Next up: Elizabeth Warren
16/6/14 15:27![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
During a recent conversation, I have heard two diametrically opposite views on Elizabeth Warren and her prospects of running for president:
1) "The only thing that can stop Hilary Clinton becoming president is... Elizabeth Warren."
2) "I just don't see Warren viable this election cycle. She would certainly splinter the base and threaten any attempt to retake control of the House."
This has made me curious. So I investigated a little further.
First of all, who's Elizabeth Warren? And who needs to know? First and foremost, all "patients" who have been stung by bank(ster)s reaching into their pockets in one form or another, and then getting away with it (and even using taxpayer bailout money to distribute bonuses among their staff for a "job well done" in tanking the global financial system).
No doubt, Wall Street is somewhat concerned about Elizabeth Warren now being present in the federal Senate. She was a main factor for the creation of the federal institution that is entrusted with the task of protecting customers in the financial sphere, and now her election for Senator would certainly stimulate her desire to introduce banking reform and new rules in the banking loans system. She has focused on three points: 1) usury; 2) profiteering through deception and fraud; 3) the role of rules in any system, particularly the banking system, and the importance of respecting those rules - and the role of the state as the institution that defines those rules, and subsequently enforces them. Yes, she is a "big government" believer if we are to use the typical conservative talking-point terminology - but a government that genuinely serves its people, not its elites.
And as such, I believe she has no chance of becoming president. Sadly. Either she will be promptly squashed under the weight of the system, or she will rather enter the system, figure that the only way to try to reform it is to join it and play by its rules (which are often dirty) - and will eventually be compelled to start making compromises with her principles, which will ultimately dilute her mission, and thus doom it to failure.
Apart from that, it is truly remarkable how Ms Warren has focused a lot of hopes and expectations upon herself, which is indicated by the 40 million dollars that her campaign managed to garner, mostly through small private donations. This indeed speaks of an overwhelmingly grassroots character of her base (as opposed to the Koch-style super-PAC conglomerates), although there have been progressive PACs that have contributed to her campaign as well. In a way, she may remind of the "early Obama", the community organiser who used to enthrall the public, and inspire them to get involved in politics.
Her main weapon is her honesty and the firmness of her principles. She believes that a set of clear and transparent rules are what would level the game between the vastly powerful banking sector and ordinary American families. The problem is, DC does not tolerate such sort of politicians, and tends to find ways to tear them apart, chew them, and finally spit them out, utterly wasted and defeated - or conversely, transformed into something their original supporters would be disgusted from. And I'm talking of both parties here, because, from the perspective of the 99% and the 1%, they are both part of the establishment. And the elite would not relinquish its stranglehold on the political process, and hence, its dominion on society.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 14:38 (UTC)Meaning, although the albino bird is usually considered to be good omens, the arrival of a single bird doesn't mean spring has come, i.e. you need many more specimens of that species in order to make a difference.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 16:28 (UTC)...Just kidding. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 21:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 21:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 22:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 23:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 04:25 (UTC)Much of what has happened can be traced to this letter.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 07:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 16:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 21:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 21:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 22:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 22:29 (UTC)Now, whether Warren is showing even a little bit of knowledge in her activity in the Senate is a different discussion. I'm personally ashamed she's my Senator.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 22:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 23:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 22:57 (UTC)The difference is Obama is a centrist. That does make me like his political positions less, but it allows him to win. Also he had a phenomenal way of motivating people. Maybe Warren will pull that out somehow, but I don't see it right off.
Also she was born in Oklahoma City, and that immediately makes me think she hiding some deep defect.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 02:29 (UTC)But here is Vote View's report on that topic in April of 2008 (http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm) using the DW-NOMINATE system. And according to Vote View, Obama is the most centrist president since LBJ.
More here. (http://voteview.com/blog/?p=735)
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 22:42 (UTC)See an anarchist like me finds myself wondering why, if you really, truly see that this is how the political system in the U.S. currently works, you dont go outside of it completely. This is the kind of thinking that led Occupy to embrace its diverse range of non and even antipolitical actions. From this perspective we can't win from inside the system through reforming it--it is designed to prevent this. Thus large-scale political, social and economic changes are necessary and the only thing which can gain the kind of momentum and staying power needed are autonomous mass movements. Or at least that's how i see it.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 23:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 03:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 03:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 21:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 22:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/14 00:38 (UTC)There's no reason why a minority should have the right to control the majority of resources which EVERYONE needs and use that control to get us to obey them, work for them, etc. It should be shared by everyone.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 04:22 (UTC)/snark :P
Actually, I think it has more to do with people either don't like tax, or view politicians as only a step above child molesters, but love the government doing stuff. People like roads.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 04:35 (UTC)Also some very smart people are anarchists, like Noam Chomsky for example, so it's more than just a teenage fairy tail.
(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 23:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/6/14 23:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 04:35 (UTC)Other than that, yup (http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim).
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 07:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 21:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 14:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 21:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/14 06:37 (UTC)