Trying to reduce your party is an interesting tactic for electoral success.

Harold Meyerson does not want you to see that there are (at least) two parties in every transaction.

The problem is that the drift of much of Wall Street toward the Democrats on noneconomic issues coincides with Wall Street’s creation of inscrutable and unregulated investment devices that imperil the entire economy, as the current mortgage crisis makes painfully clear.

It’s exclusively Wall Street’s fault for creating a new financial product with contractual terms that new home buyers willingly agreed to pay? Interesting theory, but what about the portions of Wall Street that entered these crisis-inducing contracts? Are they feeling no pain? On the probably unlikely chance that they are, might that act as an incentive to better think through future innovations? (Excuse me, inscrutable and unregulated investment devices.) At a minimum, might those home buyers now feeling the pain of their financial mistake learn something useful for making the economy work better in the future?

In the context of the essay, which discusses the looming Democratic choice to nominate two SEC commissioners, Meyerson concludes with this:

If the financial industry prevails, it will also leave the Democrats having to answer an awkward question going into the 2008 elections: Why does America need two parties that represent Wall Street?

Probably because all Americans benefit from the economic success created through increased efficiency and innovation offered by Wall Street.