Elizabeth Warren has a video debunking of the right’s “class warfare” cries that’s going viral. Here’s the money quote:
I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is…” whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
This is the point, I think, where as a member of the Progressive Choir I’m supposed to leap to my feet and shout AMEN. But instead, for some reason, I just get depressed.
For one thing, this is such an obvious restatement of John Donne that it makes me wonder how far our understanding of human societies has backslid since 1624, and in particular how pervasive the individualist myth has become in American politics and culture (and by extension, the world’s) that so many people see Warren’s riff as noteworthy.
But this also wouldn’t have gone viral if it were a Senate candidate from, say, Missouri or New Mexico. But it’s Elizabeth, who many progressives seem to idolize with a zeal far outstripping her actual accomplishments or resume. And I wonder about that. Warren’s popularity as an obscure academic-turned-financial-regulatory-bureaucrat underscores just how little influence and how few advocates progressive politics have in DC. Progressives (as distinct from Democrats) are a long ways from a majority in this country, but they’re a significant segment of Americans, and they’re badly underrepresented in Washington because of media bias and how corrupt our political process is.
After the uninspiring disaster that was Martha Coakley, I’m sure a firebrand like Warren seems like a godsend to many Massachusetts Democrats. But outside that specific circumstance – a state with a long tradition of progressive politics, a recent disaster with a moribund machine politician, a national constituency of fawning progressive fanboys and fangirls – how viable is someone like Warren running for higher office? How many progressives are there in, say, the US Senate? Depending on your definition, maybe half a dozen?
The upshot is that when I see the national popularity of Warren, I mostly notice how few people in actual elected office there are for progressives to point to and say, “She (or he) says what I think.” And when I see the popularity of this particular video, I mostly wonder when it was that this ceased being such a painfully self-evident riff that nobody would give it a second thought.
Your reaction is different from mine in this particular case, but it reflects how I felt about Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson, and even to a degree, Eric Massa. The latter two I met in person and was, in both cases, enormously unimpressed. But they liked to be bombastic. And their sheer partisanship fulfilled a thirst. Progressives are dying of thirst. They will elevate anyone who gives them a drink onto a pedestal. That’s part of the reaction to Warren.
But I where I differ is that she’s not all show. She’s not bombastic. She’s a rare talent. She potentially a worthy heir to Kennedy’s seat. She’s no yapping dog.
I’m not sure what Grayson did to become polarizing one way or the other (I assume it involves something being said about the President?), or why I seem to be an outlier for having no opinion on him whatsoever, but I did think “Don’t get sick. If you do get sick, die quickly.” to be a pithy and accurate summation of GOP health care policy.
Probably wouldn’t be warmly received on Meet the Press though…
People are (
s)elected or not (s)elected to important political offices by the media, Booman. The media decide who will win, and then they paint a picture accordingly. I fear that Ms. Warren will not be (s)elected because she threatens the kleptocracy’s status quo, and the first sign of her non-(s)election will be various mainstream media picturing her as a severe, scolding, uppity, post-menopausal woman.Watch.
The (
s)election verdict is not quite in yet…it ain’t in until the fat grey lady Dem (s)elector (otherwise known as the NY Times) sings, but if that is the picture that is drawn…she is toast. Even if the so-called liberal media (half-heartedly) “endorse” her, it’s the picture…the image…that counts.So far, this is her dominant (and I do mean “dominant”) media image.
Not a good sign for Ms. Warren’s Senatorial prospects. Not a good sign at all.
So it goes.
The American public will not vote for someone pictured as a political dominatrix.
Bet on it.
Once again…it’s in the media’s court.
Here come de judge!!!
Watch.
AG
The attempt to bury her with snide sexism is inevitable. If she and her campaign are competent, they see this coming.
I think it has the potential to backfire. Badly.
What the … ? This is rather farfetched. If anything, Warren comes across as very mild-mannered. If you must have a dominatrix, go look for somebody else.
It’s not “who she is,” Sophie, it’s how she is presented.
Had the majority of the corporate, PermaGov owners of the media chosen to picture Barack Obama as a glib, upward-climbing black man who has compromised himself to the top…not so far-fetched, on the evidence of the last several years…he quite simply would not be President of the Untied States today. Bet on it.
Had Howard Dean been presented as a passionate, intelilgent man of the people instead of a vacillating, emotionally out of control flake and John Kerry as an upward-marrying Senatorial hustler instead of some far-fetched war hero, the outcome of that race would have been different, too.
That’s the way it works here in the United States of Omertica. Deal wid it.
