Elizabeth Warren, Regulator
The 2020 election is not going to be an easy election mentally and emotionally. Opponents of the current administration have been operating in the red zone since the final Electoral College tally was announced three Novembers ago. Supporters of the President, especially online, recognize this vulnerability and are more than happy to exploit it, merrily mashing the meme button and sitting back to enjoy the ensuing anguish. As primary season kicks off and the Democratic field narrows, this is only going to get worse as the number of potential targets narrows.
Elizabeth Warren is a candidate who comes from a non-elite background, a candidate who cares deeply about and understands the struggles of everyday people. She was raised in a working-class family in Oklahoma and both her parents worked, her mother becoming the family’s sole breadwinner when her father suffered a heart attack and lost his job. Warren’s family subsisted on the edge of homelessness.
Nevertheless, Warren persisted and, after a few stops and starts, received her undergrad degree from the University of Houston and her law degree from Rutgers Law School, both public institutions. She spent 30-plus years teaching law at both of her alma maters as well as Texas-Austin, Michigan, Penn, and Harvard. From 1995 until her election to the Senate in 2012, Warren held many key advisory positions on economic and consumer protection matters, serving the Treasury Department, Congress, and President Obama.
Warren continued to champion consumer protection in the Senate. She was selected for a seat on the Senate Banking Committee. Her first bill was the Bank on Student Loans Fairness Act, which proposed that students should receive the same interest rates on their federal loans as banks do on theirs. Warren also earned seats on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Special Committee on Aging.
But how much of this really matters? We know how smart she is. We know that she has plans and ideas for everything. We know she understands the issues we “regular” people face day-to-day. Do we know that she can beat Donald Trump, his legion of basement reddit trolls, and his bastion of Senators who seem, at best, powerless to check him or, at worst, his confederates?
Yes. We do.
Elizabeth Warren is compassionate where he is callous. She will work to reinstate consumer protections rolled back by the current administration and will nominate judges who more closely reflect the ideal of “equal protection under law.”
Elizabeth Warren is humble where he is a braggart. Under Warren, events meant to honor American heroes will do exactly that and not mysteriously morph into vanity events or campaign rallies. Does she even HAVE a twitter account? (Of course she does. You know what I mean.)
Elizabeth Warren is conscious where he is unconscious. She will return grace and dignity to the office of the President and make the White House a place where, for example, a World Cup-winning soccer team won’t refuse to visit.
Elizabeth Warren is intelligent where he is ignorant. She has plans–lots of plans–to restore and strengthen the middle class, protect our democratic processes from foreign (and domestic) interference, restore relationships with our allies, and replace saber-rattling and posturing with diplomacy as the go-to foreign policy initiative.
Elizabeth Warren is courageous where he is a coward. When it comes to standing up and standing for what she believes in, she’s without fear, unintimidated by those in power who tell her “you can’t” or “you won’t.” Gone will be the days where our news cycle is inundated with yet another keyboard ad hominem authored by our Chief Executive as he cozies up to dictators at the expense of our long-term allies.
The answer to the question, “Who are you voting for?” is clear: It’s Warren E, and she’s here to Regulate.
I have two issue with Warren mostly… one general and one specific.
The general one is that the Republican Party Machine sucks at pretty much everything but the thing that it does *NOT* suck at is defeating Northeastern Liberals. Elizabeth Warren is the most Northeastern Liberal that has Northeastern Liberalled since the last one they threw at us. Clinton, I think it was.
The specific one is that Elizabeth Warren doesn’t seem to have good instincts. We kinda got into that here and here. (Ooooh! Going through the comments, I see that I got permission to post recipes! Here’s Mama’s Biscuits.)
It was the evolution of “HA! IN YOUR FACE, TRUMP! GIMME A MILLION DOLLARS!” to “why are we still talking about this?” in the space of 12 hours that had me saying “holy crap, that was dumb”.
Moving from a triumphant position of victory in the morning to issuing an apology to Native Americans everywhere before suppertime.
Hey. Anybody can make a mistake. But we moved from a triumphant announcement to “everybody knows that she was cauterizing a self-inflicted wound” in a friggin’ day.
