“She was becoming herself and daily casting aside that fictitious self which we assume like a garment with which to appear before the world.” –Kate Chopin, “The Awakening"
By RA Monaco
We haven’t heard anyone suggest making her birthday a national holiday yet, but Elizabeth Warren Day should be put to a vote. Her Friday evening proclamation on the floor of the Senate, saying that “Enough is enough,” could be the unifying political frame that bridges the partisan divide between left, right and center in the not so distant 2016 elections.
Unapologetically, Warren’s anger spewed into the official record saying, “now we’re watching as Congress passes yet another provision that was written by lobbyists for the biggest recipient of bailout money in the history of this country. And it’s attached to a bill that needs to pass or else the entire federal government will grind to a halt.”
In clear straightforward words, Sen. Warren told America to “Think about that kind of power. If a financial institution has become so big and so powerful that it can hold the entire country hostage. That alone is reason enough to break them up.”
Casting a political frame around every candidate
On any level, Warren’s proclamation “Enough is enough,” casts a political frame around every candidate to answer, when is it really between pro-corporate and anti-corporate?
Sen. Warren reminded her colleagues that “We were sent here to fight for those families,” referring to those “who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citigroup bet big on derivatives and lost.”
In her vision of the inevitable, Sen. Warren’s fearless pronouncement was frozen into the public record, “Enough is enough with Citigroup passing 11th hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but everybody will come to regret. Enough is enough.”
With an idealism that American families universally share—regardless of political affiliation—Warren’s voice filled the chamber with the reminder that “it is past time, for Washington to start working for them!”
The once commonly accepted belief that with hard work your children can have a better life than you, is a fading ideal eroded by stagnating wages and growing inequality that’s become vividly apparent.
The status quo powers of the Wall Street oligarchy
Realistically, no one expects Hillary Clinton to challenge the status quo powers of the Wall Street oligarchy—a power structure that has far too much control of our government. While many people would support Madam Hillary’s candidacy in a 2016 presidential election over the prospective field of GOP candidates—which now includes Jeb Bush—the absence or presence of Elizabeth Warren is the clear wild card to that support.
In recent interviews regarding the candidacy of Hillary Clinton with two professional women, one, a California physician Cole Fulwider, M.D., the other, a lawyer and Los Angeles County prosecutor Samer Hathout, Elizabeth Warren was in both instances, the un-suggested and unsolicited preferred candidate of choice.
Independently, these two intellectually engaged and accomplished women were asked, “Do you favor a different candidate as the Democratic Nominee? If yes, who?”
Dr. Fulwider responded, “I like Elizabeth Warren because of her attempt to rein in the financial kings of Wall Street.”
Similarly, Samer Hathout explained “So far Elizabeth Warren if she continues to fight against the power elite.”
The interviews generally, were an early stage attempt to take the temperature of the pent-up gender support for a possible madam president. Both Samer Hathout and Dr. Fulwider are professional women who might identify with the “glass ceiling” of a career and who, in their respective professions, witness daily the struggles in American life.
They are seasoned women other’s might respect, identify with, and understand.
Troubling is that many Americans have already forgotten Madam Hillary’s meek acquiescence as a senator while President George Bush was running roughshod over the nation pushing through his radical right agenda—the Patriot Act, wars, drones, torture, renditions and so on.
Wanting more on Dr. Fulwider’s take of whether Hillary would have to shoulder the record of her husband President Bill Clinton—a record where the President and Republicans aimed only at social services and joined together against big government—she responded with an unqualified, “No, not at all. Particularly because I think of her as a one termer…more free to be progressive.”
Dr. Fulwider’s use of the word “progressive” left me wondering—as a member of the other sex—what clues I had missed that suggested Hillary would ever be progressive. Without going into the distinctions between social progressives and economic progressives the response seemed worth noting.
On the other hand, sometimes complex talking points about finance—or the fact that Robert Rubin was Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary and a former Goldman Sachs exec—are forgotten over time by the public. Surely, it wouldn’t be lost on Sen. Warren that it was Rubin, who brokered Citigroup’s bailout.
“I don't see [Hillary] being a change maker,” said the prosecutor. Hathout went on to say, “Of course our first woman president will be historical but I don't see massive changes in policy.
The framing that Sen. Warren drilled into the Senate record Friday night is one that resonates across a wide spectrum of America—a potential game changer—that acknowledges we are in too much trouble as a nation to settle for another candidate of the corporatist status quo—either Democratic or Republican.