Don't mistake the Warren phenomenon for a personality cult.

[Jackpine Radical]

What it is, actually, is a "populism cult." Warren is the focus because at this moment she appears to be the best expression of progressive populism on the scene, packaged in a really appealing format.

She represents a lot of unknowns, such as where she may come down on military involvement in the Middle East, aggressive action against global warming, etc.

However political opinions tend to come in clusters, statistically speaking, so if one has progressive economic views, one is also likely to have progressive opinions in other areas as well. If this turns out to be a false assumption, then people, including me, will have some rethinking to do.

In any case, as I started out to say, Warren support is not actually about Warren. At least not for me. It's about the stances she is taking. Give me an equally electable candidate who more clearly represents my views, and I'll throw my support that way.

And, finally, the obligatory Bernie comment. I love Bernie. He more closely represents my views than any other major political figure. But he's 75, he comes with the Socialist label (which I sorta carry myself, but I'm not running for anything), and he could not be elected.

So, for the time being, I continue to show the Warren flag.

[djean111]

1. Thank you for this.

It makes me laugh at times, the OPs and posts that seem to be predicated on support for Warren being personality based, and if we supporters are just shown that Warren signed this or Warren supported that, we will drop her and scurry to Hillary Land.
As you said, it is Warren's stances that I love. I love Bernie, too.
And at this point in time, anything sounding Populous or whatever, from Hillary, I would have to believe it just is campaign blather - and I have been sternly told that campaign blather is okay, say anything to get elected - and cannot weigh anything she says against things like the TPP.
Deeds not words, always. Also - pretty funny how the purity thing gets lobbed around - because I am not a purist, reading things about Warren that I might not agree with does not change my support for Warren. To me, a purist, for the purposes of DU, is someone who twists and turns and bitches and moans about any criticism of their Chosen One.

[RiverLover]

3. +1 yep, well said djean111 nt

[rhett o rick]

28. Well said. nm

[JDPriestly]

45. Agreed, djean111

[Enthusiast]

49. I will not scurry to Hillary Land.

Never.

[beerandjesus]

55. +1

"scurry off to Hillaryland", hahahaha

[L0oniX]

59. Nailed it!

To me, a purist, for the purposes of DU, is someone who twists and turns and bitches and moans about any criticism of their Chosen One.

[yeoman6987]

61. Well to be fair she does have 11 percent support

Poor Hillary only has 60 percent support. We will see what happens.

[djean111]

62. I base my support on policy, not what everybody else is doing.

Looks like Hillary's big claims to the candidacy are polls, name recognition, wouldn't it be swell to have a woman president, Big Dog, possible SCOTUS nominations (I am not sure I would care for her nominations, either), and - she is better than having a GOP president.

I am interested in policy. The TPP - I cannot get past that.
Yes, we shall certainly see.

The whole point of this OP is that Warren supporters are not personality (or poll) driven.

[yeoman6987]

63. Hillary has worked her fingers to the bones for

Decades working for women and the poor. Warren for 2 years has given speeches but no results.

[djean111]

64. Well, whatever good she has done may be frittered away with the TPP.

Lower wages, more expensive medications, corporations flouting and suing over environmental regulations - I am sure women and children will appreciate those things.

[Doctor_J]

2. it's a lot like the support for Obama in 2008

Based on the astute observation that most of us are getting screwed, and most of the politicians are helping the screwers. Obama's campaign rhetoric turned out to be bullshit, and his duplicity has nearly killed the party. Hopefully Warren can get elected AND actually follow through on her populism. But I think the experience with Obama has jaded a lot of people.

[Andy823]

6. Once again

You managed to get your Obama bashing in. Do you ever miss a thread? Just curious?

[Doctor_J]

18. I will try to stop personalizing it. He is just the face of the entire group of

corporate dems who have rendered the party useless. And since our party is the only hope to right the ship, their uselessness is fatal.

[rhett o rick]

29. I know it's easier for you to be critical if you think it's personal, but it's not. Just as the OP

points out, support for Sen Warren isn't personal, it's support for a progressive movement. Criticism of the president here in DU isn't personal, it's criticism of those afraid to progress. Afraid to challenge Wall Street and the Oligarch Deep State. As the wealth gap grows wider the conservative Democrats try to hold onto the status quo and disparage the left that wants to reduce poverty, end the endless middle east war, spend on infrastructure in lieu of NSA secret spy buildings, etc.