And that tells me that she doesn’t know how to read the room.
And *THAT* gets me to suspect that she’s going to be Just Another Northeastern Liberal that the Republican Party Machine defeated.Report
Those are your objections?
Really?
The first one is the baseball Trend Fallacy (The Cubs have never won the pennant, so therefore they will not win the pennant this year);
And the other is Sophistry (She is not good at political manipulation) which is self-negating. If she was not actually good at politics we wouldn’t be discussing her as a viable presidential candidate.
And are you really sure you find nothing else objectionable about her? She is a veritable fountain of policy proposals, and you don’t object to any of them? Really?Report
“If she was not actually good at politics we wouldn’t be discussing her as a viable presidential candidate.”
haw. “talking about how it’s pointlessly silly to even talk about her IS STILL TALKING ABOUT HER, CHECKMATE MOTHAFOCKA“Report
Yeah, mostly, I have two issues with Warren. One is general (and, thus, could apply to more people than just her) and one is specific to her.
These are both issues that strike me as reasons that she wouldn’t win in the election.
(My objections to her proposed tax rates should probably be assumed but I see no reason to see them as interesting.)
So you say that both of my objections are fallacious? Fair enough.
I imagine that I will be eating a lot of crow when she gets nominated and goes on to win the election.Report
Yes, I guess that is the worst possible outcome of a pivotal election is that one might have to sheepishly eat crow.Report
I don’t know. I think that establishing that people who have concerns need to keep them to themselves and then having the candidate lose and everybody being surprised by it might be a worse one.Report
I’ll happily vote for Warren if she’s nominated, but I agree with Williamson that white papers and technocratic plans aren’t going to defeat Trump in 2020. My complaint of her candidacy isn’t that *she’s* doing anything wrong, but instead that there’s something wrong with the party and layered up legislation isn’t the solution.Report
She doesn’t strike me as *THAT* exciting of a candidate to vote for… but I imagine that she will actually go to Wisconsin at least once and Michigan a handful of times and maybe even Pennsylvania even more than that and, really, that’s all she needs to do to win because I think that the only state that went Clinton last time that might go Trump this time is New Hampshire and there are a half dozen states that went Trump last time that might swing D this time.
And all she has to do is do JUST A LITTLE BIT better than Clinton did to win them.Report
Well sure. I don’t disagree, but I am a little confused. Weren’t you just implying to Chip that you think she’ll *lose* the general election?Report
I was saying, not implying, that I have two concerns with Warren.
I suspect that, if Warren loses, it’ll be related to my two concerns (and that she’ll have lost two of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to get there).
But we’re a year out.
Now one thing that I said in the Harris thread is something that applies to *ALL* democratic candidates: you only have to do better than Clinton.
The question then comes as to whether it is possible to do better than Clinton and, if so, which candidate is likely to be best at being better than Clinton.
And whether it’s Biden.Report
Now one thing that I said in the Harris thread is something that applies to *ALL* democratic candidates: you only have to do better than Clinton.
Maybe I”m naive. but it seems to me the nominee has to do better than Trump.Report
Hee hee.
That’s a fun wrinkle but are there any among us willing to believe that Trump is stronger today than he was in 2016?
He’s not. He can’t be.
We have to assume that he’s exactly as awful today as he was then and the only problem is turnout.Report
“Clam down everyone. I didn’t beat Trump, but I *did* improve on Clinton’s popular vote total!”Report
This is a serious concern and you do well to bring it up.
But, I think, there are nominees that will make it so we don’t have to worry about this.
I don’t think that Warren is one of them, though.Report
“But, I think, there are nominees that will make it so we don’t have to worry about this. I don’t think that Warren is one of them, though.”
Well, THAT can certainly be taken in more than one way!Report
If 2016 assumptions about how awful Trump was were correct, Clinton would’ve been 50 points ahead in the polls…Report
I believe he is stronger in 2020. I don’t see how you could think otherwise.
He has all the experience he gained from the prior election. He has had time to work on improving his image and many of his disadvantages from prior election. He now has all sorts of executive power levers he can pull when it suits him. (eg I suspect the timing of the list 4 tariff was influenced by the Democratic debates.)
