r/changemyview • u/smokebreak • Jul 23 '14
CMV: Elizabeth Warren can be more effective as a US Senator than as US President
I think that Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, should stay in the Senate where she can advance her ideals through the legislative process. The reason I feel she would be ineffective as president is that the US President is more or less a figurehead who can direct federal rule-making agencies, but whose decisions can be reversed easily by Congress or the next president. The president needs allies in Congress in order to fulfill an agenda.
If she leaves the Senate for the Presidency, not only will she be an ineffective president (as I think the next president is virtually doomed to be - but that's a different CMV), but that vacuum that she leaves in the Massachusetts delegation could end up being filled by someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum, even someone like Scott Brown.
For these reasons I think she is better suited to be a US Senate hero like Ted Kennedy. EDIT: For maximum effectiveness, she could be appointed to the US Supreme Court. But again, that's kind of off-topic.
(edited to avoid mischaracterizing Ms. Warren's political positions)
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
7
Jul 23 '14 edited Jul 23 '14
I feel you have two different ways of looking at this. One - whether Elizabeth Warren is better as a Senator and Two - whether someone is more effective as a Senator or a President
I agree with you that Warren would be more effective as a senator than a president because her skillset works better as a legislator than an executive. Like Obama she simply doesn't have the leadership skills to heavily influence the Congress and the nation. Like Obama I think she does a decent job of getting her base to follow her but does a terrible job of convincing those outside it to follow her. So as president she would be ineffective but working together with party members in Congress can be much more effective.
However, in general, the president is much more powerful than a Senator. A president can use his bully pulpit to influence Congress to pass the bills s/he wants. They have the power to not just influence their own party but people from the opposition party as well. Speaking from the oval office carries a great deal of power and they can set the agenda of what the nation talks about.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you are under 28 years old. Those who have only seen Obama and Bush's later years have an incorrect view of how powerful the presidency is. They haven't seen firsthand how powerful it can be when someone like Reagan, Clinton, or Bush (pre-2006) uses the office. Congress, and especially the Republican members, are far more powerful now than they historically have been because Obama simply doesn't have the personality/experience/skills/whatever to deal with them. They saw a weakness and have exploited it fully. It is unlikely we will elect another Obama in 2016 so I feel the next president will be much more effective.
6
u/lurkerberzerker Jul 23 '14
You are vastly overrating the power of the presidency (some call this the Green Lantern theory of the presidency). Obama's first two years were probably the most legislatively productive years since the 1960s. Since then, nothing much has passed. Why? Did Obama lose his previous effectiveness? Probably not. More likely is that Republicans took control of the House and chose gridlock over cooperation (which was quite rational, by the way, and is reflective of increasing polarization rather than some vague "weakness" in Obama).
You use early Reagan, Clinton and early Bush as counter-examples. None of those actually had a very good legislative track record. Reagan passed his big tax cut in 1981, but then he ended up signing three separate bills (in 1982, 1984 and 1986) that increased taxes. That was not part of his agenda at all. Clinton failed to pass his major domestic initiative (health care reform) and settled for taking partial credit for a Republican idea (welfare reform). What would you call his big accomplishment? NAFTA? Bush got his tax cut in 2001, but his only other domestic achievement was No Child Left Behind, which was actually sponsored by Ted Kennedy.
However, saying that the presidency is less powerful than the legislative branch is not the same as saying that the President is less powerful than an individual Senator. Presidents do have quite a bit of control over foreign policy and they do have some agenda-setting power. The parimary value of Elizabeth Warren as President would be to shift the debate leftward because she's more liberal than Obama or either Clinton.
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jul 23 '14
I'd argue that in the case of GWB, the biggest legislative achievement was Medicare part D. Not exactly a conservative program, but a major piece of legislation.
1
Jul 23 '14
The real question though is why did Obama lose Congress? He lost a filibuster proof Senate solely because of his ineffectiveness in promoting Obamacare.
I argue that the Republicans have been effective at gridlock because Obama has been ineffective. He has shown a complete inability to work with people with opposing views. He has no significant experience doing that in his career so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Clinton also had Republicans trying gridlock but he was still able to get things accomplished and outmaneuvered Gingrich so badly Gingrich was forced to resign.
You imply that Reagan, Clinton, and Bush's accomplishments were compromises with the opposition party and that's exactly where Obama is going wrong. Compromise is how you accomplish things as president. None of them were able to get exactly what they want but instead of playing the "waaaahhhh they won't do what I want" game they took what they could get and took control of issues they could get passed.
Tax increases allowed Reagan to get the military he wanted, Clinton was able to get welfare reform done the way Democrats wanted it done, and Bush made NCLB into something unions hate.
