Reported for the Flatiron Hot! News by Eric Shapiro – Edited by the Flatiron Hot! News Editorial Staff
In recent months, Elizabeth Warren’s reputation has suffered across the political spectrum and her electoral prospects have dimmed. Despite a formidable campaign-apparatus-in-waiting, she consistently places in the middle of the pack with other standbys like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, and trendy newcomers like Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Corey Booker in early Democratic primary polls. It is difficult to know to what extent this is due to factors under her control.
On the one hand, her failure to effectively address questions about her self-professed Cherokee heritage was clearly a self-inflicted wound, calling her political instincts into question and exposing her to accusations of racial insensitivity. Predictably, Donald Trump and the GOP have relished Warren’s apparent missteps from the woman they scathingly ridicule as “Pocahantas.”
More interesting is the reaction from some on the progressive left who might have been expected to support Warren, and who have proven surprisingly willing to dismiss or even condemn a senator who not long ago could have been their champion when some thought of her as a 2016 alternative to Hillary on the progressive side. Lingering resentment over Warren’s subsequent failure to endorse Bernie Sanders in the 2015 presidential primaries undoubtedly played a role in sullying her reputation before “Cherokee-gate” reached its ugly climax with Warren’s release of the DNA test that she claimed provided evidence of her Indian heritage.
Warren arguably also made the questionable political choice of declaring herself a “reform” capitalist to the core at a time when democratic socialism is very much in vogue among the Democratic base. For these reasons and more, progressives can and will make strong arguments against Elizabeth Warren and for other candidates in 2020.
But it is important for the future of the broader left in America that we recognize the legitimacy of the reform-minded populism that Elizabeth Warren brings to the table. Although some may pine for a future in which “progressive” is interchangeable with “socialist,” history demonstrates that foes of capitalism and those who seek to tame it have done best when they worked together to challenge the political establishment.
Often, reform-minded capitalists like Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, whether due to ideological conviction or activist pressure, laid the foundations for policies that could be described as socialistic or at the very least social democratic. Without the Progressive Era, it’s hard to imagine a New Deal or Great Society. Indeed, it is possible to see the beginning of this narrative in the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and the subsequent rise of Bernie Sanders. The former’s success represented a fundamental shift in the Democratic base, creating the conditions for a resurgence of an assertive liberal political ideology, whether one calls it reform-minded capitalism, democratic socialism, or merely a reaction to the excesses of the Republican conservative free enterprise motif that has dominated our political stage dating back to the ascent of Ronald Reagan.
While not a socialist herself, Warren’s unapologetically populist brand of progressivism helped pave the way for Sanders’ historic campaign. By naming Wall Street as an unambiguous enemy of the 99% and calling out corporate Democrats accustomed to campaigning for the middle class and legislating for bankers, Warren shifted the “Overton Window” to the left. While willing to work within the Democratic Party and even take on a leadership role (just as Bernie Sanders would in his own insurgent campaign against Clinton), Warren has never hesitated to harshly criticize members of her own party.
Over the course of Obama’s second term, before most Americans tuned into Bernie Sanders, Warren used her bully pulpit to take on the Democratic establishment, including President Obama himself when he threatened to appoint Wall Street-friendly Jerome Powell to chair the Federal Reserve. Warren’s efforts lit a fire under the grassroots and, soon after, in Congress, leading to the appointment of the far more liberal and independent Janet Yellin. It is not for no reason that Bernie Sanders named Warren his “favorite senator.”
Time and time again, Warren has used her position on the Senate Finance Committee to grill and shame CEOs accustomed to being coddled by sycophantic lawmakers. In a recent example of her progressive crusade, Warren chastised corporate Democrats like Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill for their “bipartisan” embrace of the recent legislation scaling back and weakening key aspects of the Dodd Frank regulations, an atrocious piece of legislation that, in simple terms, weakened Dodd Frank in the guise of providing relief for so-called “community banks.” Beto O’Rourke, an actual embodiment of the “faux progressivism” label that some of Warren’s detractors pin on her, voted for this and other Wall Street-friendly legislative moves.
None of this is to say that Elizabeth Warren is indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders. The former is a self-professed capitalist, not a socialist and, although she supports all of Sanders’ major domestic policy priorities, she is not as far to the left ideologically. But that does not make her a centrist or even center-left. Politically, it easy to see why some Bernie Sanders supporters are eager to insist that Warren is not progressive. It deprives her of legitimacy in the eyes of voters that the Vermont socialist will need to win the Democratic Party nomination. This might be good tactical politics for Bernie, but it’s bad for the Dems and progressive efforts overall.
However, the short-term benefit of painting every candidate to the left of Sanders as a centrist is dangerous and possibly counterproductive. It erases the distinction between true corporate Democrats like Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Beto O’Rourke on the one hand, and non-socialist progressives like Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown and yes, Elizabeth Warren on the other. It makes it more difficult to build a progressive coalition in Congress and keep Dems together, especially now that the Democrats control the House after the recent mid-term elections.
Should Bernie Sanders falter in the primary, will his supporters vote for the next most progressive option? Far less likely if he or she has been branded a centrist or a corporate Democrat. Electoral implications aside, the way we define and redefine the term “progressive” has important and substantial implications for how the left governs in and out of power. If the definition is too broad, permitting corporately funded politicians to place the interests of donors over citizens, it will be impossible to pass necessary policies like single-payer healthcare and a Green New Deal. If the definition is too narrow and leads to a kind of “left-Puritanism”, it will be impossible to form the kind of coalition necessary to cultivate institutional power in the Democratic Party and, ultimately, move the Overton window left.
To put it bluntly, there are not enough socialists in the United States to wield power on their own. This may change in the not-too-distant future considering that millennials favor socialism over capitalism. But at least for now, democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez must combine forces with left-wing populists like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, despite their ideological disagreements over whether capitalism must be reformed or replaced. That debate will not be settled in 2018 and the left should not make opposition to capitalism a litmus test in elections. Instead, they must find common ground on progressive policies like Medicare-for-all, a Green New Deal, instituting a living minimum wage, making college free and fighting Trump’s xenophobic immigration policy.
Such an alliance of convenience is far from unprecedented in U.S. history. In the Progressive Era, Presidents Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson reformed the government with the help of of the Democratic and Republican progressive wings. The New Deal was a product of an oft-contentious but ultimately productive collaboration between socialists, social democrats and liberal reformers. Social security, the crown jewel of the New Deal, is arguably a policy of “democratic socialism” at its best. The same can be said for immensely popular Great Society programs, most notably Medicare and Medicaid. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders represent distinct but codependent strands of American progressivism and supporters of one should respect, not abhor the other, despite significant ideological differences. United they must stand – or divided they may well fall, especially if these divisions lead to a Republican victory in 2020.
NYC Theater News
Flatiron Hot! Pundit: Elizabeth Warren Throws Her Hat in the Ring – Portents of Dem Divisions?
Reported for the Flatiron Hot! News by Eric Shapiro – Edited by the Flatiron Hot! News Editorial Staff
In recent months, Elizabeth Warren’s reputation has suffered across the political spectrum and her electoral prospects have dimmed. Despite a formidable campaign-apparatus-in-waiting, she consistently places in the middle of the pack with other standbys like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, and trendy newcomers like Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Corey Booker in early Democratic primary polls. It is difficult to know to what extent this is due to factors under her control.
On the one hand, her failure to effectively address questions about her self-professed Cherokee heritage was clearly a self-inflicted wound, calling her political instincts into question and exposing her to accusations of racial insensitivity. Predictably, Donald Trump and the GOP have relished Warren’s apparent missteps from the woman they scathingly ridicule as “Pocahantas.”
More interesting is the reaction from some on the progressive left who might have been expected to support Warren, and who have proven surprisingly willing to dismiss or even condemn a senator who not long ago could have been their champion when some thought of her as a 2016 alternative to Hillary on the progressive side. Lingering resentment over Warren’s subsequent failure to endorse Bernie Sanders in the 2015 presidential primaries undoubtedly played a role in sullying her reputation before “Cherokee-gate” reached its ugly climax with Warren’s release of the DNA test that she claimed provided evidence of her Indian heritage.
Warren arguably also made the questionable political choice of declaring herself a “reform” capitalist to the core at a time when democratic socialism is very much in vogue among the Democratic base. For these reasons and more, progressives can and will make strong arguments against Elizabeth Warren and for other candidates in 2020.
But it is important for the future of the broader left in America that we recognize the legitimacy of the reform-minded populism that Elizabeth Warren brings to the table. Although some may pine for a future in which “progressive” is interchangeable with “socialist,” history demonstrates that foes of capitalism and those who seek to tame it have done best when they worked together to challenge the political establishment.
Often, reform-minded capitalists like Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, whether due to ideological conviction or activist pressure, laid the foundations for policies that could be described as socialistic or at the very least social democratic. Without the Progressive Era, it’s hard to imagine a New Deal or Great Society. Indeed, it is possible to see the beginning of this narrative in the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and the subsequent rise of Bernie Sanders. The former’s success represented a fundamental shift in the Democratic base, creating the conditions for a resurgence of an assertive liberal political ideology, whether one calls it reform-minded capitalism, democratic socialism, or merely a reaction to the excesses of the Republican conservative free enterprise motif that has dominated our political stage dating back to the ascent of Ronald Reagan.
