I’ve thought quite a bit about whether I should post this. I have good friends — people whose opinions I respect — who might disagree with some of this. All I can say is that (a) I think this is worth thinking about, and (b) in the end, we’re really on the same side.
————————-
Not so long ago I decided to support Elizabeth Warren. It wasn’t an easy decision for me to make, for a number of reasons. Some of those reasons are undoubtedly shared by others reading this. In any case, I’d like to explain why I came to my decision, and why I think Warren is not only the best candidate, but also deserves our support right now.
I want to talk about two issues: one tactical, and one substantive.
First, the tactical issue:
There is an idea — which I have heard from a number of people — that even though Warren will almost certainly be our nominee, it is a good idea to have a primary at this point because
a) it would sharpen the candidates’ abilities to confront Scott Brown, and
b) a primary might have the effect of broadening Warren’s range of progressive positions.
Actually, I think it’s unlikely to do either of those things. Elections — particularly primary elections — are reported by the press almost exclusively as horse races, devoid of content. It’s very hard to break through that, and to the extent that people even are aware of the primary contest up through September, they will mainly be confronted by a picture of some Democratic candidates who probably differ about something, but what it is may not be so clear. In any case, the focus will definitely not be on Scott Brown; it will be on “gotcha” moments.
Further, while I don’t know of any studies done on statewide races, there is some evidence that primaries on a national level don’t help the ultimate candidate, and in significant cases can weaken that candidate. So simply from the standpoint of beating Scott Brown, it’s not at all clear that having a primary is a winning strategy. Now I don’t think this argument is absolutely conclusive, and there certainly could be other reasons of overriding importance in favor of a primary. But I do think it’s important to understand that purely by itself, a primary is not the best way to go about focusing attention on the defects of Scott Brown, and may well be counter-productive.
One reason a primary can weaken the ultimate candidate is that people quite understandably get invested in their own candidates. It’s true that undoubtedly anyone supporting Marisa DeFranco (for instance) would vote for Elizabeth Warren in the General Election. But I’ve been through enough of these campaigns — both for winning and losing candidates — to know that in the few weeks between the primary in September and the general election in November, it is very hard to overcome the disappointment that is inevitable when one’s candidate loses.
I think it’s better to do that now than to try to do it in September.
Finally, the substantive issue:
I have heard from a number of people that Warren’s positions are thin — that she’s good on some things — even some important things — but that she lacks a broadly progressive platform.
I think there is some truth to this. But I think it’s a very small truth, and it misses a very big point.
The small truth is that although broadly speaking Warren is certainly a progressive, and in fact has spoken out on a range of progressive issues, she naturally speaks mainly to what can seem like a somewhat narrow field of concerns.
The big point this misses is that at this moment in our nation’s history, those concerns are absolutely central to the future of our democracy. And Warren, far from being some sort of neophyte in this area, has demonstrated — more than any other candidate — skill, eloquence and tenacity in fighting for her positions, which, I believe are *our* positions. Here’s what she’s been saying — these are direct quotes:
—————————————
… the largest financial institutions … broke this economy one lousy mortgage at a time. And if we didn’t have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or something like it, someone who cared — some real reform at the household level — then it didn’t matter. Because they’d break it again in another ten years. Maybe next time it would be over credit cards or the next time over student loans. They’d break it again and they’d break it again and they’d break it again. And so I said we’re going to have to do something about it.
….
Here’s the choice that’s in front of our country: We can become a country that says, “I got mine and the rest of you are on your own.” Or we can become a country again that believes in opportunity, that says we’re willing to make the sacrifices to invest in our future.
—————————————
These are not the words of someone who is focused narrowly on “consumer issues”. And even though I subscribe, if I thought that Elizabeth Warren was the “Consumer Reports” candidate, I wouldn’t be writing in support of her. Warren doesn’t talk about “consumer issues”. She consistently frames what she says in the context of social justice and equality of opportunity. She speaks in terms that focus on the fundamental problem in our country today: the justification of greed, the growing disparity in wealth, and the abuse of power that comes of this.
There is no other issue today that even comes close to this one in importance. And not many of the original slate of Democratic candidates even spoke in these terms. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I include among these one whom I was very seriously considering myself.) Elizabeth Warren has not only been tackling this on a national level, but she has shown, and continues to show, that she speaks to this issue in a way that few others can.
For too long we have been a party of well-meaning middle-level managers. People don’t vote for middle-level managers. People vote for those who give them a vision with values and hope. I have a hard time thinking of many other political figures (well, the late Senator Kennedy does come to mind) who were able to speak so effectively in these terms. It’s a rare gift.
It’s been evident to me for some time now that Warren has touched a nerve in people. It’s not just her ideas — it’s her ability to reach people with them that is so rare, so astonishing, and seemingly so natural. Having even one person in the Senate like this, who will speak on a national level on this issue, who will speak in a way that touches and moves people, who can change the national discourse, who will speak eloquently, persuasively, and tenaciously — this is what we need more than anything else today.
This is the issue that to my mind is conclusive. That is why I am supporting Elizabeth Warren. I hope you will as well.
It reads like you walked up to that, but didn’t say it.
