The Warren Report
  
Is Elizabeth Warren positioned to finally sink, once and for all, Hillary Clinton's
presidential aspirations; to deprive her of the historical first she clearly
desires?
By RAR
These
days Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is using this pester and challenge: "All
they need to take the Senate is for you to do nothing."
They,
of course, are the Senate Republicans and you, of course, are responsible for
whatever awfulness may transpire if you don't send funding to the Democratic
party to turn back the evil tide of predatory conservatism.
One
suspects, in a world of not terribly deep thinkers, that Republican
identification with the word "conservative" is probably their
checkmate move, at least until the left can come up with more compelling
branding for itself. One suspects that association with the notion of being
"conservative" is part of why Republicans continue to
exist in a world in which the north star for their policy decisions is so
decidedly not that of the majority of Americans. Still, a majority of Americans
do see themselves as "conservative" - that is, after all, the responsible adult
way to be - and men, in particular, will tend to vote for the conservative
brand, policy details aside.
Democrats have been disastrously tied to the word "liberal", which gained
negative weight over time with the development of morality-based
politics. The Republicans conflated the word liberal with libertine
through a sustained attack on "Hollywood" and "San Francisco values", which
strengthened conservative aversion to liberals even as they imbibed of the same
sordid culture. Still, versus the power of the conservative identity, the
liberals opted for a "progressive" change in their own branding.
The
liberal-conservative distinctions that weighed so misfortunately upon modern
U.S. Democrats - the policy focus of the two parties has shifted diametrically
over time - has its roots in the seating plan for the French National Assembly
during the French Revolution. As it assembled for the first time in 1789, the
supporters of the King of France sat to the President's right, and the
supporters of the revolution sat to his left.
There
you have the established elite on the right wing of the hall, the seekers of
change on its left. Over time the positions of those resisting change came to be
referenced as "conservative" - conserving the status quo - and their
counterparts on the left as "liberals" - willing to replace the established
order.
So, by
accident of history and language development, some politicians were tarred with
the term liberal, and so the dye was cast. For decades Republicans would be able
to get people who valued considering themselves as thoughtful conservatives to
vote against their own interests. On the other side of the aisle, liberals felt
like they were dirty, possibly perverted, and so they went for the more hopeful
distinction: progressive. This was good, but probably good too late, and
probably not quite as good anyway as being cautious and conservative. In
fact, in attempting to spin a political persuasion in a positive, but not too
threatening light, being a progressive makes one sound like a lightweight taker
of baby steps. And in that bit of wishy-washiness there is lost the important
distinction between what one side represents versus what is represented by the
other.
In
fact, that is part of why it has been so hard to distinguish Republicans from
Democrats, even including their policies. One should remember that smoke and
pother aside, the Affordable Care Act, the signature achievement of the
Democratic Obama administration, is a Republican plan. It is profoundly
conservative in the French National Assembly sense of things, designed
entirely to keep the King and his elite supporters in charge; or, in the case of
the healthcare system in the U.S., to make sure that the insurance and existing
healthcare conglomerates remain in charge. It is unclear why a progressive or
any other kind of Democrat would want to do that. (See the article in this issue
on the healthcare industry.)
Amid
all of this slime and weasel talk there strides Elizabeth Warren, the
progressives' last best hope for a turnaround in the downward arc of America's
good fortunes; that is, unless one considers Hillary Clinton to be an avatar of
progressive change. She will need to get through the primaries first, which may
be a challenge if Elizabeth Warren is in the field. That means she will need to
run as a progressive in the primaries, and a conservative in the general
election if she wins the nomination of her party. At this point in her career,
it is difficult to know if Hillary Clinton has enough credentials remaining to
be considered a progressive. If she doesn't, the U.S. is right back in that grey
area where it is difficult to distinguish the actual legislation from one party
against that of the other, e.g., the Affordable Care Act.
Democrats seem to believe that they are fighting some battle that they really
are not. If there were real distinctions between what they and the Republicans
represent, the Keystone Pipeline would be a dead deal, there would be a
universal health care program for all Americans, the big financial companies
would not only be in check but many of their leading executives would be behind
bars. None of that is happening and that is part of why the odd voice of
Elizabeth Warren cuts through the otherwise white noise.
It was
Bill Clinton and his administration that allowed the Glass-Steagal Act to be
killed, which allowed banks to use invested assets on risky, speculative
ventures. It was Lawrence Summers who rammed through the Wall Street-friendly
deregulations that created the disastrous housing bubble that developed during
the G.W. Bush administration. Incredibly, Barack Obama just attempted to
nominate Summers to Treasury Secretary, an insult of such egregious proportions
that his nomination eventually had to be jettisoned. Still, it tells one a lot
about where the Democratic party is at under Obama, which is to say well to the
political right.
Hillary
Clinton's claim to fame in her political life has been that she is a congenial
schmoozer, but she has little in the way of accomplishments to show, either from
her Senate years or her time as Secretary of State. If she runs for the
presidency carrying the weight of having to explain her own slim record while
also defending that of her husband regarding his roll in America's financial
decline, she will likely have a problem.
Clinton
was not an effective candidate in 2008, when she was taken out by the upstart
Obama. The electorate has changed immensely since then, and will have changed
more by 2016. There are more minority voters and more young people who cannot
find livable wage jobs. The populist Warren, who has even less experience at
brokering deals than Clinton, will likely speak to those minority and young
voters with greater authority than will Hillary, who is now firmly entrenched in
the old school political system. She is one of the old boys at a time when the
country probably needs some dynamic populist who has the wherewithal to effect
change and make positive things happen - the ones desired by the majority of
Americans according to most polls. People want the rich to pay more taxes and
for the financial industry to be reigned in. They want troops out of distant
lands and they want the oil companies and large agricultural operations to
reduce their manufacturing of greenhouse gases. They want free and fair
elections, and reasonable control of firearms.
Elizabeth Warren has expressed no interest in running for the presidency in
2016. She would reveal broad fissures in the Democratic party if she does get
into the race. Those may be enough to finally deny Hillary Clinton a chance at
history, but Warren herself seems unlikely to except the torch of leadership
after eight years of a failed Democratic administration. She may seem a little
squeaky versus the immense challenges that will face the U.S. by the next
presidential election day.
112613
|