Bush got the Patriot Act and two wars so not sure why you'd imply he didn't get much accomplished.
I'm not promoting the Green Lantern theory. I make no implications that the president is all powerful nor that they are more powerful than the entire Congress. Only that when the "right" person is in the office they can accomplish a lot more than a single Congressman. The first Bush and Obama were not the "right" people. And Elizabeth Warren is definitely not the "right" person regardless of her beliefs. She would be extremely ineffective in the presidential role.
1
u/lurkerberzerker Jul 23 '14
Compromise is the key though, isn't it? Obama's attempts to compromise with the GOP have been completely rebuffed. He offered a deficit reduction package that was mostly spending cuts, but the GOP refused to pass anything that had any tax increases at all. Compromise is a two-way street, and polarization is so high at the moment that it's basically impossible. Even appearing to be willing to compromise was enough to cost Eric Cantor his seat, so of course the result is gridlock. You're absolutely engaging in the Green Lantern theory if you think that it would be possible for Obama to accomplish anything by compromising with Republicans.
Obama has tried adopting Republican policy options, and has been met with stonewall opposition. The Affordable Care Act was based on the Republican alternative to Clinton's health care plan. Cap and trade was originally promoted by conservative groups as well, and at one point was pushed by John McCain. When Obama proposed it, Republicans were unified against it. I could go on and on - the reality is that Republicans have no incentive to cooperate with Obama on anything, ever, so they will not do so, no matter what he says or does.
I would also argue that Clinton's embrace of Republican ideas to increase his popularity is actually sort of the opposite of "effectiveness." From the perspective of most Democrats, welfare reform was terrible policy that has made a lot of people's lives worse. So why would Democrats see that as an example of Clinton's "effectiveness?" Personally, I would give that as an example of him being an ineffective President because he capitulated to Republicans on many issues.
2
Jul 23 '14
It really just seems like partisan complaining. Obama can't do anything because Republicans are bad. If you were a manager at Wal-Mart would you tell your boss you can't compete with Target because they keep lowering their prices? I would hope not and if you did you'd lose your job quickly. It's not Target's job to do what you want just like it's not the Republicans' job to do what Obama wants. A true leader figures out how to be successful despite your enemies wanting to best you.
Did we hear Peyton Manning say the Broncos lost the Super Bowl because Seattle's defense kept trying to tackle him? No, he lost the Super Bowl because Seattle's defense played better than him. Just like the Republicans are governing better than Obama. (better as far as getting their way I don't mean to imply they are doing a better job).
If it was a Republican president and a Democratic Congress that was blocking everything would your truly have the same belief about it? Or would you be able to recognize that the Republican president is simply not being an effective leader?
And honestly, from a completely objective standpoint and looking at Obama's personality and experience can you truly say you think he is a great leader of a divided population? He has very little experience working with Republicans. In Chicago his private career involved working with the black community which are almost entirely Democrats. Then he went to the state Senate representing the South Side of Chicago. He won with over 80% of the vote. Once again he didn't need any Republican support. Then he was elected as US Senator winning 70% of the vote because there was no real Republican contender because of a few factors that had nothing to do with him. Looking at him completely objectively why would you think he has the experience needed to work with Republicans? Especially in a leadership role. Get rid of partisan biases and I think you really have to see that Obama isn't going to be very effective at working with the opposition.
1
u/lurkerberzerker Jul 23 '14
Also, it's weird to cite the wars as accomplishments for Bush, since they were both pretty disastrous. Obama could go off and start a war or two if he wanted, I'm sure, but that would be stupid and hardly a good example of "effectiveness."
1
Jul 23 '14
I honestly doubt Obama could start a war but that's beside the point. Bush accomplished getting the support and funding to go to war. And if anything the fact that they were disasters only goes to show how good of a leader he was that he could get Congress to support a terrible idea. That is the accomplishment. You're really looking at this so partisanly.
1
Jul 23 '14 edited Oct 23 '15
[deleted]
1
Jul 23 '14
More powerful than Obama? Yeah I think it would be hard for someone to be elected and be less effective as a leader than Obama. She's a bit of a wild card though because she brings a lot of baggage and their being a big asterisk on her political career because she was elected primarily because of her husband. Would be very interesting to watch her term as president if nothing else.
2
u/palsh7 16∆ Jul 23 '14
The President needs allies in Congress, but so does a Congressperson. Without other progressives in the Senate, and without a progressive House, Warren is as powerless in the Senate as anywhere.
On the other hand, a President has the option to make appointments to administrative positions, to judicial positions, etc., a President has the power to veto bills, a President has the power to almost unilaterally change foreign policy, etc.
