Bernie and Thomas and Alex

Thomas Jefferson, that is, and Alexander Hamilton. (With whom I'm currently a bit obsessed, having seen Hamilton on Broadway this past weekend.)

Because, you see, I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders would be on Team Jefferson. And... Team Jefferson is wrong. Thomas Jefferson was wrong, about, like, most things. Not everything: I like much of what he has to say about religion, and he was on the right side of the "is it okay to be an opposition party?" thing. Essentially everything he thought about the Constitution was wrong, though, as was his notion that America should be all rural and agrarian and stuff. Oh, and the whole "holding slaves" thing. True, he had relatively anti-slavery principles, but he also had lots and lots of slaves. His whole humble, man-of-the-people thing was basically a lie; he was an artistocrat. Hamilton was, as the first song from Hamilton so powerfully illustrates, the "bastard, orphan" who "gr[e]w up to be a hero and a scholar." Oh, and who opposed slavery. But no, he's the monarchist and the elitist, apparently.

Now the point isn't that Sanders likes all of these things about Jefferson. He certainly disagrees with at least the slavery thing, and he's probably not a strict constructionist. But I'm sure he loves Jefferson's whole egalitarian shtick, despite its being basically a lie, and he probably has at least some sympathy for the rural/agrarian thing.

Oh, and then there's the Bank. The First Bank of the United States, championed by Hamilton and opposed by Jefferson. I'd be shocked if Sanders isn't on Jefferson's side there (on policy if not on the constitutional issue). Which... is bad. It also puts him in the company of Andrew Jackson, whom liberals have recently had the decency to recognize as a slave-owning, native-slaughtering, paranoid villain, not a populist hero.

And this actually ties into the thing that maybe bothers me the most about the prospect of Bernie Sanders becoming President: he's against the Wall Street bailout of 2008. Indeed, he doesn't even seem to know that the American taxpayer made money out of the bailout, because we got paid back more than we paid out in the first place. (Bernie keeps using the line that "America bailed out Wall St., now it's time for Wall St. to bail out America" in describing his proposed speculation tax.) And again, this is wrong. Really, really wrong. If Sanders had been President, and had vetoed the law (which he voted against in the Senate), we actually would've had another depression. It would've done enormous damage to the world economy. But, you know, it was a bailout, to the banks. The big banks at that. And banks are bad, especially the big ones--as Jefferson and Jackson knew.

I find this legitimately troubling. Either he's being disingenuous here or he really doesn't understand some things about how the economy works. And I really would worry that, if some similar sort of financial crisis came up, he might not be willing to do what had to be done to prevent collapse, even if it didn't really sit comfortably with his general ideology.

Now, perhaps the most favorable part of the Jefferson comparison is that when push came to shove, and Jefferson had an opportunity to radically change America's destiny forever, but he had to violate his constitutional principles in order to do so, he did it. That's the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which a Jeffersonian strict constructionist would've thought unconstitutional. So maybe if push came to shove, Sanders would listen to the advice of mainstream economics and do what was necessary. But... maybe? He might actually not do that; at the very least I'd like for someone to interrogate him a bit more about this.

Until they do, his resemblance to Jefferson is a little bit troubling.

On Hillary Clinton, Wall Street, and 9/11

So, in what might have been the single most memorable moment of the debate (other than that time when I was genuinely shocked to hear that Sanders actually wants to let the states run his single-payer health care program, like, actually), Bernie Sanders impugned Hillary Clinton's integrity over her donations from Wall Street (despite his protestations that he did no such thing) and then Hillary responded by invoking 9/11. It was pretty cringe-worthy. In no way is this post meant to deny that. What this post is meant to do, however, is suggest that Hillary has at least a very plausible argument for why those campaign contributions shouldn't be held against her the way Sanders wants them to be.

Let's start with getting at what Hillary was actually trying to say, or at least the coherent argument behind her (again, admittedly) facepalm-level 9/11 framing. The donations from Wall Street are on the record, and they almost entirely date from her tenure as Senator from New York. Sanders' hypothesis is that the bankers gave her this money because they know that, no matter how tough she might talk on financial regulation, she won't actually do it. Hillary's suggestion to the contrary is that these were essentially donations of gratitude for her service to the state and city in the wake of 9/11. That's... that's very plausible, right? Especially bearing in mind that when we say "Wall Street donations," we don't just mean donations from the corporations themselves, or even from their executives. Donations from any of their employees count for this purpose. And it sounds pretty plausible to me to think that a lot of Wall Street bankers might have donated to any and every politician who played a meaningful role in the 9/11 rebuilding efforts. It might not be true that that's what motivated the donations, but it's a valid and on-point argument to make.

