From xxxxxx <[email protected]>
Subject What an Elizabeth Warren Presidency Would Look Like
Date January 17, 2020 2:22 AM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
[ Warren is a “visionary implementer.” When she defeats
President Donald Trump, it would mean an economic populist defeated a
corrupt plutocrat, a woman defeated America’s most famous
misogynist. one of two cover stories of dual-sided January issue.]
[[link removed]]

WHAT AN ELIZABETH WARREN PRESIDENCY WOULD LOOK LIKE  
[[link removed]]


 

Kathleen Geier
January 7, 2020
In These Times
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ Warren is a “visionary implementer.” When she defeats President
Donald Trump, it would mean an economic populist defeated a corrupt
plutocrat, a woman defeated America’s most famous misogynist. one of
two cover stories of dual-sided January issue. _

If Elizabeth Warren wins...This is one of two cover stories of the In
These Times dual-sided January issue.,

 

IF ELIZABETH WARREN WINS THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION, she
will have prevailed against daunting odds. She will have overcome a
potentially career-ending scandal (the DNA test debacle
[[link removed]])
and defeated not only the runner-up in the 2016 Democratic
presidential contest, but a popular two-term former vice president. If
she defeats President Donald Trump, it would mean an economic populist
defeated a corrupt plutocrat, that the most leftwing Democratic
presidential nominee in history defeated a racist reactionary, that a
woman defeated America’s most famous misogynist. It would be an
extraordinarily powerful moment. [This is one of two cover stories of
our dual-sided January issue.]

Her ambitions for the presidency are not small. Warren proposes to
rewrite the rules of the economy by reining in capital
[[link removed]], empowering
labor
[[link removed]] and
significantly expanding the welfare state
[[link removed]].

To understand how Warren would create big structural changes as
president, it’s helpful to look at how she has made change in the
past.

THE STANDARD ADVICE TO FRESHMEN SENATORS IS THIS: Keep a low profile
and suck up to your senior colleagues. As a newly elected senator in
2013, Elizabeth Warren did neither.

Instead, Warren used her perch on the Senate Banking Committee to
excoriate ineffectual regulators, duplicitous CEOs, profiteering
student lenders and other financial industry ne’er-dowells
(interrogations made famous in videos
[[link removed]] that went viral
[[link removed]]). She publicly clashed
with establishment Democrats such as Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.) and Joe
Manchin (W.V.). She even took on President Barack Obama, leading the
fight against several administration priorities, including the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and a pharmaceutical bill she
described as “a bunch of special giveaways” to Big Pharma. Warren
succeeded in getting under Obama’s skin
[[link removed]] to
such an extent that he took the rare step of criticizing her
repeatedly by name.

Progressive strategist and Warren supporter Murshed Zaheed says Warren
was able to buck the Democratic establishment because she “came to
the Senate with a movement behind her.” As a member of various
federal and congressional advisory committees over the previous two
decades—on issues like bankruptcy and the 2008 bank bailout—Warren
had developed close ties to labor, consumer and netroots activist
groups, including the AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform and
MoveOn.org. During her 2012 Senate race, her campaign built a massive
email list and a grassroots army of small donors. So when Warren broke
ranks, outside groups and the grassroots “had her back,” says
Zaheed.

The critique from some on the Left paints Warren as a technocrat who
doesn’t understand movements as the driving force of social change.
But Warren’s signature policy accomplishments—including the
creation
[[link removed]] of
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), loan forgiveness
[[link removed]] for
students ripped off by for-profit colleges, and the Federal Reserve
decision to punish
[[link removed]] Wells
Fargo for its crooked financial practices—have all paired a skillful
strategy from inside the system with strong coordination with outside
grassroots groups.

In speeches and comments on the campaign trail, Warren frequently
credits movements and the grassroots. At her campaign launch in
Lawrence, Mass., Warren paid tribute
[[link removed]] to
the workers there who organized a historic strike in 1912. “The
story of Lawrence is a story about how real change happens in
America,” she said.

One prominent feature of Warren’s theory of change is the importance
of planning and strategy. For some on the Left, the unofficial Warren
campaign slogan, “She’s got a plan for that,” grates. It
contains a whiff of “let the politician handle it,” rather than
the movement on the ground. But Nicole Carty, an activist who supports
Warren and has worked with Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter,
notes successful movements “have plans. They have strategies.”
Carty says movements that force political change often don’t know
how to implement transformative policies, which is why Warren’s
talent for proposing “ways things can get done and how they will be
implemented is a critical and unique skill.”

Warren’s campaign has released more than 50 plans
[[link removed]] on nearly every public policy
under the sun, revealing a specific and highly visible agenda—in
marked contrast with vague promises offered by other candidates. Carty
says that while other campaigns are focused only on “what’s
politically possible and feasible” in this moment, Warren’s plans
“are about having a vision and fighting for it.”

Carty cites the wealth tax
[[link removed]] as
one example, which “visionary implementer” Warren was the first in
the race to propose and three other candidates picked up.
Warren’s wealth tax—a two-cents-on-the-dollar tax on assets over
$50 million—is so easy to understand that “two cents!” is
chanted at Warren events. If you’re a homeowner, Warren says, you
have “been paying a wealth tax for years. They just call it a
property tax. I just want their tax to include the diamonds, the
yachts and the Rembrandts.” The proposal is straightforward while
being, Carty says, a “visionary idea that actually gets to the heart
of wealth injustice and righting that in a reparative way.”
 

Democratic presidential primary candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(Mass.) urges Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, the agency Warren essentially created, to “level
the playing field” between banks and customers June 10, 2014, in
Washington, D.C.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images  //  In These Times
While the wealth tax is popular with voters
[[link removed]], it’s
unclear whether Democrats will command a big enough majority in
Congress to pass it, or if centrist Democrats would support it. But
legislation won’t be her only tool. The president controls an
enormous bureaucracy and has a vast array of administrative,
regulatory and enforcement powers at her disposal. An activist
president could enact policies to cancel student debt, lower
prescription drug prices, put a moratorium on drilling on public
lands, require all federal contractors to pay a $15 minimum wage,
break up the banks and Big Tech, and much, much more—all with the
stroke of a pen.

Warren would be well positioned to kick the enforcement and regulatory
powers of the executive branch into high gear. She helped build the
CFPB from the ground up and, as a senator, has overseen a broad swath
of similar federal regulatory agencies.

Appointments will be key to implementing her vision. Warren, who has
often said that “personnel is policy,” led successful fights to
quash the appointments of Wall Street-friendly Obama nominees,
including Larry Summers’ bid
[[link removed]] to
chair the Federal Reserve. Her office was also involved in
a behind-the-scenes effort
[[link removed]] to identify
progressive candidates
[[link removed]] for
posts in a Hillary Clinton administration.

No one inside or outside of the Warren campaign was able or willing to
name specific individuals under consideration for high-level White
House posts, but Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door
Project, a nonprofit organization unaffiliated with Warren’s
campaign, said the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Rohit Chopra is
the kind of appointee Warren might seek. Chopra, whom Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D-N.Y.) recommended for the post, was widely seen as a
Warren pick
[[link removed]].
At the FTC, Chopra has been a strong advocate for consumer rights and
pushed for tougher regulation of the Big Tech monopolies. He
strenuously objected to the FTC’s recent settlement with Facebook
over its privacy breach, arguing that the $5 billion penalty was too
weak to be a deterrent. Hauser also expects Warren will search beyond
the Beltway for those who have a track record of success, including
state and municipal officials who take an aggressive approach toward
regulation and enforcement.

Executive orders get more press than other tools at the president’s
disposal, but, says Hauser, they tend to move more slowly and are
subject to being overturned by the courts. Enforcement priorities,
however, are immediately effective. Imagine the difference it would
make if the president ordered the Justice Department to stop
persecuting immigrants and start aggressively pursuing crooked
bankers, polluters and other white-collar criminals instead.

Then there are regulations. In the bowels of every federal agency are
countless regulations from the New Deal or the Great Society that sit
gathering dust. These regulations protect workers and consumers,
enforce civil rights law, promote food safety and clean air and water,
enable the feds to bust up monopolies, close tax loopholes, and more.
But many such regulations have gone unenforced, beginning with the
Reagan revolution and continuing through the neoliberal presidential
administrations since.

A Warren administration threatens to resurrect those laws with a
vengeance. As a senator, for example, Warren cited an obscure federal
law
[[link removed]] to
successfully lobby the Obama administration to provide debt relief for
thousands of students ripped off by Corinthian, a for-profit college.

