Support NeoGAF

[aeolist]

https://newrepublic.com/article/144230/lefts-misguided-debate-kamala-harris

I thought this was a particularly good take in the debate that's been happening over the last week, namely that literally everyone who had power in Democratic party over the last decade failed the victims of 2008 and Kamala Harris isn't anything special.

Politicians and partisans only manage to care about the millions of families who saw their lives ruined over the past decade when they can be used as props against political enemies. The lack of accountability for the criminal enterprise in our nation’s boardrooms goes well beyond Harris and continues to this very day. But when actual issues sit on the periphery of our political debates, these problems will never get fixed.

Let’s recognize that no public official in this country, from Barack Obama on down, covered themselves in glory during the foreclosure crisis; to say that Harris failed to prosecute bankers is simply to say that she was a public official with authority over financial services fraud in the Obama era.

Though he was OneWest’s chairman, Mnuchin was never at risk of indictment or conviction. At best, California would have extracted a decent-sized fine from the company—paid for by shareholders—and guarantees meant to deter further law-breaking; it’s possible that Mnuchin, his reputation sullied, would not have ended up in charge of federal banking policy. This watered-down version of public accountability was seen as the best possible outcome, and Harris didn’t even go for that.

This doesn’t make her particularly special. Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer took hiatuses from their careers as corporate lawyers to join Obama’s Justice Department and ensure light punishment for financial abuses. Tom Miller, the attorney general of Iowa, ran the 50-state investigation of foreclosure fraud, which investigated nothing and moved directly to a weak settlement that delivered 90 percent less relief for homeowners than promised. Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, sold out supporters by agreeing to that settlement, saving it from the brink of collapse. He co-chaired a so-called “task force” on bank crimes that did nothing but ink more toothless settlements and proudly proclaim fake headline numbers about fines from behind a podium.

In other words, if you were to rank the performance of law enforcement officials during this period, everyone would be tied for last. They all deserve criticism for their inability to hold the perpetrators of the biggest incidence of consumer fraud in American history to account. They all displayed shocking cowardice and let down millions of vulnerable people, when they had reams of documentary evidence revealing the crime, enough to extract much more justice and far better outcomes for the victimized. They all ushered in the two-tiered system of justice that sapped people’s faith in democracy and at least partially led to the rise of Donald Trump.

Every day in America, somebody gets tossed out of a home based on false documents. Their elected officials surely know this; if I get a steady stream of letters from people with consistent stories about mortgage fraud, then senators and congressmen surely do as well. So instead of debating who was “tough” on corporate criminals and who wasn’t—since no one was—we should implore these would-be leaders to speak the hell up about the perversion of justice happening every day in courtrooms and foreclosure auctions across the country.

Senator Harris represents California, where the unconscionable treatment of foreclosure victims continues to terrorize families. Senator Cory Booker styles himself a leader in New Jersey, home to the highest foreclosure rate in the nation. The last time Senator Bernie Sanders said a word about foreclosures was when he was trying to win a primary election in hard-hit Nevada. There are activist groups all over Massachusetts fighting foreclosures that could use some high-profile support from Senator Elizabeth Warren.

No one, Bernie Sanders included, has done a good job even talking about this issue. The real people affected by the failure of government to fight the criminality of our financial sector have been used as a political football and never really helped.

Harris did badly, but what we need to focus on now is how to address mortgage and investment banking going forward. If she starts saying the right things and pushing for the right policies in that regard I will be the first to support her.

 

[ahoyhoy]

https://newrepublic.com/article/144230/lefts-misguided-debate-kamala-harris

I thought this was a particularly good take in the debate that's been happening over the last week, namely that literally everyone who had power in Democratic party over the last decade failed the victims of 2008 and Kamala Harris isn't anything special.





No one, Bernie Sanders included, has done a good job even talking about this issue. The real people affected by the failure of government to fight the criminality of our financial sector have been used as a political football and never really helped.

Harris did badly, but what we need to focus on now is how to address mortgage and investment banking going forward. If she starts saying the right things and pushing for the right policies in that regard I will be the first to support her.

The article seems to argue that supporting her based on a last minute promise to actually do something makes you a sucker.

 

[aeolist]

The article seems to argue that supporting her based on a last minute promise to actually do something makes you a sucker.

there are things she (or any US senator) could be doing right now to help these people

concrete action would make it a lot easier to believe she would be good on this issue in the future

 

[Fenderputty]

The article seems to argue that supporting her based on a last minute promise to actually do something makes you a sucker.

