President should appoint Warren
for practical and political reasons

Professor Elizabeth Warren

Obama’s reluctance leads us to wonder if he’s up-ended because the person he’d prefer doesn’t exist: President Clinton didn’t have a financial industry watchdog drawn from the financial industry that the financial industry was OK with.

Probably further complicating matters for the president is that when he names someone, his appointee will be approved whole or not at all. Throwing out some pieces of the person in hopes of winning a few Republican or conservative Democratic senators’ votes isn’t an option.

Beyond stalling in the face of Americans’ clear need for a passionate, dedicated leader in this new post, Obama risks turning off, yet again, those who should be his most active, ardent supporters, as economist Paul Krugman explains.

The debate over financial reform, in which the G.O.P. has taken the side of the bad guys, should be a political winner for Democrats. Much of the reform, however, is deeply technical: “Maintain the requirement that derivatives be traded on public exchanges!” doesn’t fit on a placard.

But protecting consumers, ensuring that they aren’t the victims of predatory financial practices, is something voters can relate to. And choosing a high-profile consumer advocate to lead the agency providing that protection — someone whose scholarship and advocacy were largely responsible for the agency’s creation — is the natural move, both substantively and politically. Meanwhile, the alternative — disappointing supporters yet again by choosing some little-known technocrat — seems like an obvious error.

So why is this issue still up in the air? Yes, Republicans might well try to filibuster a Warren appointment, but that’s a fight the administration should welcome.

O.K., I don’t really know what’s going on. But I worry that Mr. Obama is still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship, while his aides dislike the idea of having to deal with strong, independent voices. And the end result of this game-playing is an administration that seems determined to alienate its friends.

One fellow Democrat especially well qualified to guide Obama’s choice has taken pains to do just that, contacting the White House directly and appearing on MSNBC not once, but at least twice, urging Warren’s appointment.

On Rachel Maddow’s July 28 show, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, held nothing back in endorsing Warren.

She‘s a very savvy political operator. We have this unfortunate view that if you are passionately idealistic and committed to a set of views, then you somehow must be unrealistic. And if you are someone who‘s hardheaded and understands how to work the political process, then you must be someone without values. That‘s a terrible division.

In fact, if you are idealistic, then you, it seems to me, are morally obligated to be pragmatic, because otherwise, your ideals will never get to help anybody, and Elizabeth Warren is an example of that.

I had a wonderful experience working with her. I met her when we started out on this. I was glad to be her ally in getting this established. And throughout the process, she was sensible and thoughtful and effective. We worked very closely together.

So the notion that somehow because she cares so much, she couldn‘t do this effectively is exactly wrong.

Krugman and Frank are exactly right. So is Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, who has spoken enthusiastically on radio and TV in favor of Warren.

Mr. President, this time forget trying to appease your cynical foes who can’t be appeased. Draw your allies together, give Warren the nod, then all of you go to the country, telling the public why she’s the best choice, insisting she be given the chance to serve. Make it an election-year issue, giving it all you’ve got.

That way, even if you lose, you come off as a determined Democratic leader who’s not afraid of a fight when the people’s best interests are at stake.