By Joshua Sager
Disclosure: I support Elizabeth Warren and
volunteer on her 2012 senatorial campaign. This article is not sanctioned by the Warren Campaign, but rather a personal opinion of a supporter.
The 2012 election
cycle has begun, and with it, the search for competent representation to send
to Washington. Across the country, politicians have begun to make the case that
they would most effectively represent their constituents. In Massachusetts ,
Democrat Elizabeth Warren is challenging Republican Sen. Scott Brown.
Everybody has
different criteria that they use to assess political candidates. Some voters
care only about a single issue, some vote for the person, and others vote along
party lines; there are innumerable criteria that have been used by citizens to
assess politicians but, personally, I consider three factors to be the most
important: Ideology, Competence, and Character.
Ideology: The
most important characteristic of a politician is what they will push for once
elected. Rational voters look at
candidates’ policy stances and make informed choices based upon how closely a
candidate’ policy stances match their own. Elizabeth Warren has been consistent
in her views and she can be counted on to advance them in the U.S. Senate. She won’t renege on her promises.
Elizabeth Warren is
a progressive with a strong history of advocating for the interests of the
middle class. She has demanded that the
banks be accountable. She has shown the
place of high health costs in causing families to declare bankruptcy. Her platform is rests on fair taxation,
community reinvestment, and crafting sensible government action to protect the
average person from the abuses of corporations that owe their first duty to
stockholders, not citizens.
Elizabeth Warren
holds progressive views on taxation. The
rich pay their share to support society.
The poor have the chance to elevate themselves through hard work. During
one of her speeches, Warren articulated the best
argument for progressive taxation and the value of fair taxes to society that I
have ever heard. (For the full video, go
to the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=htX2usfqMEs).
The idea that “There
is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.” is entirely true, but it’s
a novel concept in today’s political world.
Many in Washington have forgotten that taxes on the rich and corporations
are often used to support health care, education, and infrastructure. By
cutting services in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, we endanger
our nation’s well-being. Elizabeth
Warren hasn’t forgotten the value of investing in our country’s future. She will strongly support progressive
taxation to finance investments to rebuild our country.
Elizabeth Warren has
shown her commitment to protecting the rights of the average person against
abusive practices of banks and other financial entities. Today’s economic crash
and crisis have taught us that our government must be more vigilant in
protecting citizens from the banks’ reckless and fraudulent behavior. Warren was one of the main architects of the
federal CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) that was formed in order to
protect the consumer from abusive practices by banks. As, almost literally, the
person who wrote the book on protecting the consumer from financial fraud, her
record in this area speaks for itself.
Competence: It matters little what a candidate supports
if they are unwilling or unable to advocate for their position. Competence is a
combination of intelligence, organization, strategic thinking, and skillful
advocacy.
Elizabeth Warren is
knowledgeable, smart, and articulate.
She has proven, through her academic achievements and writing, that she
more than qualifies for the job of senator. Warren has demonstrated an
exceptional grasp over the issues facing our country and has drawn up
comprehensive and rational plans to fix several of the problems facing us as a
society. As a Harvard University professor, Warren has a great deal of
experience making cogent arguments to support her causes and would be a great
asset to progressive causes if she is elected to office.
Character: A
politician’s competence is an empty shell unless it is driven by the honest
commitment to work for the citizens who elected them. As politicians are humans, not machines, personality
often affects a politician’s ability to perform their jobs. This characteristic
is difficult to define as it is a catch-all of numerous personal qualities such
as dedication to beliefs, drive, and personal morality.
Elizabeth Warren has
shown ethical behavior and a desire to help other throughout her career. Growing up in a blue collar family, Warren
attended college on a scholarship in order to become a teacher. Even after
studying law, she did not pursue a career in corporate law and the fat paycheck
that came with it, but instead stayed in teaching and writing in the public
interest.
Unlike many current
political candidates (including her opponent, Scott Brown), Elizabeth Warren
has not shown a desire to enrich herself.
Teachers don’t teach to become rich but rather to help society through
advancing the next generation. This
suggests that Warren won’t be swayed by
lobbyists or by the lure of “contributions” (Read: legalized bribery).
Elizabeth Warren has
dedicated her life to teaching others and advancing the public interest. She hasn’t been corrupted by the temptation
to make big money, so she isn’t likely to be corrupted by power. She aspires to the Senate to promote the
general good, not to buy an easy ride to higher net worth through future
lobbying jobs or speaking fees. This
strength of character and conviction separates Elizabeth Warren from most other
politicians.
"During one of her speeches, Warren articulated the best argument for progressive taxation and the value of fair taxes to society that I have ever heard."
ReplyDeleteThe argument is fallacious in two different ways.
1. Public goods are provided to everyone. Therefore, for one to become rich compared to his/her fellows, success must rest on what THEY brought to the table, not the baseline goods that everyone has access to. If the argument were honest it would seek to justify why someone who has better leveraged their own work and talents should then pay MORE than someone with equal access to the SAME societal framework of public goods who has not. This argument is not advanced.
2. It is a circular argument which asserts that ALL public spending which has taken place to date was ipso-facto necessary in order for the rich to accumulate the wealth that they've earned to date. In order to make this claim, you'd need to disentangle the things that arguably "might" be providing the foundation for profits (rule of law) from the things which are superfluous to that end - except this is exactly where the debate currently lies. Remember, oppenents are arguing that many things are not necessary for success - they have simply been provided. Warren is assuming her conclusion when she attempts to argue that all of it was necessary. If tomorrow the federal government gave everyone a pony, 10 years from now you couldn't claim that those who got rich should pay even more because this is yet another thing that "society has done for them". The argument would (and should) be about whether there was really a need for public pony distribution in the fist place.
Conflating arguably rational government spending for some public goods with entirely subjective spending on 'everything else' is tactically required because some things are far easier to intellectually defend than others. Pretending that these things are all the same homogeneous blob of 'public goods' as a clever attempt to smuggle in the false premise that ALL such spending was necessary.