Wall Street and a Political Showdown


Ed Driscoll kicks off an Instapundit post noting the Wall Street panic over the possibility that Donald Trump might actually win the Republican nomination, quoting from a Politico article by Ben White (emphasis Driscoll’s):

The latest frightening broadside for the Wall Street class came on Sunday when Trump said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that executive pay in America is “a complete joke” and promised to raise taxes on “the hedge fund guys.” In a statement sent to POLITICO on Monday from his campaign, Trump relished in the attacks from Wall Street, singling out both Bush and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, another favorite on Wall Street.

At this point, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that the best thing Wall Street can do to help Donald Trump is to be vocal in their fear of him.  As Driscoll goes on to point out, by the time of Barack Obama’s election to the presidency, Wall Street had disconnected itself from both the Republican Party and the American Main Street.

It serves progressives, liberals, and the media (forgive the repetition) to attempt to disguise the fact that the Democrat Party has become the party of the rich investor class (see: Raimondo, Gina), but over the last seven years, vocal observation of that reality has been expanding across the political right and center and the realization thereof is surely quietly permeating much of the left, too.  (A big clue, for some years, has been when the stock market has responded well to bad employment news and badly to good employment news because of the likely effect on the Federal Reserve and interest rates.)

Meanwhile, the Republican establishment has proven itself to be almost completely disinterested in championing conservative causes — or even just Main Street causes — when doing so would involve political risks imposed by the news media and a lawless president.

The political game isn’t even creating the semblance of working for the great majority of taxpayers and voters, so those taxpayers and voters are going to be increasingly willing to take risks with their votes.  Even blowing up the status quo would be preferable to letting the noose continue to tighten.

A wise observer would have some fear that the establishment will respond by rushing for the golden ring of a political system in which there is absolutely zero chance that they can be voted out of power, but for those of us who’ve been watching the slow advance toward that outcome for years, a showdown sooner than later would be a hopeful turn of events.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I think I really began to feel the chill when the media was constantly criticizing the Republicans for “refusing to compromise”. I believe it was Churchill who said “Compromise is the failure of leadership”. If compromise is a goal, rather than a failure, the initial premise is off somewhere. It begins with the idea of “what are we prepared to give up to obtain a result”. As it becomes accepted, it moves to “who do we have to pay off to get this bill”. It encourages “what price can I demand for my consent”. Is this just “politics”? Am I too idealistic?