As things stand, I expect Trump to win. From the arguments he is lining up to the arguments team blue is lining up, it does not look likely to go well for the eventual avatar of team blue. A major change in something would be needed to alter this outcome.Report
Events, my dear boy. Events.Report
Yes. Easily.
He doesn’t have “never Trump”, they’ve left or shut up.
He’s the safe, known candidate. We haven’t had any new wars. He’s not pulling out nukes.
He has the power of the Presidency to use to put his thumb on the scale. One example of that would be the Fed lowering interest rates (say, right now) to goose the economy right before the election.
He has the power of the Presidency to focus attention on himself. That’s Billions of dollars of free media.
His campaign will attract serious, comitent people much earlier because it’s obvious that he can be President.
He’s experienced. He was brand spanking new at running a campaign last time.
He has more money.
He has more connections.
He’s shown that he’ll keep his word with the various elements of the GOP. Guns!, God!, Moats!, and Money! are all behind him.
He doesn’t have a lot of the flaws he did last time. No one is going to mistake him for not being serious or claim it’s impossible for him to win.
The Dems are weaker this time. They’re not united, 20 Dem candidates spit the nomination. Worse, thus far the Dems are running on… racism and Trump-is-vile. Ya, ya, death camps will be set up soon… something like that.
He’s Fun and Interesting. He runs the Presidency as a reality show.Report
She’s an Oklahoman liberal Jaybird. So, not even close.Report
Good points, both. I don’t know that a single own-goal demonstrates a trend toward putting the ball in your own net–even the best players occasionally make mistakes. If she’s the nominee the “Native American ancestry” thing is going to come up, but since it seems to be something that only really plays to Trump’s audience, I don’t know how much of a response it’ll require from her.
I think maybe the biggest obstacle to the Republican Party Machine carrying out it’s programming might be the incumbent himself. I could see him having difficulty reigning in his id long enough to let the machine do it’s thing.Report
I also wrote a post endorsing Warren. My split is honestly between Harris and Warren. The things that make me a little hesitant for Warren are her age and that a Republican governor will pick her Senate replacement if she wins.
Despite what Jaybird claims above, she is quite good at the stump and speaking to crowds.
What is interesting to me is how many people are still stuck in this Reaganite mindset because they came of political awareness when Reagan ruled the earth and could do no wrong.Report
Ironically, I see Warren as a Reaganesque figure. She is able to take ideas that are thought to be too radical but communicate them in folksy, nonthreatening ways.
Like you, I am torn between her and Harris, but they both seem to really grasp the stakes at play in this historical moment in a way that Biden just doesn’t.Report
I admit to being a little unclear on what you mean by a “Reaganite mindset.” Are you referring to Jaybird’s “Republican Party Machine?”Report
I think people tend to overlearn political lessons. They generally learn these lessons when they are young like their teens or twenties. Maybe their thirties. The lesson revolves around whatever the zeitgeist of that time was.
Right now, there are lots of people who came of political age during the late 1970s and 80s. This causes a lot of them to think that government is always the problem and the solution to everything is deregulate, deregulate, deregulate. This is something they will keep until they die.
Relatedly, the big fight in the Democratic Party right now is from an old guard that remember bleeding defeats during the 1980s and 90s and overlearned the mantra of the DLC vs. a young guard that remembers the Great Recession as their defining political moment.
There are seemingly lots of voters out there who think Trump is a disaster but their Reagan lessons kick in and they can’t bring themselves to vote Democratic just yet.Report
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I was a teen in the 80’s and active duty during the 90’s, and I was a low-information voter who couldn’t understand why anyone in the military would ever vote anything but Republican. Then I met people with differing political views and I went overseas and experienced cultures and people who were not American and, while my views maybe didn’t change, seeds were planted and doors were opened.
All that to say I’m trying to figure out what political lessons I may have overlearned and it’s difficult because I’ve flip-flopped and changed my mind and rejected and adopted so many different things that maybe I’m just a massive jumble of internalized life experiences and dad jokes.Report