Elizabeth Warren's Veep Prospects

Newfound Respect

The question I've been mulling recently is: Who'll Hillary pick as her vice presidential candidate?  My list's #4 and #5 (MA senator Elizabeth Warren and VA senator Tim Kaine) made it onto the current short list (along with Julian Castro, currently HUD secretary).

Recently, I read a speech, given by Warren, that changed my feelings about her prospects.

Previously, I'd liked her, but found her prescriptions too simplistic.  For example, she, along with Bernie, were for breaking up too-big-to-fail banks.  I assumed this would be like breaking up Ma Bell into the baby bells--something that happened to the telephone monopoly in the 1970s.  Plus, there'd be a reintroduced Glass-Stegall--separating banks from Wall Street.  The problem with these simple solutions is that there is a much simpler way to do it, which is what we already have.  Impose penalties on any financial institutions that are too big, and watch them do the cutting themselves.  Not cutting enough? Increase the penalties.

So, while I liked Warren and Sander's point, I thought their solutions just weren't elegant enough.

Enter Warren's big picture speech, which laid out the reasons we'd be better off if we followed Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR, and broke up monopolies wherever we found them.  Would this take on income inequality?  Yes.  How about the lack of good jobs?  Yes.  What about making American culture more interesting?  Yes--down with the big box franchise and up with the local, and smaller-scale version.

Except, if this is the answer we've all been waiting for (probably, but how would you break up Facebook and Google?), what's our strategy?  Do we fight, despite the huge monied interests arrayed against us?  Or, is what we might call decentralization the next frontier, after battles over campaign finance, Republican party obstruction, and Obama's legacy?

I sense it's the latter possibility, that Hillary is perfect for those three preliminary battles, and that Warren's decentralization agenda will only be possible afterwards.  Better that Warren nurture the movement from the outside, rather than alarm and embolden Big Business while they can still, probably, get their way.

The other way to look at this, though, is that Hillary is looking to appeal to working people who feel disadvantaged by recent economic change.  What better way to speak to them than with an Elizabeth Warren message that wealth is unevenly and unnaturally distributed due to monopolies and other unfair advantages?

My guess is that Hillary will take things one step at a time, choose a likable, safe, and probably male vice presidential candidate, and focus on winning in '16, which will involve a message that's not so much 'I'm angry and I'm fighting' as 'I'm fair and I'm firm'.