A president’s final tool is the bully pulpit, which Warren can use
to educate, persuade and inspire voters to take action. Adam Green,
cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which
has endorsed Warren, says, “[Warren’s] mentality when she entered
the race, at only 3% to 5% in the polls, was, ‘I’m gonna go around
the country and educate people about issues like systemic corruption
and anti-monopoly. If I lose, at least millions more people are primed
to want the right solution to these things. And if I win, we can do
stuff.’” A gifted communicator, Warren can explain complex
policies in clear, simple language and connect them to voters’
everyday concerns and struggles.

Elizabeth Warren refers to Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, who
partnered with women labor agitators from inside government (seen here
with a foreman and riveter working on San Francisco’s Golden Gate
Bridge in 1935), as a role model.
Photo by Bettman/contributor/Getty Images  //  In These Times
AT THE HEART OF WARREN’S VISION FOR AMERICA is a drive to end
policies that benefit corporations and the rich at the expense of
working families. She has said her first legislative priority as
president would be an anti-corruption package that, once adopted,
would facilitate passage of the rest of her agenda by removing the
financial incentive for legislators to oppose it. Warren told Ezra
Klein
[[link removed]] that
the purpose of banning the revolving door between Congress and
lobbying jobs is to say to members of Congress, “Hey, this is your
job … so don’t be looking over the horizon at your next job and
adjusting your behavior accordingly.”

Next on Warren’s agenda is the wealth tax, which would reduce
economic inequality while providing a funding mechanism for other
high-priority measures. Warren says her wealth tax would generate
enough revenue to
[[link removed]] cancel
95% of all student debt and fund universal childcare, universal pre-K
and free public college.

Some critics point to European countries that have tried and failed to
implement a wealth tax, but the economists who advised
Warren, Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez
[[link removed]],
say Warren’s version would be more feasible: It would fall on a
smaller share of the population, contain fewer loop holes and come
with more aggressive enforcement mechanisms. Economist Max Sawicky
suggests Warren could wield the wealth tax as “a political weapon to
get other changes,” including more progressive tax enforcement
policies, regardless of whether it ends up being enacted.

Warren’s economic agenda includes antitrust policies to break up the
banks and Big Tech, stricter executive compensation rules, a crackdown
on private equity, higher corporate taxes, and trade policies that
meet human rights standards. On the spending side, Warren’s
proposals include free two- and four-year public college, the
cancellation of 95% of student debt, universal childcare and the
expansion of Social Security. The spending items would require
legislation, but much of the rest of her economic program could be
implemented by the executive branch alone. A president has
considerable latitude over trade negotiations and can enforce existing
consumer and antitrust laws, thereby cracking down on other corporate
abuses. Warren could also use executive orders and existing
regulations to ensure more wealthy people are paying their fair share.

Action on climate change
[[link removed]] is
another top priority for Warren. She is a strong supporter of Sen. Ed
Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) Green
New Deal proposal, but goes beyond that. Warren has released 11
climate plans on issues ranging from environmental justice to clean
air and water to protecting public lands. The most significant
initiative may be her green manufacturing plan, a $2 trillion, 10-year
research, development and deployment plan to create new, cheaper
technology for clean energy. Warren also adopted Gov. Jay Inslee’s
(D-Wash.) plan to achieve 100% clean energy by 2035.

Warren has released healthcare proposals to expand access in rural
areas, reduce maternal mortality and end the opioid crisis, but the
main item on Warren’s healthcare agenda is Medicare for All
[[link removed]]—which,
of all the items on the progressive agenda, is probably the most
difficult to enact.

For one thing, Medicare for All is many times more expensive than any
of Warren’s other proposals, with an estimated cost of more than $2
trillion
[[link removed]] in
additional annual spending (her universal childcare and free public
college proposals would cost about $70 billion and $60 billion
[[link removed]],
respectively). It will also require, among other things, liquidating
an entire sector of the economy (the health insurance industry);
slashing the profits of hospitals and pharmaceutical and medical
equipment companies; and reducing the salaries of doctors in highly
paid specialties. Taking on all those vested interests will be tough.
Indeed, Democratic presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders’
Medicare for All bill has only 15 Senate cosponsors, some of whom have
already begun to back away from it
[[link removed]].