And really, she didn't even need to get that specific. She was a Senator from New York! I have a feeling that anyone in that position is going to get a lot of donations from Wall Street. I'm sure Chuck Schumer has a long trail of such donations to his name. You donate even to candidates who are relatively speaking not on your side, especially because New York is a solid blue state with little hope of electing Republicans to the Senate. And, sure, you're probably hoping for some measure of access and influence, but, contra what the moderator said, candidates aren't actually indebted to their donors. Again, it's genuinely possible that Hillary went around to various Wall Street potential contributors and said, give me some money and I'll keep an eye out for your interests going forward. That would be bad! But it's also genuinely possible that a bunch of Wall Street bankers gave her money just because she was the only game in town, and she didn't outright reject their donations.

This sort of ties in with another dimension of this whole thing. She was Senator from New York. All the financial types from Wall Street were among her constituents. There are many valid theories of representation on which it would have been proper for her to promote Wall Street's interests, insofar as they were New York's interests, as against the rest of the country. This would have to be within reason, of course; politicians shouldn't support the interests of every scumbag who happens to live in their jurisdiction. But we don't think there's anything weird about Senators from Iowa promoting corn interests or whatever. It's natural, if slightly unsavory.

The question is whether this works for or against Hillary. And that depends, I think, on whether we think that a person who has once favored a certain interest because they represented that region will always be beholden to that interest, even if they now represent a broader constituency. I tend to think the answer here is "no." Kirsten Gillibrand, Hillary's successor in the Senate, is an interesting example. She used to be a Representative from a reasonably conservative district in upstate New York, and her record in the House was reasonably moderate. That led people to be concerned that she wouldn't be as liberal as a Democratic Senator from New York ought to be. But in fact, she's been great! Because now she's not representing a constituency that requires her to be more moderate. By analogy, even if Hillary did take Wall Street contributions, and aye, even if she did take relatively pro-Wall Street stances when she was Senator from New York, that doesn't mean she would do so as President, representing the whole nation.

Now, Sanders and his supporters could try to argue it the other way. That, a candidate's once having been willing to pander to a local interest, we should always view them with suspicion on that issue. But I really don't think he wants to open up that can of worms. Because he's confessed, more or less candidly, that his relatively moderate record on guns was largely a pander to his rural Vermont constituents. Which would look an awful lot like Hillary's purported record on financial regulation--if we grant the assumption that Hillary has been soft on financial regulation historically. If we get into playing this game, it's just not at all clear that Sanders is categorically more pure than Clinton. And that's not even getting into all the companies whose employees he's received donations from over the years, a list which is less than wholly devoid of what we might think of as villains. The sum totals are a lot lower 'cause he represented Vermont, which has about as many people in it as like a city block in Manhattan, but the logic would seem to apply reasonably well.

There's also an additional level as concerns Hillary: she's a lawyer. She went to Yale Law School. (Woohoo!) She knows a lot of people in the world of law, which has a lot of overlap with the world of finance. A lot of these people probably gave to her campaign because they know her, and (perhaps unlike their bosses or the corporate entities for which they work) they honestly don't care that much about the public policy dimensions of politics.

The bottom line is that there are an awful lot of genuinely good reasons to think that Clinton's past Wall Street donations do not mean that she will be in any way beholden to the financial industry if she becomes President. Again, it might in fact be the case that she would be beholden to them. But there are good reasons for thinking otherwise, and it's basically a matter of contestable fact. And while, again, I agree that her invocation of 9/11 was extremely poorly done, there was an argument at the heart of those remarks, one that fits into the basic pattern of the more general arguments for why we shouldn't be troubled by her donations. So yes, it's totally fair game to call her out for her heavy-handed, Giuliani-esque flag-wrapping, but it's wrong to pivot from that to simply assuming that she is in fact vaguely corrupt in the was Sanders was insinuating.