A Politician Finally Stands Up And Fights For The Majority of Americans

For all of the failings of our politicians in Washington, D.C. over the years, I just finished watching a video of Senator Elizabeth Warren grilling Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf, and for one brief shining moment, I have to stand and applaud a member of Congress for actually doing the job for which she was elected. Like a bird watcher catching a glimpse of an extremely rare New Caledonian Owlet, I witnessed a Senator calling one of the most powerful bankers in America to accountability for not stopping employees from opening bogus credit card and bank accounts costing unaware customers millions of dollars. It was a beautiful and uplifting sight to see Stumpf try and explain why 5,300 low-level employees were fired over the scam, while top executives, including Stumpf, continued to receive salaries and bonuses worth tens of millions of dollars.

At the basis of the Wells Fargo fiasco is the concept of “cross-selling.” Not something new, cross-selling is a long-practiced technique of getting customers who bought one thing from you interested in buying something else. A recent experience of mine serves as an example. I walk daily and needed a new pair of walking shoes. I went to a nearby upscale running store (my mistake) to get a good quality product. I did find a pair of shoes that worked for me, but while I was there, two employees worked on me constantly, trying to cross-sell me expensive socks, an additional pair of shoes, a VIP membership and on and on. In the banking world, cross-selling involves selling customers additional accounts beyond a checking and savings account. Wells Fargo was giving its employees bonuses for cross-selling accounts, which as it turns out, got completely out of hand.

Why the emphasis on cross-selling? Selling more accounts to customers helped the bank profit each year, and this pleased the bank’s board and shareholders, who then rewarded CEO Stumpf and others at the top of the food chain with salary increases and huge bonuses. So customers became a means to an end. No one involved in the scheme cared whether the customer needed another account or credit card, it was all a matter of numbers. Sell more, get more. And this is, of course, the major flaw of capitalism itself.

Capitalism has no moral imperative. It is an economic system driven by one thing and one thing only, profits. If you run a business, you either make a profit or you go under. As a business owner, you must do whatever you need to do to keep your company profitable, weather that means massive layoffs, moving your business overseas or selling customers things they don’t need. There is no room in the capitalist system for mercy, kindness or generosity when the bottom line is in danger. Sure, you’ve probably read an article here and there of the employer who did this nice thing for his employees, but these people are the exception by far, and not the rule. Capitalism is a system that rewards greed, especially at the top, and as government restrictions and regulations have been curtailed over the last thirty years by money-hungry politicians, the fattest of the fat cats like Strumpf couldn’t be happier.

We need Elizabeth Warren and many more like her if we are to ever hope for a more equitable economic system in this country. Income inequality is the worst it has been since the Robber Baron era at the turn of the 19^th century. Today’s economic bandits like Strumpf will only stop gouging the little guys when they are held accountable for their actions, and have to pay for their crimes. Thank you Elizabeth Warren, for doing your job.

Is the key to a Democratic resurgence in repackaging our arguments or simply having the courage to make them in the first place?

There’s a lengthy interview in today’s Salon with a writer and intellectual I admire, George Lakoff. The title of the article is, “Progressives need to frame their values.” In the piece, Lakoff argues that progressives have to learn how to tie truths to values; to frame their arguments so that they better connect with voters’ values. It’s something that conservatives almost instinctively know how to do, but on the left end of the spectrum, we tend to offer laundry lists of intellectual solutions that are not connected to the voter’s values. Progressives need to do a better job of framing their political language to appeal to people’s deep-seated beliefs.

As someone who has worked in marketing most of my life, I do understand the importance of “framing” your appeals to consumers. You have to understand your audience and make your argument relevant to them. Where I work now, we are all about “behavioral economics,” and how to truly engage consumers to the point that they are not merely purchasers of your product, but brand advocates who champion your brand.

So I don’t necessarily disagree with Lakoff’s arguments about framing, but my question is this — Is the issue really about “framing” an argument correctly or is it about conveying progressive ideals, which are inherently about values, openly, enthusiastically and without apology, something too few Democratic candidates seem willing to do? Lakoff admires Elizabeth Warren and her ability to convey the values behind her progressive policies, but is Warren framing her argument or simply espousing progressive ideas clearly and confidently?

In other words, is the core problem for Democrats a marketing issue or more simply about finding their political courage? Again, I look at Al Franken’s recent campaign. Franken is a liberal, but during his tenure in the Senate, he has emphasized his work for Minnesotans and the value he’s brought to the state. In other words, he rarely gets on a soapbox to simply espouse liberal causes, but tends to link them with the needs of Minnesotans, and that has won him two elections. His Republican opponent used all of the “framing” arguments in the conservative playbook against Franken, but they didn’t work.

I am hoping that after the mid-term debacle, Democrats will stop reflexively running to the center, and begin to take their lessons from Warren and Franken and Sanders and other proud progressives. It’s important to understand “framing,” but I think success will really be achieved when Democrats find the courage to speak from their hearts and proudly convey their progressive beliefs and how those beliefs can help this country be far more successful and prosperous than it is today.

Should progressives form their own political party?

Is it time for progressives to start their own political party? As author Frank Rich pointed out in yesterday’s Salon, Democrats will likely do what they always do after a political drubbing and that is to run toward the ideological center. The flawed thinking goes like this: Republicans won big. That must mean that voters want more conservative candidates. No. That isn’t what it means. Republicans won because a lot of old white guys voted and whole lot of younger, more liberal adults didn’t. Why? There are lots of reasons, but a major one is that today’s Democrats don’t sound all that different than Republicans. What’s the distinction, young voters ask?

There are distinctions, but instead of using those points of difference to their advantage in campaigns, Democrats run screaming from them and hide behind squishy rhetoric and cautious pronouncements. Please, whatever you do, don’t call me a “liberal.” Obama? Who’s Obama? Why don’t Democrats take their lesson from Minnesota? Al Franken is an unapologetic liberal, and he’s won two elections. Voters had a distinct choice in the mid-term between a true conservative and a true liberal, and they chose Franken. Isn’t there something that can be learned here?

I like the idea of a new progressive political party. It doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s agenda, and third parties do have a history of failure, but there are a lot of progressives who feel that the Democratic Party has already written them off, so why not have our own soapbox? We could start by supporting and funding Bernie Sanders’ or Elizabeth Warren’s run for the White House in 2016.

A guy can dream, can’t he?