Warren’s Medicare for All proposal is a maximalist plan that would
make comprehensive healthcare virtually free for everyone, including
prescriptions, long-term care, mental health care, dental care and
vision care. She would pay for the plan partly through cost savings
(by reducing prescription drug and administrative costs and lowering
reimbursement rates to hospitals and specialists) and partly through
raising revenue (with a wealth tax and an employer tax roughly equal
to the current employer contribution to employee health insurance).
The purpose of this financing scheme is to make the plan more
politically palatable by avoiding big new taxes on working people.

To transition to Medicare for All, Warren proposes
[[link removed]] a
two-stage process. First, she would sign executive orders lowering
prices on prescription drugs and strengthening the Affordable Care
Act. Then, within the first 100 days of her administration, Congress
would pass a bill enacting a robust public healthcare option and
expanding Medicare benefits to minors, low-income households and
people age 50 and older. In the second stage, in the third year of a
Warren administration, the full Medicare for All bill would be
enacted.

Warren supporters argue the Senate map for Democrats is more favorable
in 2022, and enacting the initial public healthcare option would
weaken the insurance industry, making the full bill easier to enact.
On the other hand, it could also be the case that starting with a
maximalist demand like Medicare for All would make smaller steps, such
as a public option, more likely, whereas starting with a demand for
only a public option might result in nothing at all.

Immigration reform is another Warren priority and, yes, she has a plan
for that. Warren has proposed executive actions to eliminate abusive
immigration enforcement, reduce immigrant detention while increasing
due process, and admit more refugees. She also backs legislation to
create new paths to citizenship.

On labor, Warren supports back-burnered items on the Democratic
legislative agenda, such as a $15 minimum wage, “card check”
legislation to make unionizing easier and a ban on the permanent
replacement of strikers, as well as her own more far-reaching measure
that would let workers control 40% of corporate board seats. Through
executive actions, Warren also proposes to strengthen enforcement of
anti-discrimination and worker safety laws, expand overtime rules, and
strengthen the National Labor Relations Board.

On foreign policy, Warren’s record is disappointing
[[link removed]].
She voted for Trump’s 2018 defense budget, defended Israel when it
bombed Palestinian schools, and supported sanctions against Venezuela,
Iran and other countries. Despite these missteps, her foreign policy
has been improving. She’s become more critical of Israel, voted to
end U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen, introduced a
no-first-use nuclear weapons bill, and said she would immediately
start withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. If we as leftists want
to make sure she continues to evolve on these issues, it’s critical
that we demand accountability and push for progressive foreign policy
appointments. She would be well advised to staff her White House with
appointees from Bernie Sanders’ excellent foreign policy team.



WARREN HAS A STRONG RECORD OF enlisting bipartisan sponsors
[[link removed]] for
her Senate bills, but it’s likely Republicans would oppose her
presidential agenda en masse. Trump is popular with the Republican
base, and even out of office he would undoubtedly remain a thorn in
her side with a steady stream of insults, smears and conspiracy
theories.

Democrats, too, could be a problem. Warren’s support of Medicare for
All, her soak-the-rich tax policies, and her plans to break up
monopolies and heavily regulate corporations have won her the enmity
of neoliberal Democrats in Congress and the billionaires who love
them.

Warren’s style has been to fight hard and in a highly visible way
and to create public support for her goals and political consequences
for those who thwart her. As she said
[[link removed]] when
she was fighting to create the CFPB, “My first choice is a strong
consumer agency. My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of
blood and teeth left on the floor.”

To enact her agenda, Warren could also do what presidents have always
done with carrots (such as favors from a federal agency) and sticks
(such as supporting primary challengers). But the sources I spoke to
believe she would support primarying recalcitrant Democrats only as a
last resort, and only against legislators who consistently opposed her
policies. In addition, Warren is already working to create the kind
of Congress that would support her priorities. She has endorsed a slew
of progressive candidates in Democratic primaries, including
challengers to two centrist Democratic incumbents, Rep. Dan Lipinski
in Illinois and Rep. Henry Cuellar in Texas. Her campaign has also
been pouring money into down-ballot races
[[link removed]] in an
effort to elect more progressive Democrats to statehouses
[[link removed]] and
to Congress
[[link removed]].

