Last week, I wrote about fantasy politics. This week, I’ll start with reality politics.
Elizabeth Warren is my type of Democrat. She’s fiery and passionate about helping working-class families while reining in the excesses of Wall Street. She understands that flat wages and income inequality will lead to social unrest and an unjust society. We need an unapologetic liberal voice like hers in politics today.
But I don’t think she should run for president and don’t believe that she could win if she did. Warren is too much like 2008 candidate Barack Obama without the benefit of the African-American base. She fires up progressives with the promise of a transformative presidency but she is a US Senator in her first term without much executive experience. She’s a former Harvard law professor whose intellectual prowess appeals to the liberal elite, but probably not the working-working class families she champions.
Barack Obama campaigned on “hope and change” and he delivered on half of it. We’ve seen plenty of change, but the hope part has manifested itself in frustration. Transitions are difficult, especially in the midst of the worst recession in seventy years.
In 2016, voters aren’t going to be looking for someone to shake up government too much. Instead, they’ll want someone to manage the change that’s taken place. The Affordable Care Act will still be sorting itself out and the transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to one more reliant on renewable energy will be a generation in the making. Voters will want a manager more than an activist or ideologue.
And that’s why Hillary Clinton has a good chance of being our next president. She’s not nearly exciting as Warren but voters know what they’ll get. They’ve been watching Clinton for more than twenty years and there will be few surprises. They know the good and the bad.
On the bright side, she’ll bring competent government. After serving in two administrations and the US Senate, no one can question her experience. She’s surrounded by people who know how the bureaucracy works and who’ve managed it for decades. As a former Secretary of State and First Lady, she’ll bring a gravitas that will serve her well in dealing with international affairs.
On the down side, she’ll bring the drama that follows the Clintons and their insider cliques. She’ll be defensive with a press corps she considers the enemy and probably try too hard to control the flow of public information. Her paranoia about right-wing conspiracies won’t do much to alleviate the partisanship that everyone claims to hate but she’ll still find ways to compromise and get deals done.
After eight years of Obama, Americans will be looking more for stability than transformation. Warren brings the fight and fervor that we need in Washington, but she’s probably not what voters will want on the heels of eight years of change. Clinton, on the other hand, brings a history of competence, moderation and accomplishment. In 2016, voters will prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t.
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 >
Pat: “The only candidate with the independent voice to speak out on issues of inequality, corporate malfeasance, and environmental sustainability.”? Seriously? Let me introduce you to a man by the name of Bernie Sanders. And YEARS of experience to boot.
I will work, contribute, and vote for Elizabeth Warren, the only candidate with the independent voice to speak out on issues of inequality, corporate malfeasance, and environmental sustainability.
Clinton has never met a corporation she didn’t like. The American people are tired of being duped. Republicans are worse, but Dems can do better.
I agree with Lex that we need Elizabeth Warren in the Senate too badly to risk losing her voice in a run for President. If she won, there are still too many Republicans in Congress who will be determined to thwart everything she tries to do. We need to concentrate on getting more Elizabeth Warrens and Alan Graysons into Congress to build a good base of possible candidates for President in six to ten years, the way the Reagan wing of the Republicans did following Goldwater’s defeat.
While I agree that Elizabeth Warren shouldn’t run for president this time around — we need her in the Senate too badly — and that she likely would lose if she did, I disagree strongly with the notion that “voters aren’t going to be looking for someone to shake up government too much.” To the contrary, voters tossed out Democrats in 2014 primarily because white middle- and working-class voters hadn’t seen enough change that personally benefitted them — which is exactly the same kind of change Warren has called for over and over again.
I have a gut feeling that Clinton will be able to carry NC in 2016 (it will probably be about as close as when Obama won the state in 2008)….but then again up until days before the election my gut was telling me Hagan would eek out a win and we all see how that turned out…
If Senator Warren is interested in “…reining in the excesses of Wall Street.” then she must hate Barack Obama and the Fed who have pumped cheap money into the pockets of Wall Street speculators at taxpayer expense. Tell me, has she ever said a harsh word about George Soros, or would she not consider nearly breaking the Bank of England with underhanded currency manipulation resulting in untold hardship for the poor and elderly of Great Britain, something to be at all concerned about?
Oh yeah, she’s wonderful, in a lying hypocrite kind of way.