If you have a Time Magazine subscription, you may have noticed the theme the publication has been running with over the last two weeks. As the primaries for the Democratic and Republican Party nominations grow closer and closer, editor Nancy Gibbs and her staff devoted their two most recent issues to the presumptive frontrunners for each nomination. The first issue examined Republican frontrunner Jeb Bush, followed by a look at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Interestingly, neither candidate was chosen to be the focus of the magazine because they lead the early polls (although many show they both tentatively do). Rather, Time Magazine focused on Jeb and Hillary because they are each the heir-apparent to two of America’s most powerful political dynasties.
To me, this fact is incredibly disturbing and unsettling. Yes, there is nothing wrong with members of certain families holding office repeatedly. In fact, many members of U.S. political dynasties, whether it is the Adams’s, Taft’s, Roosevelt’s, or even Kennedy’s, have been some of the most influential and important policymakers in U.S. history.
2016 is a unique moment in the history of the U.S. Never before has our nation faced the possibility of a general election where both major candidates are members of such political dynasties. Voters may have a choice, but in a way, they really don’t. One way or the other, the U.S. is to some extent going back to more of the same (almost ironically, Time also discussed in its issue on ISIS three weeks ago how U.S. may elect a third Bush, only to enter a third war in Iraq under a member of this family).
It may not seem like a significant issue, but this striking lack of diversity is the greatest threat to American democracy today.
Elizabeth Warren was a relative unknown to many Americans until recently. A former Harvard Law professor, Warren is a Senator from Massachusetts who was crucial in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, part of her longstanding opposition to corporate abuse and predatory actions by Wall Street firms that hurt average Americans.
In recent months she was touted as a potential contender for the Democratic nomination against Hillary. Yet Warren has repeatedly stated that she has no intentions to run for the Presidency, and is instead focused on serving an effective term in the Senate.
But if the U.S. is going to escape from the increasing apathy that has consumed our voters, it is imperative that Elizabeth Warren contest Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination for the Presidency.
This article is not an endorsement of Elizabeth Warren. It isn’t an endorsement of Hillary, Jeb or anyone else for that matter. It is an endorsement of diversity.
Particularly in a day and age in which Americans continue to struggle with the same issues of racial injustice that it faced more than 50 years ago, it is easy to associate diversity simply with race, or gender or even ethnicity. The diversity of ideas is at least as important, if not more so, for our nation to maintain a strong democracy.
I am a firm believer in the effectiveness of the marketplace of ideas (i.e. we all voices our opinions, and the best gain acceptance through debate and examination as the worst become irrelevant). But the marketplace of ideas simply does not work when people do not voice their opinions.
This is especially true in politics. Earlier this year, I wrote on how infighting among Republicans in Congress threatens their party’s chances of success in 2016. While I still believe this is true, the diversity of potential candidates among Republican leadership is wonderful for democracy.
Rand Paul (who is arguably a Libertarian) is currently cosponsoring a bill to decriminalize medical marijuana at the national level with Democratic ally Cory Booker. Marco Rubio was influential in crafting a failed immigration reform bill two years ago. Arizona Senator Jeff Flake is an ardent proponent of improving relations with Cuba. Republicans like Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and John McCain might call each of these men crazy for their support of these respective proposals.
In a strange way, this jumble of opposing views among members of the same party is wonderful for voters. It presents us with real choice, and real alternatives — not just more of the same. It makes our vote matter.
In contrast, the Democratic Party currently has no such diversity, and it's hurting the party. John Kerry already tried and failed to attain the Presidency; Harry Reid is perhaps too frail to run; Joe Biden claims to be a strong advocate of women’s rights, but his actions speak differently and severely damage his credibility as a legitimate candidate; Hillary appears to be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, because she is what’s left of the Democratic leadership.