Democratic strategist and Warren supporter Mike Lux predicts Warren
“would be as aggressive as any president has ever been at rallying
organizations and rallying the netroots. She would come into the White
House with a huge email list that I think she would operationalize
aggressively to work on Democrats to support bills.”

Meanwhile, institutions like the filibuster, a Senate that
disproportionately represents white and rural voters, and the
Electoral College all make progressive, transformative change
difficult. Warren is supportive of statehood for Puerto Rico and the
District of Columbia, steps that may be doable if the Democrats take
control of Congress. She has proposed abolishing the filibuster and
the Electoral College, but those reforms would likely be a much
heavier lift.

But the most serious procedural threat to a Warren agenda may well be
a Supreme Court and federal courts dominated by right-wing appointees
who have been consistently hostile to the kind of progressive economic
policies Warren champions. Warren has said she is open to such
reforms
[[link removed]] as
adding justices to the Supreme Court.

Political backlash poses another major threat. There’s a lively
debate among Democrats about whether a midterm backlash is an
inevitable, naturally recurring feature of American politics. Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama faced a ferocious backlash at the polls in
the midterm elections of their first terms, giving an obstructionist
GOP control of the House and stalling Democratic agendas for six
years.

But Stephanie Taylor, cofounder of the PCCC, says electoral backlash
is not a given. “The best way for Democrats to win is to fight for
systemic change, not incremental change. And this is what Elizabeth
Warren does.” People will vote for Democrats, she says, “if they
believe that it will do something about the rigged system, it will do
something to put more money in their pockets, do something about their
crushing medical debt, foreclosures, student debt.”

A hostile media environment will pose another obstacle for Warren. The
mainstream media has repeatedly subjected Warren to sexist slurs
(like "schoolmarm"
[[link removed]]),
judged her by sexist double standards (have you heard that she's not
likable
[[link removed]]?),
and cast doubts about her candidacy by making sexist electability
arguments
[[link removed]].
Besides sexist bias, Warren also has to contend with the
media’s powerful bias against the Left
[[link removed]].
Her standing in the polls began to suffer when centrist pundits
[[link removed]] started
directing their fire against Warren. In the debates, she has faced
harsh “How will you pay for that?” questions about her Medicare
for All plan, yet none of the moderators asked her centrist rivals how
they plan to deal with the crisis of some 28 million uninsured
Americans
[[link removed]].
Media coverage of her wealth tax has been largely negative
[[link removed]],
with the media repeatedly
[[link removed]] elevating
the voices
[[link removed]] of
random billionaires
[[link removed]] who
oppose the tax while ignoring the millions of Americans—parents who
desperately need child care, students who can't afford to go college,
graduates burdened by crushing debt—who would benefit from it.

An aggressive, proactive communications strategy by a Warren
administration could blunt the impact of negative media coverage.
Hauser says that to the extent Warren’s agenda focuses on executive
action rather than legislation, “It will give her an opportunity to
potentially control the conversation.” A president whose primary
focus is getting legislation passed on Capitol Hill will
“necessarily provide Congressional Republicans an enormous
microphone.” But, says Hauser, if Warren’s agenda is focused on
unleashing the regulatory powers of the executive branch, “the only
people who have the microphone will be the various corporate interests
getting rolled over by Warren appointees across the government. And I
think that those are communications battles the president's much more
capable of winning.” 
 

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images  //  In These Times
Our country lacks a well-organized Left
[[link removed]], perhaps
the biggest obstacle of all to progressive, transformative change.
Left-wing parties in Europe have an institutional base in strong labor
unions, but in the United States, union density is low and the labor
movement is weak and not uniformly progressive. Nevertheless,
transformative change is, perhaps, possible. In the wake of the Great
Recession, we’ve seen a huge upsurge in progressive activism,
including Occupy Wall Street, Fight for 15, Black Lives Matter, the
immigration and climate justice movements, the revival of the
Democratic Socialists of America, #MeToo and waves of teacher strikes.

Warren laid out her theory of change
[[link removed]] most
clearly at a September 2019 campaign event in New York. In her speech,
Warren referenced the tragic 1911 fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist
Factory to tell a story of change in America: how the fire led to a
dramatic upsurge in activism with some half a million people taking to
the streets in a union-organized funeral march for the workers. Warren
said that “the women of the trade unions kept pushing from the
outside” and Frances Perkins, then a labor activist, “pushed from
the inside.” Together, they rewrote New York state labor law from
top to bottom to protect workers. When she became FDR’s labor
secretary, Perkins followed the same model for change. The result,
Warren said, was the “big structural change” of the New Deal:
“Social Security, unemployment insurance, abolition of child labor,
minimum wage, the right to join a union and even the very existence of
the weekend.”

