Energizing progressives for the elections but disappointing them later is eleventy-dimensional chess, requiring deep thought.  (White House photo by Pete Souza)

With Friday’s appointment of Elizabeth Warren as an "adviser" to have input in the shaping and launch of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Tuesday’s rapidly-arranged announcement that Larry Summers will be stepping down as head of the White House National Economic Council and this morning’s suggestion that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel could be resigning before the end of October to pursue the Chicago mayor’s seat, progressives have more reason to be optimistic this week than they have had in quite some time.  But since this President was elected through the hard work of progressives who since then have been largely shut out of his administration and even ridiculed by him and other administration figures, it makes sense to look a little more closely at these events and how they are likely to lead to further disappointments.

In describing Warren’s appointment, the Washington Post led off with how exciting her appointment is for the base of the Democratic Party:

In naming Elizabeth Warren to set up a new consumer protection agency on Friday, President Obama swiftly delighted the liberal base of his party after months of disenchantment.

But caution is advised before assuming that Warren will have all of the authority needed to rein in Wall Street greed when it comes to protecting consumers.  Warren’s new position is a strange hybrid, where she is reporting both to President Obama and to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, despite the fact that the law which created the CFPB allowed for an interim head to be installed prior to the permanent director being submitted for Senate confirmation.  Also note that although Warren was clearly the best candidate to head the agency she originally proposed, Obama put off appointing her until Geithner was able to make the first important decision required under the financial reform bill that created the agency.  Again, from the same Washington Post article:

Geithner on Friday notified fellow regulators that the target date for transferring employees and consumer protection duties from other agencies is July 21, 2011, the one-year anniversary of the signing of the financial overhaul bill. That leaves Warren 10 months to get the agency up and running.

Obama clearly wanted Geithner to make this important decision before Warren was given any real input on the process for setting up the agency.  This move does not bode well despite all of the other assurances in the Post article that Warren will "oversee all aspects" of the bureau.  Astute observers have said that Warren is too smart to have taken this position if she did not have firm assurance of proper authority, but for an administration that even this Post article notes has been accused of favoring "the interests of Wall Street and big business over the middle class", giving Warren such authority would definitely qualify as a huge change of direction.

In describing Summers’ decision to step down, Reuters notes how Summers has disappointed progressives:

But Summers, who will return to his teaching job at Harvard University by the end of the year, has been criticized by some liberal Democrats as too close to Wall Street. There were also a number of reports of clashes on the economic team within the White House.

However, I see no reason for hope in the list of names being circulated as likely successors to Summers. It is clear that Obama will choose a replacement who is just as aligned with Wall Street as Summers (also from the Reuters link):

Some Democrats say Obama should consider tapping someone from outside the administration to fill Summers’ job. Obama has been criticized for having few businesspeople in the senior ranks of his administration. Some have also urged the administration to name more women to the economic team.

Ann Fudge, former chairman and chief executive of Young & Rubicam Brands, Laura Tyson, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, and Summers’ deputies Jason Furman and Diana Farrell are among those who could be considered.

General Electric Chairman Jeffrey Immelt and Richard Parsons, chairman of Citigroup, are among other names that have been have mentioned.

Seriously? The Obama Administration, after the largest ever transfer of funds directly from the US treasury to private businesses and after crafting a huge health care bill that guarantees even bigger profits for health insurance companies, needs to add MORE business people? And, oh yeah, more women. I can see it now. On November 3, after she has lost to Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman will be announced as Summers’ replacement in yet another Obama "bipartisan" move aimed at poking DFH’s in the eye with a sharp stick.

And yes, the thought of Rahm Emanuel moving entirely out of Washington, DC could prompt celebrations among liberals akin to the munchkins’ dancing around the corpse of the wicked witch.  But again, caution is urged until there is reason to believe that someone who will not continue to berate the left as fucking retarded could actually replace him.

So, excuse me please, Mr. Vice President, if I hold off on responding to your insistence last week that I "get in gear" and start helping Democrats in the midterms.   Show me more evidence that Elizabeth Warren won’t be boxed out of real authority and input as she shapes the CFPB.  Show me that Larry Summers’ views will walk out the door with him and that Wall Street won’t be the administration’s only consideration for economic policy.  Show me that progressives will be welcomed into the inner sanctum of ideas and decisions within the administration, and then I’ll show up with my checkbook and my appointment calendar.   Until then, I’m just gonna sit here in neutral and see how well a party can function after it has driven its base out of the picture.