Go google the available images of Elizabeth Warren. Any number of them picture her as someone’s nice mommy/wife who just happens to be smarter than hell. Are you going to see those mages on network news or in the newspapers/magazine/web opinion makers?
Not so far, at least not any that as I have seen. Not a one. And I’ve been watching, because I am very interested in how the trancemedia do their dirty work.
Hmmmm…
AG
I would sure like to know where this got started:
“Had Howard Dean been presented as a passionate, intelligent man of the people . . . “
If you look at Dean’s record as Governor he falls squarely in middle if not in some cases conservative. He repeatedly cut the budget for the poor and disabled when he was governor in attempt to balance the budget.
With all due respect to the power of the corporate media, Howard Dean (a fiscally conservative, moderate governor) lost the Iowa caucuses (and lost badly) before “the scream” became a fixture on national political television for the week following the Iowa caucuses.
The corporate media and the Democratic Establishment worked in tandem for months to marginalize Dean prior to the Iowa Caucuses. I didn’t start with The Scream.
In fact, his inability to win over the media convinced me he would never have a chance in the general. I agree with AG about the dangers to Warren’s campaign. The knives will be out. Scott Brown is a regular guy with a pickup truck. Warren is a school marm. She has to overcome that.
Yup.
Precisely.
Thank you…
AG
Not everyone is as huggable as Amy Klobuchar, but Warren looks pretty freaking normal for me. She’s not running in Oklahoma.
My reaction to Warren is different from my reaction to the reaction to her, if that makes sense. I certainly don’t think of her as an empty suit or someone who speaks to hear herself speak (coughAlanGraysoncough) I have a lot of respect for her and for her accomplishments. My point is that they wouldn’t ordinarily be accomplishments that would make her a cause celebre on the left, were it not for the dearth of other such voices and the radical shift rightward that’s been effected in our “mainstream” political culture.
I hear you.
What I’ve found depressing is that (let me put this carefully) that the few white progressives in Congress have tended to be grandstanding buffoons (Kucinich, Grayson, Weiner) who make progressive ideas seem fringe without the media having to do any work at all.
The progressive movement in this country is mostly urban and, as a result, most elected progressives are people of color. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you have a progressive blogosphere that is dominated by white, highly-educated, cosmopolitan, and secular folks. And they have almost no one in Congress representing them.
That’s why I like Sherrod Brown so much. It’s why I like Harkin. But I’ll take Warren in a heartbeat because she actually represents my values and my worldview without being a jackass about it.
]One of the reasons I like to emphasize that the progressive movement is dominated by people of color is because its true (especially in the Halls of Congress) and that the CBC and CHC and the CAC and the Progressive Caucus have different values than, say, Matt Stoller, David Sirota, and Jane Hamsher.
I like Warren precisely because she’s nothing like Grayson.
Agreed, Booman. And she is a natural, political talent. This I didn’t know from the times I’d seen her testifying to Congress, where she more than held her own. It was when she launched her campaign and got out on the stump. She relishes it, and she has a conviction that’s almost always missing. Not the blowhard Grayson/Weiner variety that alienates as many people as it delights, a deep, human conviction and an appetite for politics that’s very, very rare. She carved up the male gauntlet on Morning Joe the other morning, humiliating them one at a time. If she can take this Senate seat, she may well emerge as Presidential material in 2016. She can speak to any American (Tea Partiers are not REAL Americans, and they’re actually a tiny minority, after all).
And there we have it, in a nutshell.
Look around.
Is there another big-time female politician who has been successful?
Yes. (Sigh.)
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I am quite sure that she can “humiliate” with the best of them. She’s smart; she’s a ruthless politician and she has a tongue on her.
But she doesn’t do it in public.
And the media can and most certainly will take Elizabeth Warren down on that tendency alone if the decision is made that she is too dangerous to the kleptocratic status quo.
Watch.
AG
I didn’t explain myself well. She humiliated them not just by knowing more and deploying facts and considering things with a broad perspective. She did it without being nasty, just very convincing that she was right. She’s no Hillary–thank goodness. She’s not jaded. She really believes she can move people and change things, and she’s done it before. I think she’ll be harder to define than you think. That’s why she came barreling out of the chute–she’s capable of defining herself and then defending herself when the media comes to tell her who she is.
Hillary has a strength in (and evidently a penchant for) the backroom deal – became evident immediately with how she proceeded with her health care initiative. This is put to very constructive use as SOS. Warren, even as she was reframing and demolishing the questions on Morning Joe appeared to enjoy communicating, was clear, forceful without being combative. Struck me immediately as presidential material. could be, as I say about Obama and I firmly believe, a person with convictions without malice. I am totally impressed
I’m just going to put this on the record. I agree with you that Kucinich and Weiner are buffoons. I don’t agree that Grayson is.
