by Deepak Gupta
The debate over whether President Obama should name Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer financial protection agency -- an agency for which she provided the intellectual architecture, and that probably never would have been created without her -- has taken on a surprisingly high profile over the past week, at times resembling an election campaign or Supreme Court nomination fight.
On Friday, Felix Salmon went so far as to deem Warren's nomination a "foregone conclusion." And the latest signs, including positive comments today from Robert Gibbs and a steady stream of endorsements in the Senate, do suggest that Warren's appointment has become increasingly likely. One key indicator is that Gibbs described her not only as a "terrific candidate" but also as "very confirmable." (Interviewed a few days ago on Good Morning America, Obama himself was more equivocal.)
Today, Public Citizen endorsed Warren's candidacy and rolled out an online petition for supporters to sign. It's no secret that the contributors to this blog are, and have been, strong Warren supporters all along. As Jeff Sovern said last week, "I want the CFPB to be just like Elizabeth Warren. . . . We need an agency that bases its decisions on empirical realities rather than ideology. Just like Elizabeth Warren. And if that's what we want, shouldn't the CFPB be led by Elizabeth Warren?" Over at Credit Slips, where Warren was once a contributor, her friends and academic colleagues have been posting some must-read commentary on her candidacy. Katie Porter describes Warren--the person, not the caricature--as someone who sincerely believes in markets and wants to make them function more efficiently. And Bob Lawless talks about Warren as someone whose thinking is grounded in facts and pragmatism, not ideology. Finally, Adam Levitin demolishes one of the baseless criticisms of Warren that's been making the rounds--that she lacks the necessary administrative skills. (By the way, does anyone really believe that her opponents' true concern is insufficient administrative experience?)
My own view is that Warren should be the nominee, but not primarily for the reasons cited above. The other top candidates, Michael Barr and Gene Kimmelman, are experienced and well-respected consumer advocates who could probably also be counted on to arrive at the elusive right mix of empirical realism, consumer protection, and flexibility. Both have more Washington experience than Warren does. Indeed, Barr has been the true architect of the financial reform legislation within the administration and would bring to the job considerable government experience together with a scholarly background on consumer financial protection issues. He would be a fine choice. That said, Warren stands out for two reasons:
First, Liz Warren would be uniquely able to attract the most talented consumer advocates to work at the new agency. She's already inspired a generation of law students and new scholars to work on consumer protection--a field that, let's face it, has not always seemed the most glamorous within the legal academy over the past few decades. (I've seen this effect firsthand among law students and lawyers who have worked with Warren and then come to Washington, including several of our own law student interns here at Public Citizen Litigation Group.) Based on this, my prediction is that top candidates will want to go work at the CFPB if they can work under Liz Warren and that this will help define the profile of the agency for the future. Some agencies in Washington develop a reputation as reservoirs for top talent; some develop a reputation as backwaters--and those reputations tend to become self-perpetuating over time.
Second, Liz Warren is the best candidate not because she possesses expertise or experience that others lack but because her public profile on consumer issues is unparalleled. In terms of a pro-consumer bully puplit, she is the closest thing we now have to what Ralph Nader was in the 1970's--a comparison that has sometimes been made in the glowing media profiles of Warren. (This is not to say that Warren is like Nader in other ways; one cannot imagine Nader running a government agency. Warren seems far more willing and able to compromise and hold her tongue when necessary and seems to be able to work within the constraints of existing institutions.)
When it comes to public intellectuals, Professor Warren's credibility and authority on consumer issues is second to none. She has a unique ability to translate complex financial issues into terms that ordinary people can understand, always with an eye toward political realities. She is single-handedly articulating a progressive economic vision that puts the everyday concerns of middle class Americans ahead of corporate profits. When she's engaged in a regulatory fight with the banks, as she inevitably will be, she will be able to get on TV and explain to the American people what the fight is really about, why they should care, and why the agency's decision is the right one. She'll be able to secure political capital for the agency in a way that other candidates will not. If you don't think that's important, consider what happened to the FTC in the 1980's.
I can't think of anyone who would be better for this particular job, at this particular time.
Comments