Neera Tanden Stands Out: An Enemy of the Left and the Right?

When President-elect Joe Biden announced his choice to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) last Monday, many pundits claimed that Republican senators would sink Neera Tanden's confirmation.  Hers would be the sacrificial nomination that Republicans could comfortably thwart.  She's "unfit to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate," Tom Cotton of Arkansas said, because of her frequent nasty tweets about Donald Trump and his congressional allies.

Democrats attacked the hypocrisy.  Claire McCaskill, former senator from Missouri, said on MSNBC, "We've had a president who has used his Twitter account like a battering ram.  Now all of a sudden it's a disqualification for someone to serve in the cabinet that engaged in her own opinion on Twitter?"  Biden suggested the same in his Tuesday interview with Thomas Friedman, saying that such Twitter use "disqualifies almost every Republican senator and 90% of the [Trump] administration."

The controversy about Tanden, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton, grew as liberal Democrats criticized her nomination.  Supporters and staff of Senator Bernie Sanders "seethed" at the announcement; as Holly Otterbein writes in Politico, "Tanden is one of the Democratic elites who helped sink [Sanders's] 2016 campaign behind the scenes, not to mention a union-buster, a threat to Social Security, a hippie-puncher who constantly picks fights with the left, and much more."  

That Tanden apparently "punched" or "slugged" or "pushed" Sanders's 2020 campaign manager Faiz Shakir years ago has added to the dissension.  Writing in The Guardian, Arwa Mahdawi asserts that "Neera Tanden's unremorseful bullying should disqualify her from Biden's cabinet."  Mahdawi argues that the fact that women are held to higher standards of behavior than men are doesn't excuse women's behavior; rather, we should hold everyone similarly accountable.  "If you can't manage your temper," Mahdawi concludes, "you shouldn't be managing the budget."

Tanden's problems with the left don't end here.  As the Washington Post reported yesterday, Tanden's work for the last nine years heading the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) has led to fund-raising efforts with "deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America."  If her nomination goes through, "Tanden [will] have a hand in policies that touch every part of the economy after years spent courting corporate and foreign donors."  Though Tanden has support from Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, prominent progressives who respect her ethical standards, she still faces questions from others.

Why so much interest in Neera Tanden?  Perhaps because the controversies that surround her reflect the conflicts we face in U.S. politics today.  Women in power, especially women of color, still attract suspicion.  As the daughter of Indian immigrants, she has a name that most Americans don't recognize.  And what about Tanden's bullying?  In the wake of unprecedented presidential bullying, should we care?  When Amy Klobuchar announced her presidential candidacy in February 2019, many stories highlighted her treatment of her congressional staff.  We tend not to hear these stories about men.  There's also the role that corporate and foreign wealth play in our politics.  Progressive think tanks depend on this money as much as conservative ones, and the staffs of Republican and Democratic administrations alike cycle through high-powered jobs with inherent conflicts of interest.

Neera Tanden's nomination illuminates the messy, uncomfortable sides of politics.  But is she qualified for the job?  Undoubtedly.  After four years of incompetent and inexperienced officials directing government agencies, she's an excellent choice.  Still, the challenges of gender, race, temperament, and money persist even as Democrats take charge--challenges that won't go away easily, it's important to note.  

Three Old Men Walk Into a Bar

It's time for me to decide.  I have to vote on Tuesday, and I'm back where I started when this campaign began: supporting Joe Biden.  I didn't expect this, having preferred both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar in recent months.  But it looks like we're left with three septuagenerian white men.

Voting for Michael Bloomberg is not an option for me.  He had two opportunities in the debates to prove that he understood and regretted his racist, sexist past, and he didn't do so.  His ads are terrific, true, but he doesn't come across as well in person.  He's like the Wizard of Oz when Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal the truth: the man behind the splashy ads is not the man to govern this country.  Bloomberg's money is better spent on his main concerns, gun violence and climate change, and on Democratic candidates in November.

Bernie Sanders is more difficult for me to reject.  The America he imagines is one I'd love to see.  Health care is a human right, as he says whenever he gets the chance.  Our economy should work for all of us, and not just for the wealthy.  He's consistent in his views; who we see is who we get.  But he's also said, "I think there are a lot of people who, when they hear the word 'socialist,' get very, very nervous."  He's correct, and this is a big part of the problem.  He scares people.  His views require explanation and subtlety, which don't fit well in the American political landscape.  Moreover, Bernie's rigid, angry demeanor are not what we need following the turbulence of these last four years.  We need someone calm.

Which brings me to Joe Biden, who's also flawed.  As I've written before, he's often seemed confused in debates and presents a backward-thinking agenda.  He wraps Barack Obama around himself too much.  The world has changed since the two of them governed, and we need fresh thinkers and new ideas.  Still, Joe knows how the federal government works.  He knows the people who can sort out the mess that Donald Trump created.  He knows world leaders and understands the dynamics of international relationships.  He's the most qualified of the three to start governing on January 20, 2021. 