Ditto.
AG
Of the three, Grayson was the least substantive, the least intelligent, the least concerned with his own district and constituents, and the most bombastic. So, I’d have to disagree.
agree with you there.
Thus far his record in Congress is a short one, so in that sense On the other hand, his record in life is impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Grayson
What about Bernie Sanders?
he couldn’t get elected either
A great man and a great senator. He can’t get elected either. He’s only in his eighth term as INDEPENDENT senator from Vermont.
I’m not really into bombastic. As a partisan Democrat thirsty for blood, I want someone with a bit of a mean streak who will take delight in the hurting of conservatives for the sheer pleasure of hurting conservatives. That can be done silently or with great fanfare.
I leaped to my feet and shouted AMEN. Zombie Donne doesn’t do it for me. I know a guy who insist upon comparing everything to ancient Greece. He thinks that’s a real strong point, that in Athens in 400 BC they were better than we are now. Or something.
Also I’m not sure how Warren’s both a) restating something that’s been humdrum since the 17th Century and b) a firebrand.
Also also, what on earth does it mean to say that you’re sure Warren seems like a godsend to many MA Democrats, but outside of MA Democrats, how viable is someone like her? You’re saying she wouldn’t do that well in Arizona or Alaska? Um, yeah. Or are you just saying that her popularity among DFHs, despite her lack of real accomplishments or resume, makes you long for progressive candidate far less shitty than she?
I signed Elizabeth Warren’s petition.
You want depressing? Watch these same enthusiastic progressives start denouncing her as a centrist sellout six months into her term.
She’s a serious person who’s going to try to get stuff done within the confines of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body (TM) instead of striking an I’m So Awesome pose.
Hence, a sellout.
If history is any guide it will be weeks not months.
Looks like the poutrage worm has already turned. I’m thoroughly enjoying the new online meta narrative that’s becoming a part of the Elizabeth Warren Experience.
Like this churlishness:
I dunno, Geov. Why don’t we let her run and find out?
There’s no reason to be jealous. New Toy may be 35.6% fresher and shinier and TOTALLY AWESOME!!!1!11! than Old Toy, but Old Toy is still pretty cool too. We’ve got five more years of Old Toy, electorate willing, so there’s no reason to get in a snit. Firebaggers will be firebaggers, let’s not try to whine and be pointlessly cynical at their level.
Why insult the accomplishments of an academic? Leave that for the GOP.
My enthusiasm for Warren stems from her advocacy for the middle class. I can be depressed that the concept is so rare, or I can support her and hope the concept catches on.
If you have a better candidate to suggest, go for it.
Where did I insult her accomplishments? I simply pointed out that most academics aren’t political stars, and her resume wouldn’t ordinarily lend itself to this treatment. That’s not at all the same thing as saying her accomplishments are inconsequential. In fact, it’s easier to argue it the other way – it’s pretty rare that someone who’s as much of a serious thinker as Warren (as opposed to the uninspired academic background of, say, Condoleezza Rice) does get the star treatment.
I also think it’s fair to say that no matter their merits, Warren’s academic chops, like Rice’s, are only a small part of the reason why she’s caught political fire. In Warren’s case, her willingness to speak truth to power from within power’s corridors is much more of her appeal.
But her accomplishments are pretty impressive in her field, and she’s hardly obscure. Sure, academics don’t usually run for the Senate, and if that’s your only point then fine. But my impression is that you’re saying her accomplishments are minor, and that’s not true.
Rachel Q is right; Warren’s accomplishments are pretty impressive in her field. What’s more, she wasn’t an “obscure academic”; she was a very well-known, bestselling author-academic. (Not saying that’s a qualification for elected office, just saying that she didn’t come out of nowhere.)
She put together the consumer protection agency, among other accomplishments. How is that any more “academic” than Obama making a short leap from law professor to president, or Dean from MD to governor and DNC head? Or, for that matter, Woodrow Wilson from university president to US president (not that that worked out so well)?
So she’s saying nothing special, and that makes you sad? How about grading on a a curve? Maybe this to you is nothing special, but few people are out there saying it, so it becomes special when contextualized.
This whole piece is kind of like one of those sports-media arguments about what player is the most overrated.
No. It makes me sad that people feel it even needs to be said. It’s really not that hard a distinction.
