You've got to admire their tenacity. Up to a point, that is.
I'm talking about the folks who want Elizabeth Warren, the freshman Democratic Senator from Massachusetts and champion of the 99%, to run against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016. Of course, they don't just want her to run; they want her to win. And they are convinced that America's next President will be a Republican if she doesn't run.
Of course, she has said that she is not running. More than once. And, when she has done so, there's been nothing coy about it. Nothing to suggest that she's waiting for the media or her party to seduce her into running. Nothing to suggest that she has any ambition other than to continue giving the 1% hell in the U.S. Senate. But that hasn't stopped her supporters from pushing her to run. Against the odds and the facts, they keep on pushing.
Why? Hillary seems like a sure thing, in spite of her early missteps, for not only the nomination but also for the general election. And it's not like she doesn't have at least some credentials for progressives to respect. All you can really say about Warren, by comparison, is that she has more of them. Is it about all those deals that Hillary's husband cut with congressional Republicans? Maybe. But isn't it at least a little bit sexist to assume that Hillary would function as a President exactly the way that Bill did, just because she was his First Lady? Is it really the "dynasty" angle? Maybe, although, if she ends up facing Jeb Bush, that issue may not be much of a weapon against her.
But I think it is something related to this latter point, in a way. And it's not something that her supporters should take as a compliment.
The authors of our Constitution decided against allowing a legalized aristocracy in their new nation, knowing the harm that hundreds of years of aristocracy had done in Europe. While that has no doubt served our country well in a number of ways, it left us hungry for the opportunities that nobility in a nation provides for the expression of our innate desire to not simply love our country, but to worship it through the pageantry and formality that an aristocratic class provides.
The reality of presidential elections is that, every four years, we elect a new government. But for conservatives who detest the very idea of a government, presidential elections are about something different. Since all forms of government are evil to them, they are not as concerned about Republican candidates' positions on issues as they are about what type of person they are being asked to vote for, and what that person believes. Republican voters want to be inspired by who the person is, and by the feeling of patriotism evoked by who they think the person is. In short, they view presidential elections as the process for choosing a new king.
I may bite my tongue for saying what I am now about to say, but I fear that Democrats, who value government and its impact on political issues (and who therefore should know better) have for some reason adopted a mode of thinking about this election that closely resembles the Republican mindset. They are not interested in the candidate most likely to get across the finish line in a position to advance one or more of their causes. They want someone whose ideology is pure beyond question, someone they can worship from afar, someone who will spare them the day-to-day necessity of worrying about their favorite cause. In short, they too want a king--or, in this case, a queen.
I worry that this line of thinking, if in fact it is real, shows that the ideological ferocity of Republican politics over the past several decades has destroyed within Democrats the capacity for civilized debate and, ultimately, for civilized government. After the damage done by the last Bush Administration, the last thing this country needs is an ideological war that nearly pushes the country over the cliff. We desperately need someone who not only believes, but thinks, and can work with people who don't necessarily think identically. I believe Hillary has shown that she can do that.
And I think that Elizabeth Warren is capable of that as well. But as a President, term limits would cut short the length of her career, and of her effectiveness as a progressive advocate within our government. Better that she should grow old and serve long in Teddy Kennedy's old Senate seat, and become the next Lion of the Senate.
And better for all of us if we took all of the energy now being directed to pushing Warren into the White House, and used it to elect a Senate with more Senators like her, who would also not be term-limited. There's no reason for it to be either-or--in fact, either-or could set the cause of progressive politics back years, if it cost us the White House and failed to pick up the Senate. Just imagine what the Supreme Court might look like in that case.
Hillary in the Oval Office, and Warren at the head of a new Senate majority. Perfect together. Let's start aiming together for that. Today.
No comments:
Post a Comment