… Except for Elizabeth Warren. Clinton and Warren are as divergent as two female, Democratic leaders possibly could be. As Politico’s extensive and detailed profile of Warren notes, while Clinton was raised in relative privilege, dating a future President as a young adult and remains close with many powerful Wall Street donors, Warren grew up in poverty and rose to influence through hard work and sheer will power. More importantly, Warren is the tireless bane of Wall Street’s existence. The two could not be more different, and this is exactly the sort of conflict that voters need to see at the national level.
In 2008, the battle for the Democratic Nomination between President Barack Obama and Hillary was one of the most contentious in recent memory. Yet Obama and Clinton did not diverge on policy views or proposals nearly as much as Clinton and Warren do. Both the Bushes and the Clintons are wealthy families with close ties to corporate America. A general election between these two candidates would be a failing of the American political system, as both candidates benefit from the status quo and have no real need to debate it.
But a fervent debate between Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary opens up the discussion on a national level of Wall Street’s relationship with average citizens in an unprecedented fashion. As the Occupy Wall Street Movement demonstrated in 2012, many Americans have misgivings about Wall Street’s conduct in light of the 2007-08 recession. We need candidates that will duke it out and bring this issue to the forefront in the conventional political structure (rather than just direct action protests).
In the previously mentioned Politico profile of Warren, John McCain is quoted as stating Warren is not a viable presidential candidate because economic reform is her only talking point. Warren has, as an example, remained notably silent on issues of foreign policy. Similarly, former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank has congratulated Warren on deciding not to run, because he does not believe she has a chance of beating Clinton.
McCain and Frank might very well be right. Her policies may not even be the right course of action. But if Warren is serious about attempting to institute economic reform in the U.S., that does not matter. She needs to run regardless. A Warren campaign would force the eventual President, whomever it may be, to address the issues that she brought to the national stage while campaigning. Moreover Warren, who is not up for re-election until 2018, can then return to doing good work in the Senate, and can craft legislation for the issues she brought to light.
Most importantly, Warren needs to run because American voters are more apathetic than they ever have been before, and this threatens the democratic process.
As a student of international relations, I have been presented with innumerable examples in which democratic nations abroad are irrevocably harmed by the apathy that a lack of diverse candidates and ideas creates. The most striking example is Chile; once a nation with a proud democratic tradition, Chile fell victim to oligarchy, and ultimately tyranny, when its democratically elected, socialist President Salvador Allende was removed in a coup by the dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Yet amazingly, Chilean voters have shown an incredible disinterest in politics and the democratic process since the reinstatement of democratic government, according to leading survey group Latinobarometro. Under pressure from American and World Bank policymakers, Chilean politicians have almost uniformly supported the same type of economic reform (known as Neoliberal reform, it is largely similar to conservative economic policy in the U.S.), regardless of their party or value system. Voters know that there is no diversity among candidates, because they will all push for the same economic policies, so they simply don’t care. Chile has struggled to eliminate the seeds of Pinochet’s dictatorship as a result, only just eliminating his sham election system more than twenty years after he left office.
While the U.S. is not quite that bad, our nation is not far removed from the apathy-induced catastrophe that uniformity has sparked in nations such as Chile. A recent academic study by researchers at Princeton concluded that the U.S. is increasingly similar to an oligarchy, not a democracy. Opportunities for economic and social advancement are decreasing, according to the study, and fewer and fewer Americans are in control of the future of the entire nation. This is incredibly alarming.
It is easy to see the conclusions of this study on the ground. Our nation faces many, many challenges. Wealth disparity among Americans is higher than it ever has been before. Racial tensions are once again in the spotlight, often surrounding economic issues such as housing, employment and educational opportunity. And, as Elizabeth Warren knows all too well, many Americans are confused and upset with the conduct of members of Wall Street and Congress that are meant to aid Americans, not set them further back.
But Americans are increasingly apathetic because too many elected officials are simply not discussing these issues. Elizabeth Warren, step up to the plate and take a swing at tackling these issues at the national level by challenging Hillary in 2016. There simply is no one else who can.
Reach the columnist at clmurph5@asu.edu or follow @ConnorLMurphy on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
