Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Moral Hazard of Elizabeth Warren
I know a lot of people love Elizabeth Warren. I don’t doubt that she’s smart, charming, and extremely likable in person, and that she exudes a kind of authenticity and decency for which people are desperate.
She’s an impressive woman. I think she will be the Democratic candidate, and I think there’s at least a 50/50 chance that she might become President.
Unfortunately, I think her message will harm America’s weakest, poorest, and lowest-performing citizens. I don’t believe she wants that — quite the contrary — but I think it’s the likely result of the particular sermon she’s preaching.
She says this:
You have things that are broken in your life, I’ll tell you exactly why. It’s because giant corporations, billionaires, have seized our government, and for decades now they have been making that government work for a thinner and thinner slice at the top.
We all have things that are broken in our lives. Life is imperfect, sometimes it’s hard, sometimes we’re unlucky, sometimes we make poor choices, sometimes we’re victims.
But that isn’t what she’s saying. What she’s saying is what unwise and/or awful people always say when trying to recruit the masses for their cause. She’s scapegoating, providing a ready villain, absolving people of their responsibility, denying people the basic dignity of their autonomy and of their right and ability to make choices.
There is no villain responsible for all the hurt and pain that’s inevitably part of the human experience. It isn’t racism, it isn’t the intellectuals, it isn’t the Jews, it isn’t whites, it isn’t blacks, it isn’t illegal immigrants, it isn’t China.
But if you mobilize the troops with anger and envy, you simultaneously free them from feeling responsible for their own prosperity — because who, after all, can compete with Amazon? — and set the stage for destroying the engines of wealth creation.
She may be a very nice woman, but her message is, ultimately, the message of the perpetually poor — the message that has the people of Venezuela eating their pets and fleeing their country. It doesn’t work, and it doesn’t work for obvious reasons, and she should know that.
She not only takes away their obligation to be responsible, but she dis-empowers them, denigrates their ability to manage and thrive in their lives and offers solutions that are simply irresponsible and impossible. Aside from that, she’s a nice lady. Except she lies, too.
Um, no. If I was a Native American, I could be on the Harvard faculty, as well.
She’s a fraud.
I appreciate your efforts to be respectful. Downplaying your opponents is a bad habit, and I admire your efforts to avoid it.
But my goodness. Elizabeth Warren?
She’s Joe Biden in a pantsuit. There’s nothing there.
Oh, I don’t know, Doc. I haven’t met the woman, but I know nice people who think she’s terrific.
So I’m happy to give her the benefit of the doubt on the personal front.
( And, okay, yes, it’s a transparent admission against interest intended to establish rapport. Work with me here. )
Henry,
Elizebeth Warren has always struck me as a complete idiot. She was stupid enough to believe she was an Indian and then go ahead and take the DNA test. To me, she represents the purest form of the new Idiocracy that the Democratic Party is now locked into.
Other than the end of Western Civilization, a total economic catastrophe, and a nuclear war, I’m sure that we could survive a Warren presidency. Well some of us at least.
Regards,
Jim
Jim, et al,
There’s a decent chance that this post will eventually get to the main feed, where it will be read by people who might like the woman and want to give her their vote. I know such people, and the ones I know are nice, smart, decent liberals.
I don’t actually know Elizabeth Warren. But I understand the ideas she’s putting forth, and their likely consequences: one need only be aware of history and have a passing knowledge of human nature to get that.
It’s both strictly fair and rhetorically effective to acknowledge those things about her which impress her fans and for which I have no obvious contradictory evidence. I’m more likely to reach those people if I don’t lead with “complete idiot.”
I do understand how that’s going to ruffle some conservative feathers. But, honestly, conservatives weren’t the intended audience.
Best,
H.
This is true. But the swamp creatures are not helping create better opportunities for the downtrodden either. And the swamp creatures feed on the government/corporate relationships, I mean, isn’t it fairly obvious that this is the feature in the current battle that keeps Republicans in Congress from stepping up. And this benefits most of the bureaucracy as it is their sustenance. I don’t support most of what Warren says should be done but she is right on the cozy corruption between the federal government and corporate America.
Bob, I suspect every one of them — left and right — is right about something.
Okay, that’s simple enough.
Henry,
I have relatives that went to Yale Medical School. One of them expressed the view that Elizebeth Warren “gamed the system” when she made her false native American claim. I said nothing wanting to keep peace in the family. However, at this point, if I were to confront him again I would be forced to do a political intervention and through shock therapy (if necessary) dissuade him of his ridiculous delusion.
To hell with peace in the family.
Regards,
Jim
I’m more concerned with efficacy than peace, Jim. If I thought leading with disparaging comments was persuasive — other than of those who already agree and don’t need persuading — I’d do that: I don’t mind offending people, not very much.
I can’t tell you how often I’m accused of being “too sensitive” when I advocate what seems to me a commonsense approach to political conversations, that of granting that your interlocutor is neither an idiot nor a monster, and then trying to move on from there. Maybe the opposite approach works for other people. Or maybe it’s just more satisfying. I don’t know.
