't know jack-shit about the regulations that you've already decided are insufficient?
ReplyDeleteTypical.
As I understand it, different conflict of interest rules can apply to different people depending on their positions within the executive or legislative branches. Some positions have cooling off periods of a year or two; some positions are banned from becoming lobbyists or communications reps for orgs regulated by their agencies / departments.
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for the argument from authority and the personal insult. Weren't you just saying I should be grateful for your warm welcome a minute ago?
I've had enough of this "civil" conversation. Nothing to be gained here. Goodbye.
David Hertz And anyone else who thinks corruption is a big dealy: all former federal employees are forever banned from representing anything they worked on towards the federal government.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2641.201
That is: If you so much as sit in a meeting on a regulation, you're not going to be able to work on it from the other side. Oh, maybe you could get away with it. But the ramifications are severe, including most especially to the company that employed you to do so.
That's a big damn deal: You can leverage your expert knowledge, but you cannot use using what amounts to insider knowledge.
Tony Lower-Basch While that's probably true, I hadn't seen quite enough evidence to decide it. I was hoping to understand why he thought what he did, as maybe there's a reason.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, that is a very narrow rule, which only prohibits Federal employees from lobbying the government on behalf of a private organization on a matter that they were personally involved in deciding. This is an important rule and a good idea. But it doesn't stop regulators from going into private industry in roles other than lobbying, or even completely stop them from working in lobbying if they are representing their client on an issue they were not directly involved in.
ReplyDeleteI don't think its enough. Maybe you do. But I don't see the point in continuing this further.
Yeah, the lifetime ban is narrow. There are dozens of others with less time periods.
ReplyDeleteThe point is to understand why we believe what we believe. Beliefs should be based upon reasons and evidence, not just our gut.
What positive do you think would happen in the world if, for example, Geitner could never work for a bank? If the 10,000 feds at FDA could never work within the healthcare industry? Do you think this would have an effect -- positive or negative -- on the staff able to be hired?
What positive would happen? Maybe it would make regulatory capture like this (https://www.propublica.org/article/carmen-segarras-secret-recordings-from-inside-new-york-fed) a little bit harder for businesses to achieve if one of the major carrots they dangle is no longer available.
ReplyDeleteI get that you don't think this is a problem. Maybe me suggesting that it could be feels threatening to you. I'm not trying to personally attack you or question your personal ethics. But I think reasonable people could find this overall situation concerning.
If you don't understand how anyone could find this concerning, well, I'm not going to try to explain it further.
David Hertz Which do you think is preferable: Regulators having a chummy relationship with industries they regulate, or being unable to find qualified personnel to fill regulatory slots?
ReplyDeleteNPR just had a great article on a similar issue, also involving Goldmann. Regulators who used to work at Goldmann were pressured into giving inside information to Goldmann, which they did not. Goldmann was fined just wrist slap amount, and the industry folks who applied the pressure were fired, everyone who worked for them were fired, and they were banned from ever working in the industry again.
ReplyDeleteThat is: one punishment of acting like a jerkface is what you want as what happens to everyone for merely working in the fed.
It sounds like the right things happened here -- the malfeanse became public, the guilty parties were fired and cannot work in the industry they attempted to suborn, and the federal level of the fed is looking into it as well.
This suggests, to me, a minimal level of corruption -- and that we found it. That sounds about like how things should work.
William, what you refer to as a "chummy" relationship involved a supervisor pressuring a regulator into removing a finding of negligence from a report into Goldmann, then firing said regulator for refusing to do so. Years later, the investigation is ongoing and no one has been punished.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what else is on your resume, if you are "chummy" with the industry in that fashion, you are distinctly unqualified to hold the job.
So yes, I will take option two any day.
You've made your position clear, I've made mine clear, I don't think there's a misunderstanding here, or anything else to illuminate through further discussion.
David Hertz In the case I refer to this at 8:03 eastern, the party responsible was banned from ever again working in the financial system. That sounds a lot like a punishment. Doesn't it to you?
ReplyDeleteYes, that is an appropriate amount of punishment. If it happened regularly in every case of misconduct, that'd be great. You will note I was talking about a different case in my post than you were in yours.
ReplyDeleteIndeed: you are talking about one where an advisory letter was ignored, and the personnel fired. But, note, she also violated regulation by recording everything. That is: she is just as much a violator of regulation. And in this case, we're just talking about an advisory letter -- which doesn't have the force of law, and is meant to guide industry.
ReplyDeleteYeah, she violated regulation. She violated regulation in order to document the culture within the agency that allowed things like her firing to happen. If you think that is morally equivalent to telling a a regulator not to make a finding of negligence, and firing them for refusing to back down, I don't know what to tell you.
ReplyDeleteDo you think those things are morally equivalent? Or are you unintentionally sliding into trying to win the argument?
I'd strongly prefer to just call the discussion done here.