Three old men walk into a bar. . . It's almost a joke that we've ended up here.  But it's not funny, and it's not ideal.  Still, any one of the three would do much better than the yellow-haired guy currently serving the drinks, and I think Joe Biden is the one most likely to succeed at taking his place and taking back our country.

What Next?

No doubt about it: Bernie Sanders is the undeniable front runner.   My choice, Amy Klobuchar, got trounced in Nevada and has no realistic path to victory.  Now what?

Despite the fact that Klobuchar still projects the qualities and strength that I think are needed for the presidency, I must acknowledge that an overwhelming number of Democrats disagree.  Sanders successfully forged in Nevada a coalition of young adults, Latino citizens, and liberal voters, and he also made inroads with many demographic groups including white, moderate Democrats like me.  No one can ignore the power of his passionate energy.

I have lots of concerns about Sanders heading the ticket, most of all my fear that he won't beat Donald Trump and that he won't encourage the turnout needed to flip the Senate and to keep the House.  I've also been hoping for a winning candidate with a calm, reassuring manner who can restore order in Washington, not exactly a description of Bernie.  If elected, his chronic anger will continue to churn and disquiet our nation.  But perhaps the Sanders voters are telling me something: many Americans are tired of pervasive inequity and don't have time to wait.  They need change now.

Two of my favorite columnists offer opposing views of Bernie's victory.  Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post details seven steps that must happen immediately to stop Sanders.  Paul Krugman of The New York Times, who also opposes Sanders, offers something different: the case to support Bernie if he's our candidate.

For me, I'll watch Tuesday night's debate and see what happens.  With South Carolina voting on Saturday, we'll get even more information about the coalitions our candidates are and aren't forming.  In the end, all of our Democratic candidates will restore to America the rule of law, the respect for civil servants, the esteem for allies around the world, and the value of the principles enshrined in our Constitution.

Even Bernie.

Honor Thy Blue-Collar Parents

For all of you working-class parents out there, it's your time to shine.  And the poorer you are, the better.  At least this is the message I take from both parties' political conventions.  Speakers are knocking themselves out to boast the humblest, most self-sacrificing parent on earth:

Ann Romney's father started working at 6 years old cleaning bottles in a small village in Wales.

Mitt Romney's father, born in Mexico, began as a carpenter.

Marco Rubio's father was a bartender, and his mother worked the overnight shift at K-Mart.

Paul Ryan's mother rode 40 miles on a bus each morning to earn a college degree.

Chris Christie's father grew up in poverty and worked at the Breyer's Ice Cream factory.

Michelle Obama's father was a pump operator at the city water plant.

Elizabeth Warren's father was a maintenance man, and her mother answered phones for Sears.

All of these people have in common the gift of unconditional love for their children, a good thing of course.  But you gotta wonder.  When did parents become so fashionable?  You didn't used to acknowledge even having parents, let alone brag about them--especially if they toiled away in low-paying jobs.

Blue-collar parents are cool, I guess, especially if you turned out OK.  If you didn't, well never mind, you won't make it to a speaker's podium anyway.  Besides, with all of the money flowing through these two campaigns' coffers, you won't matter a whole heck of a lot. 

Talk is cheap, after all.  Isn't that what Paul Ryan's father used to say?*

(*Actually he used to say, "You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution"--but who cares about facts?)

Taking a Stand

In his new book A Nation of Wusses, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell decries the lack of courage and conviction among American politicians today.  This weekend three leaders deserve recognition for standing up for what's right:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for challenging both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to explain their plans to address gun violence in America.  "What do they stand for and why aren't they standing up?" he asked on Face the Nation.  "It's time for both of them to be held accountable."

Penn State President Rodney Erickson for ordering the removal of the Joe Paterno statue from the university campus.  Leaving it up, he said, would be a "recurring wound to the multitude of individuals across the nation and beyond who have been the victims of child abuse."

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren for speaking out in the Washington Post about the Libor scandal and the rigging of interest rates.  "With a rotten financial system once again laid bare to the world," she writes, "the only question remaining is whether Wall Street has so many friends in Washington that meaningful reform is impossible."

All three of these people stand to lose for taking a stand--whether they lose stature or alumni support or votes.  How refreshing to hear their voices rise above the timidity we've come to expect.

Elizabeth Warren for President

Not really.

But our current president needs to appoint Professor Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to do so immediately. The agency is her idea, after all, and she is our leading consumer advocate in these times when those who should be protecting us aren’t.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers have long shown themselves too tied to Wall Street. Indeed, one of Warren’s main contributions in recent years is her role as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which investigates the big bank bailout. You need to watch only one YouTube video to see that she isn’t afraid to take on Geithner and to hold him accountable on our behalf.

As one who has long studied and published on consumer spending, debt, and bankruptcy, Professor Warren understands better than Obama’s elite circle the financial challenges facing middle America. She knows the predatory behavior of credit card companies and mortgage lenders and is willing to take them on.

Moreover, she resembles us. A Harvard professor, yes, but she graduated from Houston University and took her law degree from Rutgers. Finally, someone with non-Ivy League degrees. Someone, as she told Newsweek, who has “worried about money from the time [she] was a little kid.”

With her appointment we would finally have someone representing us. Isn’t it about time?