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.
You could put your fingers in your ears and read those words and hear Bernie Sanders – their socialist messages are are same. I agree with your characterization of her, and also think she will be the nominee. Liberals in MA think she’s the answer to everything – so Massachusetts and California will be all in. Those states are oblivious to the rest of the country. Wouldn’t it be weird if she was the nominee and she chose Hilary for VP?
I’m not sure how one can square the “evil” results of the policies Warren pushes with personal niceness. Is she misguided? Stupid? Evil? Or does she just not care about the results of those policies?
Game the system? My brother-in-law “dodged” the draft because he had flat feet. If bone spurs were also disqualifying, it’s not “gaming” the system. However, writing a letter to your draft board refusing to show is . . .
If Trump’s legs were missing, and he got a deferment, he’d still be categorized, by some, as gaming the system.
Because Trump.
It’s tiresome. Whether you like, hate, or don’t care either way about Trump.
The way you put it was correct. The largest corporations support the Democrats because complexity serves their interests far better than growth, improving income etc. We can agree with her empty generalization, but not with her approach to the subject. If we do not simplify, flatten, and lower the tax rates, personal and corporate, we will ultimately loose. Some states will be able to do this but probably not Washington.
Perfect. We know her approach is to regulate and I suspect that will gain her some support from the market dominant corporations that thrive with that approach. It’s ironic how she says one thing and then plays to strengthen those she criticizes.
I’ve heard this, but can’t quite grasp it. Her charm and authenticity are imperceptible to me. Maybe because I have only seen her in clips—or read her tweets—in which she’s saying something either stupid or reprehensible. Sometimes both.
No worries. I’m a big boy.
I try very hard to be polite and minimalist when dealing with people politically opposite. It is possible to disagree with people without rubbing it in their faces. Simply failing to agree with a flawed statement can spark a civil conversation on that topic. Even appearing to agree with flawed statement is my idea of a little white lie. There are places it can’t be avoided (like in church, for me), but ought not to be our default response.
[rant trimmed. I’m not a Thatcher any more.]
Back at you.