While not a socialist herself, Warren’s unapologetically populist brand of progressivism helped pave the way for Sanders’ historic campaign. By naming Wall Street as an unambiguous enemy of the 99% and calling out corporate Democrats accustomed to campaigning for the middle class and legislating for bankers, Warren shifted the “Overton Window” to the left. While willing to work within the Democratic Party and even take on a leadership role (just as Bernie Sanders would in his own insurgent campaign against Clinton), Warren has never hesitated to harshly criticize members of her own party.
Over the course of Obama’s second term, before most Americans tuned into Bernie Sanders, Warren used her bully pulpit to take on the Democratic establishment, including President Obama himself when he threatened to appoint Wall Street-friendly Jerome Powell to chair the Federal Reserve. Warren’s efforts lit a fire under the grassroots and, soon after, in Congress, leading to the appointment of the far more liberal and independent Janet Yellin. It is not for no reason that Bernie Sanders named Warren his “favorite senator.”
Time and time again, Warren has used her position on the Senate Finance Committee to grill and shame CEOs accustomed to being coddled by sycophantic lawmakers. In a recent example of her progressive crusade, Warren chastised corporate Democrats like Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill for their “bipartisan” embrace of the recent legislation scaling back and weakening key aspects of the Dodd Frank regulations, an atrocious piece of legislation that, in simple terms, weakened Dodd Frank in the guise of providing relief for so-called “community banks.” Beto O’Rourke, an actual embodiment of the “faux progressivism” label that some of Warren’s detractors pin on her, voted for this and other Wall Street-friendly legislative moves.
None of this is to say that Elizabeth Warren is indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders. The former is a self-professed capitalist, not a socialist and, although she supports all of Sanders’ major domestic policy priorities, she is not as far to the left ideologically. But that does not make her a centrist or even center-left. Politically, it easy to see why some Bernie Sanders supporters are eager to insist that Warren is not progressive. It deprives her of legitimacy in the eyes of voters that the Vermont socialist will need to win the Democratic Party nomination. This might be good tactical politics for Bernie, but it’s bad for the Dems and progressive efforts overall.
However, the short-term benefit of painting every candidate to the left of Sanders as a centrist is dangerous and possibly counterproductive. It erases the distinction between true corporate Democrats like Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Beto O’Rourke on the one hand, and non-socialist progressives like Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown and yes, Elizabeth Warren on the other. It makes it more difficult to build a progressive coalition in Congress and keep Dems together, especially now that the Democrats control the House after the recent mid-term elections.
Should Bernie Sanders falter in the primary, will his supporters vote for the next most progressive option? Far less likely if he or she has been branded a centrist or a corporate Democrat. Electoral implications aside, the way we define and redefine the term “progressive” has important and substantial implications for how the left governs in and out of power. If the definition is too broad, permitting corporately funded politicians to place the interests of donors over citizens, it will be impossible to pass necessary policies like single-payer healthcare and a Green New Deal. If the definition is too narrow and leads to a kind of “left-Puritanism”, it will be impossible to form the kind of coalition necessary to cultivate institutional power in the Democratic Party and, ultimately, move the Overton window left.
To put it bluntly, there are not enough socialists in the United States to wield power on their own. This may change in the not-too-distant future considering that millennials favor socialism over capitalism. But at least for now, democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez must combine forces with left-wing populists like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, despite their ideological disagreements over whether capitalism must be reformed or replaced. That debate will not be settled in 2018 and the left should not make opposition to capitalism a litmus test in elections. Instead, they must find common ground on progressive policies like Medicare-for-all, a Green New Deal, instituting a living minimum wage, making college free and fighting Trump’s xenophobic immigration policy.
Such an alliance of convenience is far from unprecedented in U.S. history. In the Progressive Era, Presidents Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson reformed the government with the help of of the Democratic and Republican progressive wings. The New Deal was a product of an oft-contentious but ultimately productive collaboration between socialists, social democrats and liberal reformers. Social security, the crown jewel of the New Deal, is arguably a policy of “democratic socialism” at its best. The same can be said for immensely popular Great Society programs, most notably Medicare and Medicaid. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders represent distinct but codependent strands of American progressivism and supporters of one should respect, not abhor the other, despite significant ideological differences. United they must stand – or divided they may well fall, especially if these divisions lead to a Republican victory in 2020.