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

 

[VendettaRed07]

I get why she is mentioned as she has as you said been used as a political football and played onto "sides" regarding this issue but what's really important is that we get the entire party on page that it is an issue and we can't let crap like this slide anymore

Like, for example under the scenario where she wins, leads the party and legitimately tries to go after people in the financial sector and create legislation to stop them, it won't matter if they don't have the numbers in congress or possibly even majority senate/house leaders who don't agree with them.

First step would be to get everyone acknowledging the failures of the government so far and go from their even if some individuals history on it are not as good as many would like

 

[Maxim726X]

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

Bernie

 

[shnurgleton]

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

Being anti-trump isn't enough. Politicians need to lead with their actions.

 

[louiedog]

A lot of people on the left seem to want some sort of upon perfection in their candidates that they don't all agree on. The majority of the right seem fine with just one letter.

 

[ezrarh]

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

Only way forward is to end the presidency. Break up states to metro regions. No more executive branch. Get rid of the senate as well.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Bernie

https://airhorn.solutions/

 

[Angelus Errare]

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

That's the million dollar question everyone wants answered but no one has answers for.

 

[benicillin]

I think any focus on individual candidates right now long before 2020 is even a thing is misguided.

That being said it's totally fine to be skeptical of Kamala and want answers for decisions she's made in the past. Which you can ask her about when she actually runs in the primary.

 

[gutter_trash]

how long until the sail boat guy shows up?

the looney left have lost their minds.

Kamala Harris would be awesome as Prez

 

[VendettaRed07]

A lot of people on the left seem to want some sort of upon perfection in their candidates that they don't all agree on. The majority of the right seem fine with just one letter.

People need to stop saying this because it isn't true at all.

The Republican Party has gone so far to the right because their base is vicious and is ready to tear apart anyone they suspect of being a RINO or whatever.

Also I think people on the left given that there is no primary or election going on right now and announcements are practically two years ago react with "What, SO YOU WANT SOME ONE PERFECT??!" Every time someone suggests what they believe would be a good direction to go in or ideal qualities in democratic candidates

 

[googleplex]

Bernie

Lol

 

[Stumpokapow]

It kind of feels like most of the "debate"--and I say this not to endorse the article's position that we should give Harris a break--has been an extremely smaller and insular bubble of 24/7 Twitter refreshers and low-end bloggers for think piece sites. Like, there's no evidence to me that the real world or anyone important has really given this much thought at all. I would really, really, really caution people against making the leap from "I keep seeing people talking to this" to "This is on everyone's mind and an important issue", because it's possible that you're deep inside the bubble and don't realize it. Motivated reasoning is a brutal psychological fact, and it's the same reason you see Bill Mitchell saying stuff like "Actually <scandal xyz> is GOOD for Trump!" or whatever. I would guess the total audience of many of the "thought leaders" that people point to is no more than high thousands or low tens of thousands, yet they seem like central players in the intellectual landscape. And it's not because their audience is all elites and they are central to the intellectual network and their ideas propagate, it's more like an alternate reality where everyone mutually gives certain figures credence even though they aren't important at all.

I know that's kind of a derail relative to the argument being advanced and might feel bad faith, but I literally am not taking a position on it. The criticisms made against Harris seem reasonable to me, and the defence that pobody's nerfect seems reasonable to me as well, but the urgency of the "We Are Going Down A Bad Path Here, I Am Seeing Shades of 2016, Bernie Made Hillary Lose, The Whole World is On Fire And The Left Is Eating Itself, I Can't Believe BlueBlog.Progress Claimed That Tim Kaine Ate Deval's Patrick's Leftovers In The Senate Fridge, And Then Rod Drehrer Responded That This Was Symptomatic Of Moral Decline, But It's Okay Because Louise Mensch Says The Time Travel Machine That Is Going To Execute Fred Trump Is About To Be Invented And Russia Actually Doesn't Exist, Oh My God Salon Just Published 'This Week's Game Of Thrones Gives Haunting Echoes Of The Time Ned Lamont Primaried Joe Lieberman'" insularity seems totally, utterly unfounded to me.

 

[Tylercrat]

Bernie

Or John McCain would be another option if we want someone absurdly old.

 

[aeolist]

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

stop focusing on specific candidates especially this far in advance. keep forcing the entire party to address these issues and talk about the people being hurt by them. the democrats as a whole need to take a stand on things like this.

you don't find a politician with perfect views and put them in office expecting them to fix everything, you take what you have right now and constantly try to make it better.

