When Facebook Becomes Blogging

Warren is easily the closest, but there is not a single candidate in this election who represents me. And of course there rarely is. I wonder if there's been a candidate like that since Hubert Humphrey in 1968. I adored how Warren went after Bloomberg, but I want someone who goes as hard after Bernie and Bloomberg in equal measure. Unless it's a true political necessity, no concessions to vulture capitalism, no concessions to Marxism. No concessions to the religious right, no concessions to the culture of intersectionality and social justice. Using government to provide essential social services which are much greater than those we currently have, and also creating the circumstances where businesses can thrive in (fair and well-regulated) competition. Well-funded education so that the standard of living can vastly improve, tempered by the realization that there is no improvement in standard of living without properly trained and funded rule of law. Fighting for human rights at home, and at very least aiding human rights abroad before their human rights concerns become ours - and on seldom occasions of necessity, that means fighting abroad too. Lincoln and FDR would have gone after it all. And so, believe it or not, would Nancy Pelosi were she running for President. Policies to favor the growth of a huge middle class, with social programs to aid the poor and and acceptance that some people will simply accumulate wealth and we tax them therefore accordingly. To improve the world, you need someone who has the vision to dream big, the stomach to fight big, and the brains to do it all smart. And if America's progress has stalled, the reason is very, very clear. There was a dominant political ideology during the mid-century, made possible by prosperity but tempered by hardship that spurred the biggest leap forward humanity ever took. And like all great things in the world, the moment after we 'got it', we lost it. And for fifty years we've lost our way. Warren, like Obama, is a lot of that package, but Obama was either naive about his opponents, or he didn't have the stomach to fight his enemies, both domestic and foreign. Warren is, if anything, a more complete leader than Obama, but on foreign policy, Warren and her most passionate followers are breathtakingly naive if they think we can cut and run from all sorts of military commitments without Russia and China stepping into the vacuum, or that Russia and (in a different way) China will not continue to do everything within their power to subvert our democracy and liberal democracy everywhere else. Maybe circumstances will change her, but if she thinks we're going to scale back our military commitments when dictatorship is simultaneously knocking on the door of every democracy in the world, she's too naive to represent me.