Warren and Sanders Warn Their Own Voters

Monday, January 13, 2020

In terms of populist style and overall policy, there is essentially no difference between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the two of them to the contrary notwithstanding. So it comes as no surprise that they're friends, or that they'd have a sort of non-aggression pact as they both vie for their party's nomination.

That said, we're talking about politicians here, and of the modern, power-lusting variety at that. As soon as one of them feels desperate enough or feels like the moment is ripe, that agreement will come to an end. Perhaps that moment is now, with Sanders leading in Iowa and Warren sinking in the polls of late:

But did you think? (Image by Parker Johnson, via Unsplash, license.)
A rare sign of discord emerged on Sunday between progressive Democratic presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders over a report that Sanders' campaign volunteers had called her a candidate of the elite in conversations with voters.

"I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me," Warren told reporters after a campaign event in Marshalltown, Iowa, which will hold the nation's first nominating contest on Feb. 3.


The guidance suggested that volunteers argue Warren was supported by "highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what," rather than motivating people who do not normally vote, Politico reported. Reuters could not verify the talking points.

Sanders said on Sunday he did not approve the negative talking points about other candidates. [bold added]
Maybe so, but Sanders doesn't mind trash-talking his own potential voters, and neither does Warren.

I personally take a very dim view of anyone who votes for either political party "no matter what," and I would welcome these remarks if I thought that is what Sanders and Warren were "trashing."

Since the article calls the two "their party's progressive standard-bearers," it's worth asking: Is it education or affluence that these "progressives" object to? Or is it both? And why should anyone who has earned this description -- or aspires to it -- vote for either of them?

Were a Democrat to, say, trash Biden for having high minority support, leftist fire would vaporize that person on the spot. But "othering the productive" is a-okay with them.

That is wrong.

This isn't the only bloc of voters (or for just that party) who should quit treating the act of voting as an automatic bodily function. But at the moment, I can't think of another group of voters more willing to put someone clearly at odds with them into a position of inordinate power.

-- CAV

No comments: