“Authenticity is the coin of the realm in political campaigns, and the more Warren strays from the economic arguments that brought her to the apex of politics in the first place, the less compelling her argument for the presidency becomes.”——”
Read an article on the downfall of Warren. She made a deal with Hillary and didn’t run against her in 2016. (Her excuse was it would have been a dirty campaign. But the dirt would have been from Hillary. Instead, she made deals for positions inside the new Hillary presidency.) In the meantime, all of her left-most positions have been coopted and far exceeded by her leftist rivals. While she was, at one time, as left as a Senator could go, she is now associated with the Clintonist “middle ground.” The party has gone far lefter than she can believable go. Recently, she said she loved markets. You can’t say that and go further left. Her recent gene test is simply the coup de grâce on her political career.
Warren wouldn’t have been a strong candidate anyway.
The best would be someone with relative youthful energy who is young enough to have hidden just how leftist they are but still inspiring enough for the their base to know it.
I also think the left is playing with fire by starting to go after liberal women as somehow unwitting racists.
In large part the American Revolution was premised on the famous, and extremely widely read in the colonies, tract Common Sense (1776)by Thomas Paine. Which begins thusly:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . We need to use that logic to take back the word “society” from the “writers” who had started stealing it by 1776, and who in the 20th Century had pretty much finished the heist.Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.
The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
The reality is that “conservatives” (who actually believe in progress of, by, and for the people) are skeptics. Conservatives are skeptical enough of society that they endorse the need for government as a (regrettable) necessity. But conservatives are also skeptical of government - even democratically elected government - as expensive and very dangerous.
“Liberals, OTOH, are not skeptics. They are instead cynical, and that is a different thing. On face value, cynicism is extreme skepticism - but skepticism implies uncertainty, and cynics have their mind made up. Not only so, but naiveté is embedded within cynicism. If you are cynical about “A” it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid being naive about “not A.”
Thus we see Paine’s “some writers” seemingly starting from a naive faith in democracy and in democratically elected government - and going from there to applying the good name “society” to government and justifying that naiveté with blanket condemnation of the real thing, actual society,. Socialism promises to "divide the pie” equally, ironically assuming that the pie is a given. “Conservatism” promotes growth in the size of the pie. In historical perspective, “conservatism” has resulted in such growth of the pie in the past century and a half that an American secretary today would not find it an unmixed blessing to trade circumstances with Queen Victoria. Because socialism is inherently backward looking, socialists tend to fail to adapt to changes - and the pie not only will not grow but will tend to shrink.