Doyle McManus: Obama and Wall St. — it’s not 1936
[Doyle McManus is Washington columnist for the Los Angeles Times.]
The Barack Obama who went to Wall Street last week to ask investment bankers to support new financial regulations had little in common with the fire-breathing Franklin D. Roosevelt of 1936 who denounced "financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking," and added pungently, "I welcome their hatred."
This wasn't even the Barack Obama of a few months ago who denounced "fat-cat bankers" for awarding themselves bonuses after being saved by government bailouts. "Shameful," he said then.
Instead, last week's Wall Street Obama was conciliatory, flattering the fat cats in his audience as "titans of industry" and asking for their help.
"I urge you to join me not only because it is in the interest of your industry," he said, "but also because it's in the interest of your country."
It was a practical pitch rather than a call to patriotic duty. And it was a reflection of why Obama is heading toward a legislative victory on financial regulatory reform: He's doing what he does best, building alliances among seemingly opposing forces around a politically pragmatic, if imperfect, compromise.
Only a month ago, in the aftermath of the bruising partisan battle over healthcare and the tumult of the "tea party" backlash, the ideal of bipartisan legislation looked dead in Washington. Republicans thought they were on a roll; there was no percentage in any compromise with Obama.
But financial regulation has abruptly changed that equation. Republican senators, including Southern conservatives such as Richard Shelby of Alabama and Bob Corker of Tennessee, want a bill they can vote for and are negotiating avidly with their Democratic colleagues to that end.
What's made this debate so different from healthcare? Three things...
Read entire article at LA Times
The Barack Obama who went to Wall Street last week to ask investment bankers to support new financial regulations had little in common with the fire-breathing Franklin D. Roosevelt of 1936 who denounced "financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking," and added pungently, "I welcome their hatred."
This wasn't even the Barack Obama of a few months ago who denounced "fat-cat bankers" for awarding themselves bonuses after being saved by government bailouts. "Shameful," he said then.
Instead, last week's Wall Street Obama was conciliatory, flattering the fat cats in his audience as "titans of industry" and asking for their help.
"I urge you to join me not only because it is in the interest of your industry," he said, "but also because it's in the interest of your country."
It was a practical pitch rather than a call to patriotic duty. And it was a reflection of why Obama is heading toward a legislative victory on financial regulatory reform: He's doing what he does best, building alliances among seemingly opposing forces around a politically pragmatic, if imperfect, compromise.
Only a month ago, in the aftermath of the bruising partisan battle over healthcare and the tumult of the "tea party" backlash, the ideal of bipartisan legislation looked dead in Washington. Republicans thought they were on a roll; there was no percentage in any compromise with Obama.
But financial regulation has abruptly changed that equation. Republican senators, including Southern conservatives such as Richard Shelby of Alabama and Bob Corker of Tennessee, want a bill they can vote for and are negotiating avidly with their Democratic colleagues to that end.
What's made this debate so different from healthcare? Three things...