All this rushing to Warren’s defense when I didn’t even criticize her reinforces my suspicion, as noted upthread, that she’s set up for a fall. If she gets into the Senate, with all its inevitable compromises, and tries to get serious work done – which is her history – some people are going to be disillusioned. The US Senate really doesn’t lend itself to star turns, the egos of many of its members notwithstanding. Al Franken did a lot on the campaign trail to temper his fans’ expectations that he would be a bomb-thrower, and Warren would be wise to do something similar.
Warren is going to get more leeway and be less compromised because she’s from MA and has a lot more trust built up with the base as long as she continues to be willing to speak truth to power from within power. The belief you’ve been betrayed or lied to is a lot less in those cases.
But the goal should be to work to make her statement one taken for granted. A Congress full of Elizabeth Warrens would be an immeasurably better Congress than most.
“A Congress full of Elizabeth Warrens???!!!”
In your dreams.
More likely a Congress of John Boehners and Harry
Reems…errrr, Reids.Bet on it.
Them that go along, get along.
Bet on that as well.
AG
until they don’t.
Bet on that too.
She’s the opposite of bombastic – she’s smart, has a grasp of the issues she discussed and can articulate rapidly, clearly and respectfully (no nastiness, no talking down). All I saw was the abc video – totally impressed.
This strikes me as a very odd reaction to Warren. She finally tells the truth about how the economy really functions and instead of cheering you get depressed because she’s the only one? So it would be less depressing if nobody with any national voice spoke of this basic reality? Doesn’t make sense.
To me, she’s saying what I wanted Obama or some elected Dem to say, and never, ever hear. She is at long last openly challenging the toxic and manipulated “conventional wisdom” about how everything is achieved by individual effort — by asses like the mythical Galt.
Donne is not some kind of alternative to what Warren is saying. He’s being philosophical while she’s specifically talking politics and economics. Donne’s observation, however true, leads to nothing but more pious boilerplate: we’re all in this together, compassionate conservatism, blablabla. Pretty thoughts without a call to action.
I’m not sure that this ever “ceased being such a painfully self-evident riff”, at least in America. Extremist capitalist ideology has poisoned our thinking from the beginning as a means of justifying an economic system bound to fail from its own defective assumptions. The difference now is that Reagan pioneered the way in dropping even the pious “concern” that had always accompanied the slash-and-burn social darwinism before him.
I find Warren’s willingness to stand against that powerful tide exhilarating, and the national response to it even more so. We’ll soon see how viable someone like Warren is as a national-level politician. It will finally be a test some of us have longed for forever: can a talented populist progressive stick to her guns and still win? I think she will and will change the political landscape in the process.
Oh, stop it. The President talks about community and togetherness and interconnectedness and shared sacrifice all the damn time.
It figures that this would immediately become all about Obama vs. Warren, deathmatch style. This isn’t the Highlander. There can be more than one.
Not capitalism, extremist concept of individualism, can’t see society’s input
A rather sourpuss contribution, Geov. What is the point in showing off ancient wisdom and wallowing in depression? If you want to change something you need to start where the people are. No point in complaining about their lack of knowledge or understanding. I am just glad that Warren is speaking simple truth, it is rare enough.
I also heard her on a show (MSNBC?) and was blown away. Several pundits, Halperin among them tried to trick her. She never let them and she got her points across very beautifully.
See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/21/1018827/-Elizabeth-Warren-turns-the-tables-on-Morning-Joe-G
otcha-Panel,-Aces-Quiz-?via=siderec
I think she is very gifted, and her career may not stop with US senator.
And, btw, Massachusetts is not deeply liberal – it used to be deeply Kennedy, but that is not the same.
Well, I’ll tell you my theory about political discourse in this day and age and in this country. There are plenty of people who understand what Elizabeth Warren is saying and, if they can’t articulate it, will immediately respond and later start repeating it. There’s been an attempt, very successful since Reagan , to suppress this discourse. You don’t have to go back to John Locke, in fact John Locke is more part of the problem than part of the solution. The traces of traditional natural law and common law you find in Locke are remnants, his real contribution was to the newly developing supremacy of mercantile capitalism. True, one swallow does not make a spring, but there’s a lot more than one swallow out there, and they don’t even break neatly on the left/right divide as commonly understood. Warren is just blasting through the wall of total and utter crap economic philosophy we’ve been living through, lo these 30 years.
