The two front runners in the Dem primary asked each other to be forthcoming about work they did as corporate consultants many years ago.
“The memo, which Warren wrote in 1996, used legalistic and often dense language to argue that businesses faced the “risk of the unknown” from a growing threat of lawsuits, and that defended the company’s right to “maximize its returns to its unpaid creditors and to survive as an employer.”
And from Pete Buttigieg:
“I was assigned to months-long stints on ‘teams’ of typically three or four people working on a study for a client. The bulk of my work on these teams consisted of doing mathematical analysis, conducting research, and preparing presentations […] I never worked on a project inconsistent with my values, and if asked to do so, I would have left the firm rather than participate.”
This was a purity test Buttigieg and Warren could have done without. Obviously, with these revelations, nothing changes – not even the disdain felt, in some far corners of the party, for the evils of corporatism.
Democrats are at their best when they protect, preserve and promote the social safety net. Many struggling people, forced to work multiple part time jobs to barely make ends meet, however, need a strong economy and seek opportunities for good jobs.
Where are these jobs? Sometimes at small businesses, and, yes, sometimes, at corporations.
This spat between Warren and Buttigieg has achieved nothing. It hurt both candidates, and projected an anti-business image that hands Republicans ammunition for the general election.
Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in modern history, but he will not run boasting how corrupt he is. Trump will instead run on the strength of the economy, and will promise jobs.
The task of Warren and Buttigieg, in this election, whoever wins, is not just to show who is more immaculate. It is to demonstrate voters will be better off, economically, with a Democrat in the White House.
“It’s the economy, stupid” was Bill Clinton’s mantra. That, of course, was expressed at a time when the economy was hurting in George H. W. Bush’s first term.
We often think of elections as being high minded affairs, where philosophical arguments have primacy. What if, instead, politics is but a thin veneer on top of the real driver -which are the economic interests.
I think it should change how people view Buttigieg. This episode was less about the work and more about how handled the questions and his commitment to transparency. He failed that test and I think clearly revealed he isn’t ready for the scrutiny of a general election.
“Mathematical analysis” sounds boring but that’s the kind of stuff that McKinsey uses to justify layoffs, severe cost cutting, and even things like recommending fewer services for ICE detainees. And it’s funny to hear Pete talk about values – can anyone point to a consistent value he has held?
Do past actions have no bearing on that? What they have to prove requires trust and if past actions consistently show them doing the opposite of what they say, then that absolutely matters to their arguments now. (I’m not saying the evidence shows consistent past bad actions, but I do think they are relevant – same as past voting records or any other actions.)
Who’s ‘we’? Maybe then go with a candidate talking most directly about these issues and not some lofty language about “unity” or the greatness of the idea of America.
My understanding is that Pete signed an NDA from which he is asking to be released. I wish NDAs were not so much of a thing, but I guess that’s not my call. He has spoken to values quite a bit it seems, even in a way that we too long conceded to the Right, which is a plus in my book.
Yes, but he could violate the NDAs with no real repercussion. That NDAs are so prevalent and chill so many actions (even running transparently for the most powerful position in the world) is horrible. That he wasn’t stronger in his rush to be transparent is a huge failure and shows a lot of his weaknesses.
No we’ll have another storyline, like what he did involving Blue Cross in Michigan or potential involvement in price-fixing for Loblaw’s.
Pete speaks of values, but his actions don’t seem to align. And what he has said has also changed. I don’t trust him one bit.