Warren sees a clear distinction between social movements pressing for
change from the outside and the elected officials (like herself)
working the system from within. Warren’s progressive rival, Bernie
Sanders, sees the role of the president differently, saying he would
act as “organizer-in-chief
[[link removed]]” to lead a mass
movement for change.

But Sanders’ position fails to understand the structural reality of
how politics works and what presidents do. Presidents are inside
actors; movements are outside actors. Movements exist independently
from parties and candidates and draw their power from their ability to
extend or withdraw their support at will. The American presidents who
have brought about fundamental change (take FDR and the labor
movement, or LBJ and the civil rights movement) worked closely with
movements, listened to movements, set a tone that
encouraged movements, coordinated politically with movements—but
did not lead or organize movements.

Sanders, like Warren, clearly appreciates that movements are the motor
that drives change, and a Sanders administration, like a Warren
administration, would partner with movements to achieve change. Both
candidates offer a compelling vision that can inspire people, and both
share the goal of orienting America closer to social democracy. While
Sanders is to the left of Warren on most issues, that difference is
unlikely to matter
[[link removed]] much
in practice (with the important exception of foreign policy) because
both would be seriously constrained by a political environment
significantly to the right of their proposed agendas.

Warren holds two important advantages over Sanders. The first is her
gender. By itself, gender should not be a determining factor. But in
two candidates that are as closely matched as Sanders and Warren,
gender does come into play. Electing our first female president may be
symbolic, but symbols matter. Research suggests
[[link removed]] that
when women run for office, they inspire more women to do the same. Our
government is currently ranked 76th
[[link removed]] in the world on the share
of women elected to our national legislature. Studies show
[[link removed]] that
women who are elected to higher office are more likely than men to
champion women’s issues such as childcare, reproductive justice,
family-friendly labor policies, women’s health and the minimum wage.

Warren’s chief advantage over Sanders, however, is that she is more
likely to deliver on the implementation of her proposals. According to
the most recent report cards compiled by the independent
organization GovTrack, Warren
[[link removed]] has
been more successful than Sanders
[[link removed]] in
introducing legislation, getting cosponsors, getting her bills out of
committee and writing bills that became law. Warren also dreamed up,
designed and implemented a government agency: the CFPB, which, to
date, has provided more than $13 billion in relief to distressed
consumers. Sanders has a record he can be deeply proud of, but no
comparable legislative achievements. Warren combines a strong
strategic sense with an unparalleled understanding of the
possibilities of the executive branch. Her skill set is a better match
for the job.

Ultimately, of course, one person—even with all the powers of the
presidency at her command—can only do so much. Warren would need
movements that pressure her to do the right thing and hold her
accountable when she falls short. But movements on the Left have been
gaining strength. In many ways, Trump’s presidency has been about
suppressing an America that is trying to be born. Warren would very
much like to midwife the birth of that new America. But only if
Americans create social disruption on a mass scale will she have the
opportunity to do so.

_[KATHLEEN GEIER has written for The Nation, The Baffler and The
New Republic. She lives in Chicago.]_

_The views expressed in this piece are the author's own. As a 501(c)3
nonprofit, _In These Times _does not oppose or endorse candidates
for political office._

_Reprinted with permission from In These Times
[[link removed]].
All rights reserved. _

_xxxxxx is proud to feature content from In These Times
[[link removed]],
a publication dedicated to covering progressive politics, labor and
activism. To get more news and provocative analysis from In These
Times, sign up
[[link removed]] 
for a free weekly e-newsletter or subscribe
[[link removed]]
to the magazine at a special low rate._

_Never has independent journalism mattered more. Help hold power to
account: Subscribe to In These Times magazine
[[link removed]],
or make a tax-deductible donation to fund this reporting
[[link removed]]._

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis

  • Sender: Portside
  • Political Party: n/a
  • Country: United States
  • State/Locality: n/a
  • Office: n/a
  • Email Providers:
    • L-Soft LISTSERV