I would submit that primaries are always healthy in a democracy. Yes voters get disappointed, but really very few, in my experience, won’t turn around and support the nominee. Generally volunteers are committed Democrats.
n/t
Like the author, I also had my initial reservations about the Elizabeth Warren campaign…
As someone who is deeply concerned about the corrosive effect of money in politics, it was quite difficult for me accept the idea of a progressive candidate at the helm of a well financed political-campaign operation, complete with experienced Beacon Hill lobbyists, inside-the-Beltway cash, fancy Manhattan fundraisers, and all the rest.
But when Elizabeth announced her People’s Pledge with Scott Brown, it gave me an opportunity to put my doubts aside and think more broadly about her platform and all that her campaign represents.
And now, I am happy to report that I too am supporting Elizabeth Warren — and for the past couple of weeks I have also been volunteering with her campaign here in Cambridge. Today, I even helped enlist two new potential delegates who will be participating in the caucus this Saturday!
Why am I now on the bandwagon? The answer is simple: Elizabeth Warren is a fighter for the middle class. And if elected, she will provide a strong, articulate, and truly-progressive voice to the political discourse and debate in the United States Senate!
With Elizabeth Warren as our new Senator, we will have a leader who can always be counted on to stand up for the middle class and speak out against Wall Street greed and the regressive agenda of the Republican Party.
All articulate politicians know how to present their positions on issues in ways that appeal to their audiences. Very few have the added ability to clarify how those positions relate to the bigger picture of where we are as a society. Ted Kennedy, in his later years, had that ability in spades. Elizabeth Warren appears to be the next Ted Kennedy.
Well, I disagree that “there is no other issue today that even comes close to this one in importance,” meaning “the growing disparity in wealth” (which is no small potatoes to this wannabe socialist). It’s what those $ buy that is teh real issue; and I can’t help but be curious as to just what a few of the Texas law firms/PACs contributing heavily to EW are buying. Because it ain’t “reform.”
For this voter, THE top issue is climate change (and sustainability across the board, notably in agriculture). Now, this leads to a circular argument–because that very same wealth divide you cite is in fact buying the power that allows fossil fuel developers and Big Ag to reap the subsidies they do. What I see from DeFranco are well thought out, detailed, and adamant positions on these issues. What I see from Warren is that she sorta likes the idea of renewable ennergy and maybe doesn’t like subsidies to BIg Ag and Big Oil–but to be honest, I can’t tell. (And I’m mistrustful of dollars she receives from law firms whose top clients are in oil.)
I’m not giving her a pass for being VERY “thin” on darn near most issues; she has yet to prove to me that she’s a “progressive.” The school voucher idea suggested in “Two Income Trap,” her stances on civil disobedience, marijuana, IRV, overseas military bases, The People’s Budget, etc. are not inspiring a lot of confidence. Nor is her habit of cancelling debates.
I think you might be fretting a bit much about the effect of a primary. Most of us will be supporting the eventual nominee–anyone who won’t likely won’t be for reasons other than being a sore loser. But I will continue to encourage DeFranco to run, and will work help her meet the requirements for a primary ballot. Have to say that using up energies in an attempt to seal up the corona–err, nomination–right away seems like misdirected energy. You may be more likely to appeal to supporters of other candidates come June/September by giving us the time of day now to attempt to interject those issues with the Warren campaign studiously avoids than by attempting to shut off debate now.
And, by the way, maybe they don’t represent the active voter block you want, but , hey, over here–we’re the LOWER class. And we got problems the middle class doesn’t. I’m frankly bored with Warren and Obama and Romney and Brown chirping endlessly about “the middle class” while their stupid war on drugs wains up incarcerating far too many people of color, to take just one example. Not every voter lives in a suburban cul de sac.
You make several inaccurate assumptions and statements here.
The biggest is your characterization of Warren’s position on climate change. It is much clearer and robust that you imply (“The science is unmistakable: Earth’s climate is changing and human activities are contributing to climate change.”) She’s got a fair amount on her website about that at: http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/investing-in-the-future#energy Warren very clearly supports investment in renewable energy and opposes subsidies (“Washington is going in the wrong direction. It hands out massive tax breaks to energy companies that are among the most profitable corporations in the world, while people in Massachusetts and across the country pay the price. The choice before us is simple. Will we continue to subsidize the dirty fossil fuels of the past, or will we transition to 21st century clean, renewable energy?”)
The there’s the nonsense about the Texas law firms. Warren is a graduate of the University of Houston, taught at the the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83) and the University of Texas School of Law (1981–87). She and her husband Jim (a NASA engineer in Houston) have a lot of personal connections in Texas (particularly to the legal community). Unless you can point to specific law firms (who’s top clients are in oil) who have contributed a lot to Warren, I think your concerns are pretty easily dismissed as contributions from friends (and, like most lawyers, in opposition to “tort reform”).
The other issues you mention are real but relatively minor (even you concede the economy and climate change are much more important). Yes, she’s wrong on marijuana legalization and a little too weak in her support for Occupy movement (but only after millions in vicious attack ads targeted her early expressions of support). Her support for public (not private/religious) school vouchers, I see as more about “school choice” (which I favor) than union-busting (which I don’t). The MTA seems to agree with me on that (having endorsed Warren despite what she wrote in a book nearly a decade ago). The rest of your issues (IRV, “The People’s Budget” and overseas military bases) are very fringe and Warren would be a fool to engage on those no-win and arcane matters.