 

[Nafai1123]

Housing

When Harris took office, California was still reeling from the effects of the subprime mortgage crisis. Harris participated in the National Mortgage Settlement against five banks: Ally Financial, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citibank, and Chase. She originally walked off the talks because she believed the deal was too lenient. She later rejoined the talks, securing $12 billion of debt reduction for the state's homeowners and $26 billion overall.[76] Other parts of the funding would go to state housing counseling services and legal help for struggling homeowners and forgiving the debt of over 23,000 homeowners who agreed to sell their homes for less than the mortgage loan.[77]

Later, she introduced the California Homeowner's Bill of Rights in the California State Legislature, a package of several bills that would give homeowners more "options when fighting to keep their home". It would ban the practices of "dual-tracking" (processing a modification and foreclosure at the same time) and robo-signing, and provide homeowners with a single point of contact at their lending institution. It would also give the California Attorney General more power to investigate and prosecute financial fraud and to convene special grand juries to prosecute multi-county crimes instead of prosecuting a single crime county-by-county.[78] The CA Homeowner Bill of Rights went into effect on January 1, 2013.[79] The Sacramento Bee reported on one of the first cases of a homeowner using the bill to stop Bank of America from foreclosing on his home.[80]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Housing

 

[Aaron Strife]

stop focusing on specific candidates especially this far in advance. keep forcing the entire party to address these issues and talk about the people being hurt by them. the democrats as a whole need to take a stand on things like this.

you don't find a politician with perfect views and put them in office expecting them to fix everything, you take what you have right now and constantly try to make it better.

The biggest election on the horizon isn't even 2020, it's 2018. Democrats win Congress = Trump (already a weak and ineffective president) is neutered.

What happens next year will have a profound impact on the next presidential election. I think we need to get Democrats elected before we really hold their feet to the fire.

That isn't to say the criticisms of Harris are invalid or that we can't talk about them, but the fact that liberals are so ready to move onto 2020 after the complete erosion of local/state Democratic power is both disheartening and entirely predictable.

 

[ahoyhoy]

there are things she (or any US senator) could be doing right now to help these people

concrete action would make it a lot easier to believe she would be good on this issue in the future

I agree, and she should be doing that action now, rather than just ratchet up the rhetoric a year out from November 2020.

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

I have no idea, but the article certainly seemed very cynical about all the front runners.

 

[El_Tiguere]

As a die-hard Bernie progressive, the issue of Kamala Harris is simply this:

- Americans rightfully rejected (Hillary Clinton), and WILL again reject a politician that has been shown to be beholden to donors (Mnuchin in Kamala's case) instead of doing their job as representatives of the people or doing what is the right thing to do.

- Disenfranchised progressives and independents will be reeling if the party donors and the old corrupt party leaders ONCE AGAIN cherry pick who they want their pro-donor nominee to be. The mere notion that Clinton donors have picked their next anointed queen will bring back memories of 2016 in a furious way.

- The minute Kamala was criticized, the usual Clinton lapdogs in the media started barking at progressives for asking questions, as if we should just fall in place with what/who they have chosen for us (same shit as in 2016). This is having the OPPOSITE effect. Moreover, progressives have always been on the side of letting potential candidates square off on the ISSUES, instead of money dictating who the next candidate should be.


P.S.

Spoiler

Nina Turner is better than Kamala Harris anyways!

 

[The Faceless Master]

i dunno why anyone would take a grandstander like Kamala 'Backpage' Harris seriously.

 

[IamDodongo]

Is this another forced attempt to sew discord between liberals? Horseshoe theory makes it hard to tell.

You can't solve anything in politics without pragmatism, strategy, and the understanding that progress is incremental.

 

[aeolist]

i also think it's disingenuous to rail against purity politics disqualifying candidates.

you bring up things like harris's call on mnuchin to force her to answer for it. demanding accountability from our democratically elected leaders is a citizen's responsibility, not shoving inconvenient facts under the rug in the name of unity.

and if things like that ultimately cost someone an election then it's on the politicians to not do them if they want to win in the future.

 

[Fenderputty]

Being anti-trump isn't enough. Politicians need to lead with their actions.

LMAO I'm almost at a point where I want 8 years of trump because of this tripe. The article encompasses one aspect of a politicians faults and isn't representative of their whole. Purity test bullshit is fucking ruining the left.

you don't find a politician with perfect views and put them in office expecting them to fix everything, you take what you have right now and constantly try to make it better.