In other words, Elizabeth Warren is not crying in the desert, nor is she preaching to the choir. There are an awful lot of people who have been waiting an awfully long time to hear what she has to say. And as for Obama, I think people are making a big mistake if they think he doesn’t have her back. The differences you see between them has much more to do with their respective positions than with their underlying goals. Any community organizer can recognize that them both as community organizers.
OH yes!!!
He has her back, alright.
He copped out on a fight for her to lead a department that she basically invented and then kicked her upstairs into a probable losing battle for the Senate.
With friends like this, who needs Republicans?
Obama has no stomach for a fight. None. He has proven it too many times and he is now the political cellblock’s favorite pattycake patsy. RatPubs and DemRats, lining up behind him for their turn at a porkbarrel go.
Sorry, priscianus, but there it is. He is now a Republicrat.
If Obama is reelected the Ratpubs will be just as happy as if he isn’t. Maybe even more happy, because that way they won’t have to play in the Tea Party sandbox quite so often or so deeply.
Yup.
Sad, ain’t it?
AG
There are an awful lot of people who have been waiting an awfully long time to hear what she has to say.
Perhaps as many as a third of the electorate, nationwide at least.
After the country has been drowned in so many lies for so many years, sometimes just stating the obvious truth is important in and of itself.
It will be no surprise if and when she gets full-on attacked from every quarter, misquoted, slimed, dropped, ignored, and generally lambasted by the same media… so enjoy it while it lasts and work for more.
Every chink in the armor, every foot in the door, every possible way to make that message more popular and widely talked about is part of the long fight.
It’s not the only part, and it won’t be the winning move if she gets elected… not even if she were to be elected president/god-queen/empress of the universe…
But it helps.
Just Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
What a joke.
Warren cites the very basic protection that is agreed upon by all…
Police…Fire…National Defense…
What percentage of government expenditures are represented by those services…
If government only provided the basic protections mentioned by Warren, then government would be one-tenth of its current size.
The real question is…who needs who more…do we (wealth producers) need you (the masses?) more than you need us? Maybe we should go on stike. I’d love to hear Warren’s lecture then.
It really is all about Galt’s Gulch. I can’t stand it anymore.
Half of the money goes into defense. The poor and middle class would be better without a state.
Get the facts…
Only one-fifth, not half, of the Federal budget is spent on Defense.
Defense 700 Billion
Federal Budget…3.5 Trillion.
That’s the DoD’s budget. That isn’t the entire defense budget, friend.
” Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28-38% of budgeted expenditures and 42-57% of estimated tax revenues.”
Half of our taxes pay for defense.
No, they pay for the military. Big difference.
I think Elizabeth Warren is a breath of fresh air. She is a brilliant woman who is serious about getting something done that breaks the stranglehold of the corporate kleptocracy. She’ll be a fabulous Senator if she can make it through the trial by fire she’s about to endure. I admire her because she is both progressive and practical and that doesn’t seem to be common thing on the left these days.
I agree. I feel the same passion for her campaign as I did for Al Franken’s. They both just speak the truth in a way that liberals and working-class people who think they’re conservative can understand, neither are grand-standers, and have no desire to mingle with and bow down to the slimy corporate lobbyist types. They both just care about regular people and want to improve the system for them.
I hope she’s learning how to play the victim-card, Sarah Palin style, though for when the media try to cast her as a whiny old post-menopausal “Harvard Professor Bitch.” Because the Mark Halperin / Drudge types WILL try and pull it on her. She needs to know how to slam them back as the misogynistic assholes that they are.
The liberal blogosphere is going on as if she had really given them what for.
She didn’t.
Not by a long shot.
She should have just told the truth.
You want to talk about class war?
OK, let’s talk about class war.
Cutting taxes on rich people to the lowest they’ve been in half a century while trying to raise taxes on the poor is class war.
Reducing or eliminating the minimum wage is class war.
Attacking unions is class war.
Repudiating pension obligations is class war.
Trying to stop the NLRB doing its job is class war.
Attempting to diminish or abolish Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security is class war.
Reducing or abolishing unemployment compensation is class war.
Weakening or abolishing child labor law is class war.
Attacking public schools is class war.
Privatizing fire departments is class war.
Privatizing roads is class war.
Trying to deny the people’s right to elect their own senators is class war.
Trying to deny government the constitutional right to regulate wages and hours in order to protect workers from employer rapacity is class war.
Trying to abolish government regulation aimed at consumer protection is class war.
War, racism and religious bigotry apart, the entire Republican agenda is nothing but class war.
And that’s what Elizabeth Warren should have told those people.
I have the greatest respect for fellow Seattle-ite Geov but I see no urgent reason to curb my enthusiasm just yet.