This whole time, I think she has actually been a trojan horse meant to sabotage universal healthcare from the left.
I think if she'd be more serious about sabotaging the Left, she wouldn't have taken such a hard right turn during the primaries. Her primary appeal among leftists was her hostile attitude towards the retail financial sector. She was never particularly progressive on health care or civil rights or foreign policy. She wasn't notably to the left on energy or infrastructure. She was a Harvard educated economist with some reformist views on banking and lending. That's it.
People got excited at someone who wasn't an obvious cut-out for Wall Street. That's more an indictment of the state of American Leftism than of Warren's politics. And if she let people believe what they wanted to believe, well... every politician does that.
What Warren did accomplish was both change the debate on finances. She did a good job of rebutting a lot of the Wall Street bullshit on predatory lending somehow being good for people. And she re-introduced the idea of Postal Banking, which leftists could leverage into real functional quality policy in the not-entirely-distant future.
She still sucked as a politician and as a human being, but not so much that she couldn't take back a Massachusetts Senate seat. And she chewed out Michael Bloomberg on national television, which I appreciate.
Warren had a real opportunity at a national profile and leadership in a Left Wing style populist Tea Party if she'd wanted it. But she didn't want it. She wasn't sabotaging anyone except herself, in the end.
Her plans for the CFPB had enough teeth to terrify the financial sector leadership and prompt Republicans to pull them. On that one thing, she seemed good.
She is good at that one thing, that's why we should make her head of the SEC so she can make Wall Street's life hell. It's the only thing she authentically supports.
I think if she'd be more serious about sabotaging the Left, she wouldn't have taken such a hard right turn during the primaries. Her primary appeal among leftists was her hostile attitude towards the retail financial sector. She was never particularly progressive on health care or civil rights or foreign policy. She wasn't notably to the left on energy or infrastructure. She was a Harvard educated economist with some reformist views on banking and lending. That's it.
People got excited at someone who wasn't an obvious cut-out for Wall Street. That's more an indictment of the state of American Leftism than of Warren's politics. And if she let people believe what they wanted to believe, well... every politician does that.
What Warren did accomplish was both change the debate on finances. She did a good job of rebutting a lot of the Wall Street bullshit on predatory lending somehow being good for people. And she re-introduced the idea of Postal Banking, which leftists could leverage into real functional quality policy in the not-entirely-distant future.
She still sucked as a politician and as a human being, but not so much that she couldn't take back a Massachusetts Senate seat. And she chewed out Michael Bloomberg on national television, which I appreciate.
Warren had a real opportunity at a national profile and leadership in a Left Wing style populist Tea Party if she'd wanted it. But she didn't want it. She wasn't sabotaging anyone except herself, in the end.
Warren is the world's biggest Karen and she wants to talk to the manager of all banks, basically.
Her plans for the CFPB had enough teeth to terrify the financial sector leadership and prompt Republicans to pull them. On that one thing, she seemed good.
She is good at that one thing, that's why we should make her head of the SEC so she can make Wall Street's life hell. It's the only thing she authentically supports.