Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Political blame game: Never let a good crisis go to waste

Political blame game: Never let a good crisis go to waste

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks to a reporter outside of the Senate Chambers during a vote in the U.S. Capitol Building on March 14, 2023 in Washington, DC. Senators return to session this week amidst the government reaction to the closing of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Last week, I wrote an op-ed in The Fulcrum entitled, “Learning to recognize political rhetoric.”


In that writing I spoke of how our elected representatives thrive on the red meat rhetoric they throw out to their base to score political points, rather than attempting to govern. Unfortunately, it is often much easier for them to make statements that generate a strong emotional response from voters instead of intelligently debating the difficult choices our country faces.

Well, our elected representatives certainly proved my proposed theory in their reaction to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB).

And of course, those on the left played the same blame game as those on the right but approached it from opposite angles. I realized while writing this op-ed that if I started by criticizing a Democrat, I may be labeled as another right-winger protecting business interests and some people might not finish reading my writing. Alternatively, if I began by criticizing a Republican, I’d instead be considered a left-winger anti-business Woke capitalist.

Sort of heads you win and tails I lose, but what the heck…. I flipped a coin anyway to determine where to begin.

On the left before the dust had settled, Elizabeth Warren accused Jerome Powell of dangerous practices that helped to cause the bank's failure. Really? How come the failure at this juncture has been limited to one bank whose customer base and practices certainly don’t represent most regional banks in America?

Senator Warren followed up with writing an op-ed in The New York Times announcing that “We Know Who Is Responsible” by claiming that the “recent bank failures are the direct result of leaders in Washington weakening the financial rules.” Wait a minute–now I’m really confused. If Congress weakened the rules, why is Jerome Powell responsible? He’s not a member of Congress.

Oddly, Senator Warren in the same op-ed goes on to blame flawed management of risk by rich SVB executives which further confuses me as to who is responsible.

And not to be outdone, Republicans have added to the pejorative language using their recent favorite code word: “Woke” by blaming the entire failure on “Woke Capitalism.” Hey, why not use the term Woke and apply it to anything you don’t like since it seems to work in raising the emotions of their base to disparage and dismiss anything related to a civil discussion on justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the master of using culture wars to his political advantage, jumped into the fray immediately blaming diversity initiatives for the banks downfall and calling for renewed scrutiny of banks.

Desantis told Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo: “This bank, they’re so concerned with DEI and politics and all kinds of stuff, I think that really diverted from them focusing on their core mission.”

As a purely political move his unfounded comments make total sense to a political observer. Find an easy target like a bank located in Silicon Valley that happens to be located on the left coast (as he loves to say) who God forbid provides funding to innovative investing in Woke ESG, and is predominantly owned by entrepreneurs who are far more left leaning then right leaning and you have a perfect mix for meaningless blame game rhetoric.

Add to this the fact that DeSantis in 2017 strongly argued for easing restrictions on banks when it was politically convenient for him to do so. However, now that the given bank in question presents a political opportunity, why not totally change your previous position. Makes total political sense to me.

And by the way he went on to say. “Let's not politicize this.”

And of course Fox News has joined the frenzy:

"Like everything else in our age, the obsession is not to do with expertise. It is to do with this madness of the so-called D.E.I. project," Fox News contributor Douglas Murray said on "Fox & Friends" last Wednesday. "And if we don't learn from this, if banking sectors and others don't learn from this, I don't know when we will."

Unfortunately, sounder minds sometimes prevail and let’s hope that is the case now.

I have an MBA in Finance and consider myself well versed in complicated financial matters but my eyes glazed over as I investigated the cause of SLV’s collapse given the complexity of banking financial statements, government regulations, and duration risk analysis. So I understand that most Americans prefer to listen to sound bites they hear on the news or even worse through social media from people they may already agree with on other issues.

The fact is that businesses become insolvent all the time, but unlike most business banks hold your money. For this reason, and given the implications for the entire economy if Americans all rush to the exits simultaneously, the federal government insures all deposits up to $250,000. But what happens if a majority of depositors have more than $250,000 deposited? Should the Treasury Department make an exception? Should the Treasury Department use taxpayers dollars to save an institution who has bad business practices? And if they do so should they make sure that none of the stockholders profit from the collapse, and if so how do you do that? These are very complex questions indeed that call for our elected officials to stop the blame game and use some critical unbiased thinking to find the best solution for our economy, as well as the American public.

We will continue to have our share of crises in America but unfortunately one of our most looming is a leadership crisis. Unless something changes when the next crisis emerges so will the dishonesty, misleading statements, and the demonization of opponents that are all used to serve a political interest.

As the old adage says: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

This approach is totally understandable since it works so well and certainly much easier than seeking the truth by analyzing new information, allowing the data and circumstances to lead one to the proper conclusion.

It is up to us to see through the charade or nothing will ever change. The Greek philosopher Plato was so right when said many years ago:

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.

I’m tired of being punished. We must demand a new responsible political system focused on making the tough decisions regardless of whether it appeals to one's base or not.


Read More

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less
Automobiles wait in line to cross the São Sebastião Channel in Brazil

Automobiles wait in line to cross the São Sebastião Channel in Brazil

Hugo Balta

How a Brazilian Island's Automation Model Offers a Blueprint for Overwhelmed U.S. Hotspots

Hugo Balta is currently reporting from Brazil, exploring how the country's efforts to strengthen democracy, expand civic participation, and address environmental challenges may hold valuable insights for the United States.

For decades, some of the world's most popular ecotourism destinations have faced a simple but persistent challenge: a relatively small local tax base must support infrastructure and environmental protection for millions of visitors. When tourism costs fall disproportionately on residents, roads, sanitation systems, and natural resources can become strained. Increasingly, governments are addressing that imbalance through "user-pays" conservation fees that shift a portion of those costs to travelers.

Keep ReadingShow less