Because she keeps making up/changing stories about her past in order to impress people, she’s not a nice or decent person. Witness the latest “history” about her teaching career.
A Warren candidacy would unite all the business and financial interests in the country…against her. The University crowd does not want to take on the finance crowd.
Not according to a friend who actually *knew* her in person (took a class from her) and found her neither likable nor particularly competent.
I don’t happen to be a fan of Elizabeth Warren and certainly don’t think she’s authentic, but agree with you that if you start with a strong vilification of the candidate, supporters will often take it as a personal attack and then you get nowhere. Do Trump supporters not know that first hand? Of course, it was a little less subtle for Trump supporters as we were actually called deplorables. But when I try to defend Trump to my liberal friends, I say that the people who voted for him do not view him the way they do. It’s not that we are not aware of his flaws, but that we chose to downplay them relative to other factors, and we think his policies are good for America. So I should extend that same courtesy to them and acknowledge that they can like Warren despite her flaws. However, in Warren’s case, I wouldn’t care if she were a saint, her policies would be bad for America. And that is reason enough to oppose her without bringing her character into it at all.
I agree the former looks likely at this point in time, but I think any Democrat nominee this election will get skunked. I realize it could be wishful thinking on my part, but I have to go with my gut (it’s too big to be ignored) . . .
“Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” She may be “nice” and “decent” in person (I came across someone who claimed that in her teaching she was NOT the fire breathing radical we see on the stump) but to her public persona those words don’t seem to apply at all. “Pit bull” seems better to fit what I have actually seen and heard of her on video…(for as long as I can stand it).
Eat your heart out, Hillary.
I don’t think it serves us or them to downplay Warren’s faults. In fact, it helps these nice people maintain the blinders (or whatever euphimism you want for confirmation bias) that allow them to think Warren would be a wonderful president. Worse, even, if someone they personally know to be one of the rare “nice conservatives” defends her. And yes, you are defending her.
You may want to ease your liberal friends out of their delusions, but misrepresenting Warren’s personality and qualifications isn’t the way. These are not little white lies.
Does she have an explanation for how she, personally, escaped being beat down by these giants, billionaires and others? And if she managed to succeed against these dreadful odds, then wouldn’t it be great if she’d teach others how, and not just give them permission to be failures, and blame others?
Apparently, that is true.
I don’t doubt that some people think that. However, she doesn’t seem particularly likable to me, and I think the “Fauxahontas” aspect speaks to the opposite of authenticity and decency. However, I understand that there are those whose mileage may vary on that point.
Ummm. No. I’m married to someone with a PhD, who spent the last 20 years of his working life as a “full professor” at a respected local institution of higher education. He was the first person, in his (second generation immigrant) family to graduate from college. That’s a pretty impressive accomplishment too, and I respect it because of who he is, not because of what he did.
I am afraid you are correct.
I agree.
Ugh.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Indeed.
or, perhaps not.
Yes, that is correct.
So far, the strategy I have found that works best is to take my weak-minded friends (of which I have many) to a local ice-cream parlor which is renowned for 1) its exceptional sundaes, and 2) its lovely candies and delightful 1950’s soda-parlor ambiance. Once I’ve enticed them in, I say, “You do know that [the owner of this small business, in a distressed Western Pennsylvania town] is a fervent Trump supporter, right? And that he’s not a corporate billionaire or a person who’s taking all his profits offshore? In fact, he’s someone who invests a hell of a lot of his money back into the community, and into charitable endeavors that benefit the region? How do you feel about that, given that he’s been the target of a vigorous and unforgiving anti-Trump boycott, and has lost considerable business as a result?”
In every circumstance so far, the answer has been along the lines of:”Screw the politics. Just gimme the ice cream.”
Baby steps. Local steps.
Elizabeth Warren is probably an extremely dishonest politician. She’s not stupid, but only a dishonest or stupid person with her legal background could put forth the obviously unconstitutional proposals she constantly comes up with.
Her dishonesty starts, of course, with the false claim of American Indian heritage, which she knew from the outset was false. She looked very foolish when she put forth the DNA test as supporting evidence of her claim when it actually debunked her claim.
The dishonesty has been most evident lately as she dodges the question of whether her Medicare for All proposal will raise middle-class taxes. Her answer is that it will lower middle-class costs. But this too is false. She also wants to ban all private insurance. This would mean that employees whose employer pays for health insurance would stop paying, while the employee’s taxes would go up to cover the new Medicare burden. The only way Warren’s claim would be true would be if the employer raised the employee’s pay sufficiently to cover his new tax burden, but there is no guarantee that such would occur. So, many employees will have greater total costs for health care.
Even though she has a legal education she has put forth a slew of unconstitutional proposals. She wants to impose a tax on wealth. Just as the income tax required a constitutional amendment (the 16th) because it would be “without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,” so would a wealth tax.
