While other people are grooming their fantasy football teams, I’m warming up my fantasy presidential contest. My candidates are Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul. Not the Rand Paul who is pandering to social conservatives and war mongers, but the libertarian Rand Paul who wants government out of people’s lives and believes that the GOP needs to be more inclusive.
In my fantasy matchup, the silliness of politics is gone. We’re not talking about billionaires buying elections or terrorists sneaking across the Mexican border. We’re arguing about regulating Wall Street, making college more affordable, reducing the power of the government to snoop into our private lives, giving entrepreneurs the room to create and valuing workers as much as we do investors.
At her core, Warren is a populist. She believes that the system is rigged for the wealthy and that government is the vehicle for leveling the playing field. She started her life in public service as a consumer advocate and tries to view government and economics from the viewpoint of the middle class. With only six years in Washington, she’s certainly not “gone Washington” and, so far, has resisted the trappings of fame and power that capture so many politicians once they get into the bubble of the beltway.
The pre-presidential candidate Paul is a populist of a different sort. He doesn’t believe in the moral conservatism of the Christian Right and doesn’t trust government to get much right. He considers the war on drugs a failure and wants the US out of the Middle East as much as possible. His distrust of authority made him more sympathetic to the Ferguson protesters than the cops. And like Warren, Paul has disdain for Wall Street. Instead of regulations, though, he would change the tax code and get rid of “too big to fail.”
Warren and Paul appeal to the two most powerful forces in American politics today–the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party. In many ways, they are just opposite sides of the same coin. The Occupiers hate corporate America but don’t trust government while the Tea Partiers hate government but don’t trust corporate America. Cultural considerations will keep them apart, so they will likely never be the potent force for change that both want. However, they offer direction for both parties.
Democrats and Republicans need to rebuild trust in the institutions they represent. Republicans need to show that big business is more than just a vehicle for corporate greed and, instead, a vehicle to create security and a better life through secure, middle class jobs. Democrats need to show that government can offer the hand up that New Deal programs promised and lift people from poverty to prosperity instead of fostering dependency.
This is fantasy politics so my characterizations can be too simplistic and lack nuance. Regardless, Paul and Warren represent ideals, not interest groups. Warren is the fighter for the little guys who would use government to protect their interests. Paul carries an anti-authoritarian bent, pushing government out of our lives and out of our way. Wouldn’t it be great if we could have a national election about ideas like these instead of gimmicks and caricatures?
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
Paul has announced his plans to run for re election to his senate seat in 2016. His state will not permit him to run for two federal offices at the same time. So Paul is not an issue in the upcoming presidential race. In many ways, he is playing it safe as most folks do not take Paul seriously. Warren and Sanders appear to have a grasp on the problems facing this country.
However unlikely, should these two run against each other, this would be a GREAT race between the two best proponents of the right and left sides of American political discourse! While each has compromised enough to not only show they’re serious about maintaining their Senate seats, but also to dishearten the extremists on each fringe of the spectrum, they each have the potential to wage a campaign with broad appeal.
Personally, I think Paul is more of a real libertarian than Tea Party idiot, at least in his heart (therefore, I think the first commentator is off-base in his blanket distrust of Paul). And Warren is just a wonderful populist in the best sense of that sometimes-edgy descriptor, despite her mandatory genuflection toward Israel (something even Sanders had to do, BTW).
If only we had a political system not dominated by corporate greed and the two-party machinery that keeps real alternatives from rising to the top!
I agree completely. Elizabeth Warren is most understanding in her appreciation of challenges faced by the bottom 99%. Hillary is not.
Paul has a different take, but at least will debating issues rather than just obstructing.
Several points touched on with respect to Paul which do not pan out:
(1) “He (Paul) doesn’t believe in the moral conservatism of the Christian Right” When appearing on the Bill Mareh show he was asked that specific question. His response was to skirt the question and do a two step off onto another topic. The fact is the man is from the south, where some folks are moral conservatives and members of the christian right. Very unlikely Paul would turn his back on these potential voters. Paul will say anything to get elected. The guy is looking forward to a long career feeding at the public troth. His medical practice was less then stellar, coupled with the fact he had to create a certification of his competency by a board, nobody had ever heard of and his distaste for Medicare patients,
for which he accepted government funds to treat, leads me to believe he is a phony. ,
(2) “His (Paul) distrust of authority made him more sympathetic to the Ferguson protesters than the cops.” When asked on the Rachel Maddow Show his opinion on equal rights with reference to business refusing to serve blacks, he in effect responded by saying private business owners should not be forced by government to serve anybody. So we see again Paul’s desire to pander to the situation. He refuses to look at the Ferguson situation in it’s true historical prospective. Siding with one side over another will get him more votes. However, Intellectual integrity, as usual, is totally lacking with Mr. Paul.
(3) He (Paul) considers the war on drugs a failure. A perfect case of Paul pandering to those folks who want to legalize recreational use of pot. Whether or not this is a good thing is not addressed by Paul. He just wants to “stop a war on drugs”. Here again another example of Paul’s superficial approach to a complex issue. Unfortunately, the very congress, Paul has been a part of has not shown any desire for change. Nobody in congress (including Paul) have submitted legislation to change things. I suspect Paul and his fellow republicans are waiting for Obama to take some sort of “executive action” so they can call foul and impeach him.
Paul has stood with the Tea Party on the notion of disliking government regulation, but has never commented on how similar the tea party objectives are to those of the Koch Boys. Paul, is at most, a self serving opportunist seeking to put himself in the public eye by siding with whom ever or what ever is the most popular. We need clear headed, decisive, straight forward folks who believe in America, not their personal gain. So far, Warren and Sanders are appearing to be moving in that direction. Paul is just another politician, whose services are not needed…