The movement has started. Are you on board?

[MisterP]

9. so 2014-6 Warrenites are even *less* willing to hold off on criticism and less likely to declare

they back her regardless of actual policy

it's like creationists: they figure all their opponents are only calling them a pseudoreligious cult that only reads its own stuff because they are

that's why they keep insisting that the Big Bang was "a bunch of dust that came together and exploded, but where did the dust come from, huh?"

also, they don't think there's any gluons, just the Holy Ghost (but that sounds a little Philip Pullman if y'ask me)

[RiverLover]

33. It is only her policies that draw me to her. If she didn't have the actions behind her words,

I'd consider her just your run of the mill fake dem, of which there are plenty.

Ie,

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=sponsored_legislation

But I do disagree with her vote against GMO labeling.

I accept that she isn't, nor ever will be, perfect.

[MisterP]

38. precisely: the Loyalists always say "don't complain about 99% perfect"

even as the Dem spirals down past 50%

Warrenites are Warrenites *because* they're for GMO labeling and against unconditionality for Israel--not because they're so smitten with Warren they'll rewrite everything they ever believed because the candidate they chose said to

[99Forever]

35. You nailed that.

After having been told that I was just being naïve to actually think that President Obama should live up to the promises he made as Candidate Obama or that I "just wasn't paying close enough attention to what he "really" said or meant" more times than I can count, I will pay VERY close attention to what any of them says or does this go around. Weasel words just plain won't cut it.

If they aren't a true populist in every sense of the word, I'll be supporting someone else.

[Enthusiast]

50. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[Fred Sanders]

4. Of course we are still all free to call supporters of Obama a personality cult, right?

[SomethingFishy]

11. Yes you are.

Proceed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Only if they always push back on any criticisms surrounding poor policy choices.

If they support him when he does good things (like working to end the Cuba embargo) but criticize him for bad ones (pushing the TPP), then they're not in the 'cult'. If they always make excuses whenever he backs RW legislation, then they're in it.

[rhett o rick]

44. Absolutely when all they post are Obama adulation threads and posts and never discuss actual issues.

Try to get one to discuss fracking, the TPP, or the Patriot Act. Here's a thread about what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Wont catch them here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12771907

[Derek V]

5. Excellent Post, JP!

What on earth inspired it?

[Jackpine Radical]

19. Yup.

Sometimes that happens. I write a response to something that I decide is worth it's own OP.

[Derek V]

36. No Problems Here!

[jalan48]

7. I wish she would run

At least she could get her message out in the primaries and the debates, regardless of whether or not she is the candidate chosen at the end of the process.

[Andy823]

8. I like her

If she were to run, and get the nomination I would vote for her. The main things is if we don't also clean out congress and replace a multitude of republicans with democrats, then she will be up against the same brick awl Obama has had to contend with for the last 6 years. Then what? Will she get thrown under the bus along with Obama? Without congress to support her agenda, nothing will change.

[Maineman]

14. Yes, Congress, especially the gerrymandered House, is a big problem that must be fixed.

[cascadiance]

26. With Warren or Bernie though, we wouldn't have a president pushing TPP behind the scenes...

... like Obama has done. And I don't think either of them would do things like have Rahm Emanuel lead their cabinet when they took office too. And I think they'd probably do a better job of getting someone in to clean up the privacy violations, etc. in our security infrastructure instead of heavily prosecuting whistleblowers the way the Obama administration has done that has fueled a lot of young people to go to the Libertarians, who they will discover later that though they are good on some issues that are talked about a lot, they are bad on most of the core issues that aren't discussed much.

We need someone that even if faced with an obstructionist congress will start negotiations on issues with a heavy progressive emphasis. Like selecting for SCOTUS candidates like Erwin Chemerinsky or Marjorie Cohn, and if the Republicans block them successfully, then select a candidate that still is progressive but perhaps not as visibly as those candidates were. Start negotiating health care with single payer or a public option on the table instead of taking it out before negotiating. I think Warren or Bernie would do that kind of negotiating that is needed, not only to get better ultimate compromises, but to expose the right's blocking more what the people really want to have happen when they take away good progressive choice options that will be talked about more often through the negotiation process. That will help us instead of hurt us in subsequent midterm elections.