She wants to tax lobbying, even though lobbying is a form of petitioning the government, and thus protected by the 1st amendment.
And last but not least, her policies show a willful ignorance of economic principles. She wants to cancel all education loans without concern for the moral hazard she would create. She wants to impose government-run healthcare as if she never heard about the benefits of competition.
I honestly have not heard of a single proposal from her that makes any sense to me.
I would direct you to Cornell law Professor William Jacobson’s website chronicling her career, https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/
I agree that Warren’s appropriation of a native heritage to game the system is appalling. But I think that Dems will focus on how Trump’s bone spurs magically excused him from the draft, which was his way to game the system.
She will never lie to us.
Phil, I’m going to pick on you just a little — though my irritation with a few others here could as easily make them the targets of the same short-lived consternation I’m going to take the liberty of venting in your direction.
I don’t agree with you. I think you’re mistaken that it doesn’t serve us well to downplay Warren’s faults. First, many of what you and I may consider faults are not considered faults by those who like her, and no amount of criticism of superficial or subjective aspects of the woman will change their minds. All such criticism serves to do is drive away people who might be open to a discussion of the substance of her views.
Secondly, I honestly don’t know that the things I said are untrue — “little white lies,” as you put it. I said I thought she was smart, and I do. Not wise, not possessed of good judgment — far from it. But there are a lot of bad ideas celebrated by smart people.
Charming and likable in person? Why not? People say that President Trump is as well; I have no reason to dispute it. It might even have been true of President Obama, a man I found almost literally repulsive but whom many of my friends think of very highly. One on one, Bill Clinton and George Bush and Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren may all be charming; I’ve met none of them.
I said “she exudes a kind of authenticity and decency for which people are desperate.” I believe that. I think it’s one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, why people who aren’t very astute about politics are attracted to her. (By the way, I don’t believe she is those things. I think there’s evidence to the contrary. But I think she comes across that way, and those who like her believe those things of her.)
But beyond all that, I think this idea that we have to rub people’s faces in the idiocy of their personal politics is wrong-minded and counter-productive, the kind of angry and divisive approach that makes communication harder, not easier. I can’t see any way in which leading with vilification and insult, particularly on matters that are personal and subjective, opens the door for further conversation and the communication of actual ideas.
Elizabeth Warren, like every other Democratic candidate, is embracing horrifically, epically bad ideas. People who like her for her presentation don’t need to hear that they’re fools for that; they might benefit by hearing that the part of her message they really haven’t thought much about, the ideas she espouses, have been tried before and always end in misery.
I’m interested in changing minds, not delivering to people the brutal honesty that the woman they admire is a moral midget and they’re fools for seeing her otherwise. I think that’s how we move the ball down the field.
You people. Sometimes you exasperate me.
You practicing digging up dirt?
It came me immediately when it was pointed out that Warren gamed the system. That is an obvious example of Trump gaming the system.
I was born in 1952. I graduated from high school in 1970. I had a draft card. I was well aware of my draft classification. Trump was too.
I missed going into the service by having a high lottery number. Trump missed it by cheating.
Heck, when asked about his bone spur, Trump could not identify which foot had the bone spur.
For what it’s worth…
For the good of the country, I think it would be prudent for conservatives to support Trump’s re-election, and then snipe all they want and try to do better the next time around.
If you think there’s a way to get any other Republican in the White House in 2020, I think you’re crazy.
If you want a Democrat in the White House, say so.
But if you’d rather a second Trump term than a Democrat term starting in 2020, explain to me what you hope to accomplish, practically, by making a Trump reelection harder?
This is an American nightmare, for a serious politician to say something so hugely untrue:
If this were true, corporate taxes would be zero.
“The top” nomenclature is a fun one. Turns out that the people at “the top” turn over so regularly that those wealthiest pop in and out of that ranking on a regular basis. Why? Because they have investments, and values change over time.
But regardless of the evil machinations of corporations (and Warren herself has been happily approving federal budgets, so I guess she’s shaming herself, publicly, for indulging corporate welfare?), that has about zero to do with whether or not Jim decides he needs to learn a trade and get a job in order to have a life.
Telling people they don’t have things they want, or deserve, is a tactic used by such historical niceties as Hitler and Mao, who collectively killed tens of millions.
Ipso facto, QED – Warren wants to become a murdering tyrant! That must be hard to put on a 2×4 foot placard, though, handed out for waving purposes at exciting Warren rallies where Warren rallies people unused to reading history books.
I think not. The megabanks love her role in driving the falsely advertised banking reform that has crushed smaller banks, driven further consolidation (as if “too big to fail” never happened), and ensured the CEOs and board members would not need to worry about the next hungry young competitor.
Large corporations love corporatists (herd everyone into groups and have an approved representative show up at the grown-up table) like Warren. The more complex the regulatory net, the more onerous the tax system, the fewer competitors.