Sure I agree with this. The article literally blasts everyone though and the person I quoted made the claim that it also suggested flipping now makes us a sucker. If that's the case then nobody currently being talked about or currently in office should be considered.

 

[Dierce]

Is this another forced attempt to sew discord between liberals? Horseshoe theory makes it hard to tell.

The alt-right and the Sanders/green left are both hugely manipulated by the same populist rhetoric. If not by Russians propaganda through RT it's by Wikileaks and social media.

 

[kirblar]

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

Generally the point of saying "all of them are terrible" is to imply that "you should only listen to me."

This presents problems.

 

[Fenderputty]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Housing

Of fucking course.

 

[aeolist]

Sure I agree with this. The article literally blasts everyone though and the person I quoted made the claim that it also suggested flipping now makes us a sucker. If that's the case then nobody currently being talked about or currently in office should be considered.

you can hold someone to account for their misdeeds and then decide to vote for them anyway. lots of people did that last year with clinton.

it's amazing to me that the people constantly being accused of practicing unrealistic purity politics (sanders primary voters) compromised in the general and voted pragmatically but the party mouthpieces in the media have never stopped lambasting them. and that's even ignoring the fact that for a lot of them (like me) sanders was a compromise candidate in the first place.

 

[The Technomancer]

A lot of people on the left seem to want some sort of upon perfection in their candidates that they don't all agree on. The majority of the right seem fine with just one letter.

No I think a lot of people on the left just want someone who hasn't made any bad political calls while in power, which in practice means people who haven't held power at all, which means a lot of new people. Which...I have always thought dramatically underestimated the value of experience, especially at a legislative level.

 

[aeolist]

No I think a lot of people on the left just want someone who hasn't made any bad political calls while in power, which in practice means people who haven't held power at all, which means a lot of new people. Which...I have always thought dramatically underestimated the value of experience, especially at a legislative level.

the left wants leaders who are accountable to the base instead of banks and other big corporations. they are willing to compromise on issues just like anyone else.

 

[Fenderputty]

you can hold someone to account for their misdeeds and then decide to vote for them anyway. lots of people did that last year with clinton.

it's amazing to me that the people constantly being accused of practicing unrealistic purity politics (sanders primary voters) compromised in the general and voted pragmatically but the party mouthpieces in the media have never stopped lambasting them. and that's even ignoring the fact that for a lot of them (like me) sanders was a compromise candidate in the first place.

Yeah I mean this is what I hope the left does. Hopefully you can convince more of the Jill Stein protest votes to think pragmatically next election too.

the left wants leaders who are accountable to the base instead of banks and other big corporations. they are willing to compromise on issues just like anyone else.

You must have missed the article demanding pragmatists bend the knee since we're proven failures.

 

[Unison]

Compare Harris to Trump and the moral equation gets really simple, really quick.

 

[aeolist]

Yeah I mean this is what I hope the left does. Hopefully you can convince more of the Jill Stein protest votes to think pragmatically next election too.

there have always been third party voters. there will be several million of them again in 2020.

if the democrats want their votes maybe they should adopt some of the green party platform instead of berating them and blaming the fall of american democracy on them.

 

[SilentRob]

The Democratic Party tries to unite so many political factions under one banner - leftists, liberals, greens, social democrats - that it's not wonder nothing gets done and everyone hates everyone else. Just imagining the social democrats (SPD) working together with the liberals (FDP) over here is weird to me since their so ideologically far apart. I mean, it's not impossible and it has been done a few times over the years...but just bundling them all together into one seems silly and counter-productive.

 

[aeolist]

Compare Harris to Trump and the moral equation gets really simple, really quick.

"we're not republicans" will still be a losing slogan in 2020

 

[Unison]

The Democratic Party tries to unite so many political factions under one banner - leftists, liberals, greens, social democrats - that it's not wonder nothing gets done and everyone hates everyone else. Just imagining the social democrats (SPD) working together with the liberals (FDP) over here is weird to me since their so ideologically far apart. I mean, it's not impossible and it has been done a few times over the years...but just bundling them all together into one seems silly and counter-productive.

Agree... and the same thing is going on with the GOP right now, which is why there's been so few accomplishments despite total party control.

This should be a teachable moment for the left.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

That feeling when you realise despite the existence of a Christian right, it's actually the left that literally won't unite unless they're led by the perfection ofJesus Christ himself.

While that statement is not 100% accurate, I felt the sentiment is kind of relevant.