Obama's done a number of good things, but behind the scenes he still has been swallowed by the Blue Dog agendas at times that has me troubled. I think Warren or Bernie would not have an administration do those sorts of things. I think Clinton would be much more like Obama in that regard.

[JDPriestly]

46. Yes.

TPP is another sneaky corporate policy maneuver. It's intended to push something over on the American people, something we Americans do not want.

[Orsino]

10. If Warren's presence does nothing more than shame Clinton into more progressive talk...

...that's an accomplishment in itself.

[RiverLover]

34. We've already had someone who just talked progressive, and it didn't make them

progressive when they got into office. I want more than talk this time.

[SomethingFishy]

12. K&R The people are looking for a real representative..

and she fits the bill. I'll take her or Bernie Sanders any day.

[True Blue Door]

13. I want her to run. That doesn't mean I endorse her.

I want a lot of other Democrats to run as well. I want Jerry Brown in the mix, for instance.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Right on!

She would not have gotten this kind of traction years ago.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Huh?

Go look up the word, please.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. Here, fer Chrissake.

Phenomenon: a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.
"glaciers are unique and interesting natural phenomena"
synonyms: occurrence, event, happening, fact, situation, circumstance, experience, case, incident, episode

Conrast with noumenon.

The noumenon /ˈnɒuːmɨnɒn/ is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "phenomenon", which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object of, the senses.

[Jackpine Radical]

43. The term has a specific meaning in philosophy and science, and I was using that way.

Remember that a goodly portion of any randomly selected "thousand folks" has no clue about a whole lot of things.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. I think that people who minimally care about policy and are driven by personality and partisan

purity are simply incapable of understanding those who are policy oriented in their choice of candidates. There really aren't any - or at least very few - Warren or Sanders personality devotees here anymore than there are Greenwald or Snowdin devotees. There are people who believe in REAL change who are inspired by those who represent it and have the potential to be vehicles for it. Partisan purist - personality cultist cannot even imagine the motive of wanting to move our country forward and seek a newer world. They just want their prom queen or king to win so they can be in with the cool kids.

[JDPriestly]

48. I like Warren's personality. I think it makes her a candidate who could win the election in

2016. But the reason I support her (and also like Bernie) is the policies she fights for. We need economic reform. We need to shut the revolving door between Wall Street and the government, between other regulated industries and the government.

In America, every once in a great while, we elect a reformer. Theodore Roosevelt reveled in violence and was extreme in his belief in American exceptionalism. With regard to those policies, I think he was a horrible extremist.

But he was also a dedicated reformer who hated the corruption, graft and sales of government jobs. He fought Tammany Hall, and made some inroads into strengthening our federal civil service system and decreasing to some extent the power of the criminals in government, especially in New York State who were buying and selling offices and all kinds of favors. He was just loud enough and showy enough to bring the issue of government corruption to the attention of the nation starting in New York State.

I do not think that Elizabeth Warren is a Teddy Roosevelt. Far from it.

But I do think that every once in a while in our history we hit a wall. The corruption just becomes so obvious, so unbearably unfair, that we elect a reformer. I think that Elizabeth Warren would reform some of the worst excesses.

It should have been impossible, considering the amount of money, the resources, and the personnel that we dedicate to overseeing our financial sector for Bernie Madoff to have operated as he did, so blatantly, so fraudulently without being seriously questioned about it and stopped. Even if direct pay-offs were not involved in the silence and failure to investigate his operation, a lot of really bad management of the government's oversight roll made it possible for him to cheat so many people for such a long time.

Our financial system needs reform. Elizabeth Warren is aware of the failings in our financial sector and has proposals to repair it.

I also like Bernie Sanders.

It's time for a reformer. There is too much corruption in our government. The entire Republican Party and the Third Wayers. Citizens United is one of the most corrupt, absurdly corrupt Supreme Court decisions in our history.

[libodem]

21. Yeah, baby, that's what I'm talkin' about

[silvershadow]

22. And her best partner, should she run, would be Bernie. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. I'd hate to lose both of them from the Senate.

Bad enough losing one or the other, but if one of them can snag Pres, I think the other will still be doing better work in the Senate than as VP. Pull in some other Dem for the VP slot, like Castro or maybe Barbara Lee, somebody outside the Senate.

[eridani]

40. Presidency for Senate is a good swap, IMO

Neither have to run for senate again until 2018.

