Battle Over Bill Exposes Dem Rift

[Jack Hays]

The WaPo is really trying to promote her now.

Sen. Warren was told to be quiet. She spoke out.

In her book released this year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren recounted a dinner she had with President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, in April 2009, when Warren was the outspoken chairman of a congressionally appointed panel probing the government’s response to the financial crisis.

Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. ... He teed it up this way: I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule. They don’t criticize other insiders.
I had been warned.
​

Warren ignored the warning.
And if the past few weeks are any indication, she can operate as an insider without giving her up outsider credentials. She’s remained outspoken, but has become even more influential. She hasn't stopped throwing bombs at the rich and powerful — and causing trouble for the White House — but she's won a spot in Senate leadership, changed the shape of congressional debates over financial regulation and continued to draw widespread attention as a potential presidential candidate. . . .

 

[Fiddytree]

The WaPo is really trying to promote her now.

Sen. Warren was told to be quiet. She spoke out.

In her book released this year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren recounted a dinner she had with President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, in April 2009, when Warren was the outspoken chairman of a congressionally appointed panel probing the government’s response to the financial crisis.

Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. ... He teed it up this way: I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule. They don’t criticize other insiders.
I had been warned.
​

Warren ignored the warning.
And if the past few weeks are any indication, she can operate as an insider without giving her up outsider credentials. She’s remained outspoken, but has become even more influential. She hasn't stopped throwing bombs at the rich and powerful — and causing trouble for the White House — but she's won a spot in Senate leadership, changed the shape of congressional debates over financial regulation and continued to draw widespread attention as a potential presidential candidate. . . .

This is what happens when liberals become overzealous and foolishly shed their "sane Party" image. When the Tea Party was coming about, liberals were right to observe that Tea Partiers were seemingly incapable of doing politics modestly and correctly. They began to promote the idea that the Democratic Party was the Party of practical problem solvers and capable of taking ideas from "the other isle" and implementing them in government policy.

Now the narrative is that Obama wasn't liberal enough in his health care reform (as if it would have made any sense in 2009 for Obama to be more liberal with moderate Democrats still in power to begin with), adopted too much of the Bush foreign policy (as if Obama could divorce himself from his immediate predecessor's conflicts and the inherent necessity to continue the War on Terror), and had too comfortable a relationship with the corporate world (once again, as if there are a great many more options of note). Conservatives said the same nonsense about Reagan and liberals said the same tripe about Clinton in their waning years.

Warren's path is that of the unnecessary obstructionist. She makes populist liberals feel proud in a way that populist conservatives feel glee whenever Ted Cruz bludgeons himself over the halls of Congress. It may look good, but it accomplishes nothing. In this instance, Warren may have lost and the legislation moved forward anyway, but under the right circumstances she will come off as nothing better than a destructive force.

If liberals want to follow the path of the Republican Party to isolating everyone but their passionate small base, they are welcome to do so. They will lose and drive themselves into a short term irrelevancy. This is because it becomes little more than masturbatory politics and no one is interested in such solipsistic pursuits. The Republican Party will be more than willing to drive a wedge in the Democrat's outside coalition layers for a bit under a decade.

There is nothing more foolish than the thought that Party purity is the answer. When liberals and conservatives are empirically drifting apart in any sense of the commons and each has the ability to tank any potential legislation, it makes no sense for a political party to only placate their bases. They need the center not only to win elections, but also to govern and negotiate deals. Center politics is where the action has always been, but it only becomes more powerful with greater ideological divides. If you want to conquer the landscape, look no further than trying to suck away some of your enemy's supporters.

 

[Jack Hays]

This is what happens when liberals become overzealous and foolishly shed their "sane Party" image. When the Tea Party was coming about, liberals were right to observe that Tea Partiers were seemingly incapable of doing politics modestly and correctly. They began to promote the idea that the Democratic Party was the Party of practical problem solvers and capable of taking ideas from "the other isle" and implementing them in government policy.

Now the narrative is that Obama wasn't liberal enough in his health care reform (as if it would have made any sense in 2009 for Obama to be more liberal with moderate Democrats still in power to begin with), adopted too much of the Bush foreign policy (as if Obama could divorce himself from his immediate predecessor's conflicts and the inherent necessity to continue the War on Terror), and had too comfortable a relationship with the corporate world (once again, as if there are a great many more options of note). Conservatives said the same nonsense about Reagan and liberals said the same tripe about Clinton in their waning years.

Warren's path is that of the unnecessary obstructionist. She makes populist liberals feel proud in a way that populist conservatives feel glee whenever Ted Cruz bludgeons himself over the halls of Congress. It may look good, but it accomplishes nothing. In this instance, Warren may have lost and the legislation moved forward anyway, but under the right circumstances she will come off as nothing better than a destructive force.

If liberals want to follow the path of the Republican Party to isolating everyone but their passionate small base, they are welcome to do so. They will lose and drive themselves into a short term irrelevancy. This is because it becomes little more than masturbatory politics and no one is interested in such solipsistic pursuits. The Republican Party will be more than willing to drive a wedge in the Democrat's outside coalition layers for a bit under a decade.

There is nothing more foolish than the thought that Party purity is the answer. When liberals and conservatives are empirically drifting apart in any sense of the commons and each has the ability to tank any potential legislation, it makes no sense for a political party to only placate their bases. They need the center not only to win elections, but also to govern and negotiate deals. Center politics is where the action has always been, but it only becomes more powerful with greater ideological divides. If you want to conquer the landscape, look no further than trying to suck away some of your enemy's supporters.

Superior post.:thumbs::thumbs: