Why I DON’T Support “Draft Warren”
Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren, @ElizabethForMA) speaks to me far more deeply than anyone named Clinton. On domestic policy, she’s a wonder (foreign policy, not so much), and I’m proud that she’s my Senator. However, I think if she or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) ran for President, they would be leaving a platform where they can be the conscience of the country, highly visible and highly effective, into a position of acutely marginalized and quickly forgotten.
I’ve certainly been involved with plenty of quixotic progressive presidential campaigns, most recently former Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (@Dennis_Kucinich). The problem is–as our political system is currently structured, when these folks are shut out of debates, underfunded, stretched waaaaay too thin, etc., they make the case to the center-right that the Left can be safely ignored.
I’d much rather see Warren leading a challenge to a Hillary candidacy to push leftward from a position of strength, offering positions and cabinet names and being taken seriously. I’d also like to see Warren provide the same kind of gravitas and deep analysis to her own foreign policy that she so cogently brings to domestic economic issues; there’s room for quite a bit of improvement there.
Also, for Warren but not Sanders, there’s the issue of inexperience. She was elected in 2012, which means when the campaign starts to heat up in 2015, she’ll have only had two years and change of experience as an elected official. That’s significantly less than Obama had–he was a state senator before moving up to the federal level–and I think that was one of the things that really got in the way of his effectiveness.
Had Obama been more experienced, he might have taken the huge organizing momentum of his 2008 campaign and actively translated it into a people’s movement for real change. I think, in the aftermath of that election, if GOP lawmakers had been hearing from thousands of their constituents daily about a set of chosen issues (maybe two or three at a time), they’d have crumbled, and Obama would have been seen as one of the most effective Presidents ever. But Obama and the Democrats threw that rare chance overboard without a struggle. Remember “public option is off the table,” and single-payer never being on the table in the first place? Just one of many squandered opportunities to do what he was elected to do: make change.
Had Obama been more experienced, he would have understood–as LBJ did–when and how to push hard for real reforms. He would have marshaled resources for a massive shift in the way we do energy, closed the festering sore of Guantanamo, exited rapidly from Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
And had he been more experienced, he might have taken more risks with his Cabinet, and not put so much faith in the Clinton- and Bush-era politicos who were suddenly making policy again.
Neither Warren nor Sanders has an effective national base. While they are a very visible part of our nation’s conscience, I don’t think they’d remain so in a presidential campaign. Let’s keep them where they are so they can build that base. And maybe, by 2020, mobilize it.
A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com
Bob and Dinah, thanks for your insightful comments. Bob, you made exactly the point I was trying to make–though I wonder if things might have been different if George McGovern hadn’t gone all wishy-washy over the Eagleton fiasco. when dukakis threw away the ’88 election with the “oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t MEAN to be a liberal” crap, I was reminded of that. (I’ve written about that a few times, including this post from just after the 2010 election that you, Dinah, commented on: https://greenandprofitable.com/why-the-democrats-lost%E2%80%94and-how-they-should-respond/ ) — and this one from 2012, https://greenandprofitable.com/lessons-from-icons-of-the-past-and-future/ , where I wrote, “Where are the towering figures like Barbara Jordan, Birch Bayh, Bela Abzug, Shirley Chisolm, Tom Harkin, James Abourezk and so many others—all of whom served with George McGovern in Congress? Where is even a figure like Lyndon Johnson, able to grow past his southern segregationist heritage and shepherd through a series of civil rights bills? These were Democrats who were not afraid to speak their mind, not afraid to fight for justice, and willing to do what they could to steer the US toward a better path. They didn’t turn tail and start mumbling apologies any time someone called them a liberal as if it were some kind of curse word instead of a badge of honor—a disgraceful path embraced by Michael Dukakis during his 1988 Presidential run, and by far too many Democrats since.”
Dinah, I totally agree that we need Warren, Bernie, and other progressives (including our own wonderful Rep. Jim McGovern here in Western and Central MA) speaking out. A lot.
I did vote for Nader in 2000, and I still say it was the correct vote–but that’s because I live in Massachusetts, where my vote in a Presidential election doesn’t mean any more than it would in Louisiana. Had I lived in a swing state, I’d have cast my vote for Gore, gagging all the while. And I was active in Robert Reich’s campaign for Governor (and his sister, who lives locally, is a friend).
Most voters now are too young to remember George McGovern. When Warren is marginalized in the presidential process, so will be everything she stands for. And her opponents will point to her landslide loss and say “See, those positions aren’t representative of mainstream America.” When they actually are.
A P.S. about effectiveness: LBJ was certainly one of the most formidable forces in American politics, who was able to move heaven and earth to get great things done (minus the Viet Nam war). But he was greatly advantaged in having a Democratic House and Senate as the wind at his back.
Hi Shel! There are certainly reasons for Elizabeth Warren to NOT run for POTUS 2016, as you’ve elegantly pointed out – plus the fact that she doesn’t WANT to run. But the reasons for her TO run are extremely compelling for me.
But to back up, I need to say that I would NEVER “Naderize” my vote. However, EW has none of the destructive ego that Nader had; she would never run as a third party candidate to split the vote. Instead, she has the sense, the savvy, the bigger picture, and strategic acumen (missing from Nader) to use a possible run – or a campaign for DEMOCRATIC IDEAS AND IDEALS – to the best advantage of progressivism.
I SO much prefer EW to HRC, but not to the point of letting the GOP win! I think EW would agree with two points: 1)that our next POTUS MUST be a Democrat, and 2) that we must promote the progressive agenda in all important races, especially the 2016 races. I’ve read a few other pieces on why she should run, but the one line that says it most clearly is – more important than Warren running is the notion that we need a campaign based on WARRENISM!
So whether she runs or doesn’t, we need her speaking out and campaigning for the IDEAS she espouses – to break up the banks, de-fang the mega-corporations, send kids to college without putting them into lifelong indentured servitude, restructure taxes to a pre-Reagan model, etc., etc. Elizabeth Warren may not have “experience”, but too many people with experience aren’t leaders like she is. She’s brilliant, and is an absolutely fearless fighter for what this country needs. And she galvanizes people like no one I’ve seen since Bobby Kennedy.
Whether EW herself runs, or whether she and Bernie Sanders simply run an IDEAS
campaign, we need the voices of progressivism to re-frame next election. If we want a Democratic Party to be the part of FDR, RFK, Teddy K, Wellstone, Robert Reich (and even T. Roosevelt & Ike!), we need a primary fight about those ideas.
A Hillary Clinton coronation (which didn’t happen in 2008, as had been expected) would not serve us in 2016. It’s all about the ideas: WHOM WILL THE PEOPLE WE ELECT IN 2016 SERVE?