[cascadiance]

23. Yep! You feel like I do!

We've gotten to know Bernie a lot from his discussions with Thom Hartmann on Fridays over the years, and I think most progressives feel that he and we shape our thoughts together for what is needed for this country. I'd support Bernie in a heart beat.

But I think Warren, should she want to get in the race would be a better choice at this point pragmatically for the reasons that you list, and also because as a woman, she would deflate the distractions in the primary that the corporate media would inject on identity politics that we saw a lot last election when we had a man of color versus a woman.

With two white women (Clinton and Warren) in the primary this time, we will have the chance to help women finally get a voice at the top of the ticket and also have in the primaries a focus on the issues since the media won't be able to play the gender card in terms of distracting us from that. With Bernie running, we still might get that put in place. To really get a progressive accepted by a majority of Americans and have that 99% revolution of spirit and what the masses want, we'll NEED an emphasis on discussions on issues that affect all of us that the 1% don''t want discussed. Both Bernie and Warren will help us steer that national conversation that way to ensure the general election gets a progressive voice the support it needs to win.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. I prefer Bernie, but I could vote for Warren. Unlike some other candidates.

[appalachiablue]

25. Good perspective. There's a lot of 'personality cult' and 'purist' usage lately.

Warren has many unknowns as you point out, among other things. I'm not into star or rock star personalities during campaigns, especially after Clinton and Obama. I'm looking for a leader that will push and succeed at policies and issues I think are important, that's it. I could care less how charismatic they are.

[Kermitt Gribble]

27. Very well said, JR! n/t

[daleanime]

32. K&R....

[woo me with science]

39. I will ask here what every candidate needs to be asked.

What is the plan to return to us our Bill of Rights?

[riqster]

47. Nice insight and well said.

[JonLP24]

51. I disagree with your last paragraph

No matter who wins will be called a socialist anyway but Bernie would clearly appeal to working people because of his message. Given the chance to hear him speak, the policies he advocates for are politically popular. His most successful legislative acts have been improving the VA and care for veterans in general.

I don't care what the media runs with, if he is on a national party ticket they would have no choice but to let him speak and it would be a very refreshing voice that would inspire the old don't vote anymore and the new voters.

It is all subjective anyway but electability is a fools' errand.

[djean111]

52. First thought, reading this on this fine morning, and to paraphrase Bill Clinton, for those

who think Warren or Sanders support is personality based - "It's the POLICIES, stupid!".

[Thinkingabout]

53. Announcements have not happened and tbe primaries have not begun, all

Those desiring to run will have their opportunity to bring their records out and good decisions will need to happen.

[PatrickforO]

54. Well thought out post.

You're exactly right.

I noticed this election cycle while Dems were getting pasted, populist positions like raising minimum wage, overturning 'personhood' amendments or initiatives and legalization of marijuana passed.

Americans are groaning under the weight of exploitation by the 1%. We need a break and we need some sensible reforms, such as single payer healthcare, expanded social security, far more heavily subsidized post-secondary education, stronger rules around pay and working conditions, as well as benefits such as pensions.

We also need to gut the NSA - it could go with MUCH lower funding, and we need massive military cuts.

But we don't have the money, right?

That's stupid. All that is needed is to nationalize the Fed so taxpayers aren't going into debt to bankers. Lincoln did this to finance the Civil War. We DO have the money, and we needn't be broke.

[lark]

56. Agree, not a personality cult.

Instead it's a group of people dying for someone to represent them, not the ultra rich, someone who actually cares about them and will FIGHT for them and not just cry that nothing can be done. She's a tall drink of water to a nation dying of thirst. She's what we thought we were getting with Obama, before he showed his true corporatist colors.

[RiverLover]

57. Yes. You friggin nailed it. Thank you, lark!! nt

[lark]

58. Thanks

[KoKo]

60. Thanks for pointing that out "Jackpine."

And, we've had enough of "personality cults" to last us awhile. And, no....I'm not focusing on Obama. I'm talking about people falling in love with a candidate and not really noticing if they walk the walk after they talk the talk. I was a huge Bill Clinton supporter and it took a long time for me to focus on what he had done for Wall Street because I was so busy defending him against the Starr Commission. I supported Obama over Hillary because I'd had enough with DLC Triangulation. I truly believed Bill was a "populist." It's that "Fool me Once...Twice" thingy.