Skip to main content

Warren

Berkley MI
Tuesday

Last week, Rachel Maddow wrapped up her interview with Elizabeth Warren with the question we all knew was coming. The question we knew she would surely duck.
If, Maddow asked, she were offered the vice-presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, would she take it?
Warren didn’t hem, haw, spin, or equivocate. She said, and I quote her verbatim, “Yes.”
As far as I can tell, this has not gotten the media attention we might have expected — the virus does tend to dominate the discussion these days — but there it was, out in the open. Maddow was visibly gobsmacked, but no more than I was. I’ve been thinking about it ever since.
First let me say that I consider Warren to be, by a wide margin, the person most qualified to be president. Her accomplishments are one thing — how many of us have designed and built a federal agency from scratch? But it’s her communication skills — her uncanny ability to explain difficult concepts so that Main Street can understand them — that put her in a class by herself. Add to that her obvious compassion and authenticity and it’s clear why I’m not alone in regarding her failure in the primaries as profoundly disappointing.
That said, I never considered her an especially good choice for running mate. I have spent the last few months convinced — and it’s hardly an original thought — that Joe Biden needs to name an African-American woman, as the literal embodiment of the two demographics now at the core of the Democratic party. The fact that we have at least two talented and charismatic choices at hand — Kamala Harris and Stacey Abrams — it has seemed to me a no-brainer.
At the same time, I thought Warren would ultimately be more useful either in the Senate, running the Finance Committee, or in a key cabinet post — Treasury comes to mind. It never occurred to me that she might actually see opportunity in the vice presidency, a post that has historically been a political graveyard, but which has grown in stature over the last several presidencies (Mike Pence notwithstanding).
But now I’m thinking — and more important, she seems to be thinking — that the virus changes everything. It certainly shifts the dynamic of the election to the point where I can’t see anyone not voting for Biden based on his choice of running mate. Would an African-American be a more righteous choice? Definitely. But this is Elizabeth Warren we’re talking about, and for me that makes all the difference.
Clearly someone will need to take charge of a badly damaged country. Clearly someone has to figure out what America 2.0 is going to look like. I don’t think Joe Biden is the guy for that. Nothing against Joe, but rebuilding the economy in the wake of a global pandemic is not really in his skill set. It is definitely in Warren’s.
So assuming he were to get elected president (please oh please), wouldn’t it be beautiful if he could leave the real work to her? If he could make her the de facto president?  We all know by now that complex plans are at the heart of her brand. She deserves the chance to make one and oversee its execution. I would trust her ideas over anyone else’s, and I would trust her to appreciate anyone else’s ideas if she thought them workable. She won’t let ego get in the way of a good idea.
Biden’s job would be to run interference for her. Take the political heat, which will be intense. Tend to the healing, which will be prolonged and heart-breaking. These are things he’s good at. He’ll exude empathy. He’ll be as touchy-feely as he can be from six feet away. And while he will surely continue to make all the spontaneous gaffes he’s so famous for, we’ll forgive him because in that regard he is so not Trump.
In the back of Warren’s mind, I’m guessing, is the real possibility that Biden may not finish his term. Yes, the virus could take him, and his age will always be a concern. But I think he’s just as likely to want to step down. He might just decide that he’s done what he came to do, and that he’s leaving the country in good hands. Or he might forego a second term.
But however that plays out — and there are many possibilities — Warren surely understands that as vice president, her odds of one day becoming president will have been raised considerably.
Hey, a guy can dream. Right?

Comments

  1. Couldn't disagree with you more on this one. I think Elizabeth Warren is a great Vice Presidential candidate if you want 4 more years of Trump. Too controversial right now.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Was Obamacare Saved When We Weren’t Looking?

A few years ago, I posted to this blog a piece of pure speculation . It was about the failure of Senate Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2017. Based on no evidence whatsoever, I posited that the Senate vote had failed because Mitch McConnell had rigged it to fail. My reasoning was that even though Republicans had been screaming for the repeal of “Obamacare” since its inception, repeal was the last thing they actually wanted. Sure, they’ve had a jolly old time trashing the ACA over the years. Trump lost no opportunity to call it “a total disaster” in his 2016 campaign. But the prospect of coming up with a workable replacement for a healthcare system so big and complex was something the GOP had neither the intelligence nor the policy chops to take seriously. Republicans don’t go into government to govern. Still, even they could see that the ACA had grown remarkably popular over the years — people with health insurance tend to be protective...

The MAGA Agenda is Hardly a Slam Dunk

  I’ve long had a morbid fascination with totalitarian states, starting with a major in Soviet Studies back in college. I immersed myself in the Orwellian mechanics of Stalin’s four-decade reign of terror, and I’ve been a student of autocracies, kleptocracies, theocracies, and hypocrisies ever since. I will eagerly engage in any conversation about Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or Muammar Khadaffi, even if I don’t know what I’m talking about. One thing they all had in common was the prioritization of loyalty over ability. The people charged with carrying out the regime’s agenda inevitably lurched their way into remarkable inefficiencies and dysfunction, which, in almost every case, culminated in the collapse of the regime itself. Not that they didn’t do cataclysmic damage in the meantime. Of course, I was fortunate to be studying these rogues from a distance, and the thought of actually living under one of them was, until recently, the furthest thing fr...

Don’t Let the New York Times Do Your Thinking

  A few weeks ago, I revisited my least popular post of all time, so there’s a certain symmetry to my now offering my most popular one — or at least my most-opened. It was written in mid-summer of this year, a bit recent for a look-back, yet it seems to take on more resonance as the Times continues to indulge in collaboration with a fledgling regime bent on fascist takeover.   My father would not live any place where the  New York Times  couldn’t be delivered before 7:00 a.m. To him, the  Times  was “the newspaper of record,” the keeper of the first drafts of history. It had the reach and the resources to be anywhere history was being made, and the skills to report it accurately. He trusted it more than any other news source, including Walter Cronkite. Like my dad, I grew to associate the  Times  with serious journalism, the first place one goes for the straight story. Their news was always assumed to be objectively present...