So far, Hillary Clinton has appeared to be as much of a presidential-candidate
juggernaut as anyone has at this still early point. This year, the sportsbook.ag odds on her
being elected have ranged from almost even to 2-to-1 against, which, by
comparison, is several times more likely than any other candidate. You can now get 9-to-5 on her winning – second
most likely is Mitt Romney with 12 to 1, followed by Jeb Bush at 15 to 1. Chris Christie and Marco Rubio are at 20 to
1, followed by the second most likely Democrat, Elizabeth Warren, currently 22
to 1.
Who is this Elizabeth Warren? She is the 65-year-old Massachusetts junior
senator, a former Harvard law professor who dealt most often with bankruptcy
law and consumer finance issues. She won
the first election Scott Brown, the Republican who replaced Ted Kennedy, had to
face while in that office, and almost ever since has been mentioned as a
possible 2016 presidential candidate, with slow but steadily increasing
attention paid to her prospects and desirability. As recently as April she publicly denied
wanting to run, but has been involved with so much Democratic fundraising that
she seems to have established a foundation, and of course may change her
mind.
Warren is best known politically, and perhaps now
professionally, for opposing Wall Street and big business financial
domination. That is why The Washington Post said she would be
“instantly relevant” in the 2016 campaign, as most Democrats have a negative
view of both. She is regarded as being
to the left of Hillary Clinton, which could help her within her party, if not
in the general election.
So how does Warren seem on jobs? She has sponsored only one bill directly
related, the Equal Employment for All Act of 2013, which would bar employers
from using workers’ and candidates’ credit reports against them. She is in favor of minimum wage increases,
citing great productivity gains which have not come through in pay. Her books, The Two-Income Trap and A
Fighting Chance, both point out a major effect of the jobs crisis, that
workers average lower incomes and less overall prosperity than they did in what
I have called the Winning by Default Years ending in 1973. Peripherally, she is staunchly in favor of
higher top-end tax brackets, saying that those with unusually high incomes needed
roads, police, and worker education that were collectively provided. Otherwise, she has said little about American
employment, and now has nothing – literally – on her website under
“Issues.”
There would be several good things about a declared
Elizabeth Warren candidacy. First,
Clinton needs strong competition, which Warren could provide - without it, we
could see the election of the most noncommittal Democratic or Republican
nominee in decades. Second, despite her
being pegged as in the leftmost half of her party, she could well materialize
into a bipartisan leader, as she consistently voted Republican before 1995 and
has said, as recently as 2011, that neither party should be allowed to
dominate. Third, she is aware of what
the permanent jobs crisis has caused, even if she does not seem to credit that
as the cause. Fourth, and most importantly,
she could well prove independent enough to pursue solutions beyond a mainstream
Democratic platform.
For these reasons, and whether we agree with her views so
far, we should encourage Elizabeth Warren to run. Since we have got almost nowhere on the jobs
crisis during Obama’s presidency, an election of another center-to-right
Democrat beholden to many within the party could easily be the worst reasonably
likely 2016 outcome. I can imagine
Warren taking guaranteed income, for example, more seriously than Clinton
would.
Another thing about Warren is worthy of our attention. If she were voted in and did not succeed, she
would be easier to get rid of in 2020, which we may well want to do if and when
another recession lays our employment situation bare once more. Win or lose, whether she is right or wrong, we
want Elizabeth Warren – and others with different views than what we have seen
– in the race and running hard.
No comments:
Post a Comment