Yet at the same time, it's quite a dilemma.

We criticise the right for electing any kind of nasty fuck that will promise to do their bidding, but trying to be the opposite of that and properly criticising shitty behaviour in our own party just ends up being counter productive and feeding the right wing party ammo to kill us with in the general elections.

Trying to fish for the absolute best candidates with the best policies is absolutely the right thing for progressive votersto be doing. But if youre left wing but not overly progressive and dont mind the status quo, progressiveness can look like an attack on you, which is what happened between Bernie and Hillary.

The GOP has the benefit of simply wanting to live in the past and dont need any drastic new ideas. Their candidates are usually arguing to do the same thing in the long run, just who can do it better.

 

[IamDodongo]

Anyone holding votes hostage over nitpicks when there's a monster like Trump in office is officially an asshole.

 

[El_Tiguere]

No I think a lot of people on the left just want someone who hasn't made any bad political calls while in power, which in practice means people who haven't held power at all, which means a lot of new people. Which...I have always thought dramatically underestimated the value of experience, especially at a legislative level.

If the existential threat to our society, where 8 out 10 problems come from, is the influence of money over our politicians... why are you surprised that progressives DO NOT WANT another politician that has been shown to be influenced by money? why aren't YOU supporting the move to find politicians that value public service over personal enrichment?

 

[Sirpopopop]

As a die-hard Bernie progressive, the issue of Kamala Harris is simply this:

- Americans rightfully rejected (Hillary Clinton), and WILL again reject a politician that has been shown to be beholden to donors (Mnuchin in Kamala's case) instead of doing their job as representatives of the people or doing what is the right thing to do.

- Disenfranchised progressives and independents will be reeling if the party donors and the old corrupt party leaders ONCE AGAIN cherry pick who they want their pro-donor nominee to be. The mere notion that Clinton donors have picked their next anointed queen will bring back memories of 2016 in a furious way.

- The minute Kamala was criticized, the usual Clinton lapdogs in the media started barking at progressives for asking questions, as if we should just fall in place with what/who they have chosen for us (same shit as in 2016). This is having the OPPOSITE effect. Moreover, progressives have always been on the side of letting potential candidates square off on the ISSUES, instead of money dictating who the next candidate should be.


P.S.

Spoiler

Nina Turner is better than Kamala Harris anyways!

Ironic that you want Nina Turner who stated in an interview that she would be willing to endorse Republicans, yet here you are applying purity tests to Kamala Harris.

 

[Unison]

"we're not republicans" will still be a losing slogan in 2020

It's plenty to earn my vote.

 

[Fenderputty]

there have always been third party voters. there will be several million of them again in 2020.

if the democrats want their votes maybe they should adopt some of the green party platform instead of berating them and blaming the fall of american democracy on them.

How many independents and moderates does the left lose when picking up those green votes?

"we're not republicans" will still be a losing slogan in 2020

If after 4 years of Trump that's still the case we deserve about 20 more

 

[QuantumBro]

It's plenty to earn my vote.

Did you vote for Trump in 2016?

 

[aeolist]

How many independents and moderates does the left lose when picking up those green votes?

how many "moderates" did they win last year with their centrist candidate and campaign?

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Well I can't speak about other politicians but you can't tell me Bernie Sanders hasn't been fighting the battle to change our financial system. I mean if he hasn't done a good job, I'd like to know what would be considered doing a good job.

The problem is he doesn't get enough support in Congress. The other problem is people aren't as receptive to changes as they like to pretend. Yeah, everyone will talk shit about the banks and "crony capitalism" but when it's time to vote in people who have it as a primary agenda, they just re-elect the other guy because he's the guy they'd prefer to "have a beer with." When you talk about making serious changes to the system, they start getting nervous about "big government" and "socialism."

Even people who have been directly fucked will find a way to blame too MUCH government regulation and not the financial companies themselves.

Fucking shit or get off the pot.

 

[Unison]

Did you vote for Trump in 2016?

No, but I'm also not a Democrat.

 

[Sirpopopop]

"we're not republicans" will still be a losing slogan in 2020

Getting 95% of what you want isn't enough, need 100% right.

Oh, and you most certainly aren't the equivalent of the Freedom Caucus. Oh no... most certainly not!

 

[ahoyhoy]

Anyone holding votes hostage over nitpicks when there's a monster like Trump in office is officially an asshole.

Gotta find a way to get those assholes out to vote in 2020 if you truly want him gone.