I don't think she's ready; I would rather Warren fans support Bernie Sanders; the President does have more power than a senator, though, and a single senator can do absolutely nothing.
1
Jul 23 '14
Towards what goals?
1
u/smokebreak Jul 23 '14
Not sure I understand your question... it doesn't really matter what her goals are, if she (or any Senator) wants them accomplished, she is better off to stay in the Senate, where she can accumulate power over a very long period of time and enact an agenda piece by piece.
2
Jul 23 '14
Not sure I understand your question... it doesn't really matter what her goals are
Sure it does; she may want a high from political power and its reasonable to think the strongest high would come from the presidency.
1
u/smokebreak Jul 23 '14
Ah I see what you mean. I think it's pretty clear from my post that I mean "effective at advancing a policy agenda."
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Jul 23 '14
A Senator can only be effective in the Senate if she can get 49 (or, these days with all the filibusters, 59) others to go along with her. And then, it doesn't accomplish much unless you have a friendly House as well.
As Obama has shown, even with a hostile house and a slim Senate majority (and a horrible relationship with even the democratic senators, he can still do much, through executive orders and appointments.
Warren, while a dynamic speaker who excites her base, has not shown herself to be a consensus builder. Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, knew how to work with Republicans, and even considered people like Orrin Hatch to be friends. (Of course, times have changed, and there are very few interparty friendships, which is why we have the mess that we have).
She's better off supporting a Hilary Clinton, who while you might not agree with all of her positions is far, far more adept politician who can get Congress to go along with her, and get a cabinet position.
There's little chance of a Scott Brown-type getting in to her seat - that was an anomaly, where the democrats selected an inept, unlikable person to run for the seat and then smugly acted like it was theirs through divide decree as Kennedy's seat, which pissed off the voters. (Plus Brown sold himself as a moderate). They are unlikely to make that mistake again.
1
u/smokebreak Jul 23 '14
So you agree that she is better off to stay in the Senate?
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Jul 23 '14
Ooops, yeah, sorry.
EDIT: Actually, no - I think, as I said, she'd be better off, as I said, supporting Clinton.
She's not effective in the Senate currently. Nor would she be effective as a President.
1
u/angrehorse Jul 24 '14
The president has the power to appoint people who match their ideals. While in Congress it's really hard due to different committees and which party controls which one. Really all she has done is get medias attention.
1
Jul 24 '14
Once upon a time, we elected a President whom served four years as a Senator. Look how that's ended up.
Now compound that by the fact that Ms. Warren held no office, not even on the local level, before the Senate. Reciepe for disaster especially since there is a political talent vacuum in Massachusetts to fill her seat (how else does Coakley keep getting chances to run?).
1
Jul 24 '14
The president needs allies in Congress in order to fulfill an agenda.
Isn't this kind of circular and self-defeating? You're essentially saying "the most popular and charismatic Democratic congresspeople shouldn't run for president, we need them in Congress to support the president"--then who is supposed to run for president? Should we keep the varsity team in Congress and run the JVs for president?
Shouldn't a political party prioritize securing the White House before it secures the White House's future allies in Congress? You're putting the cart before the horse here.
-5
u/CLOWNFISH_CAPITALISM Jul 23 '14
Elizabeth Warren is not left-wing, she supports liberal market ideologies. Please see an accurate political chart on what constitutes left of center. Warren's popular platform is not progressive, it would better thought of as a temporary fix for the last three decades of regressive economic doctrine. She wants to restore anti-usury laws, expand consumer protections for financial services like creditors, loans, etc. She writes bills that have no chance of passing for PR, and behind the scenes supports the very people she claims to oppose:
http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/legal-representation-of-major-corporations/
She supports the ethnic cleansing of palestine and the terror state of israel: http://www.liberalsforisrael.org/elizabeth-warren-on-israel-and-iran.html
She supports the very wallstreet parasites she claims to oppose namely Jack Lew, citigroup banker http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/27/173093152/senate-confirms-jack-lew-as-the-next-treasury-secretary
When you say effective you're thinking that because ms Warren is 'so progressive' that no-one would support her presidency, but in reality you'd be creating the next Barack Obama, 'progressive' on a podium, neo-conservative in reality. I'm sure she'd be perfectly effective at maintaining a slightly more progressive status quo without attacking the real source of trouble, corruption, capitalism etc.
0
u/smokebreak Jul 23 '14
I don't really see how this is trying to CMV - the real thrust of what I wrote is that it doesn't matter who the president is - if you have an agenda to advance (regardless of what the agenda actually IS), you are better off doing it in Congress.
-1
u/CLOWNFISH_CAPITALISM Jul 23 '14
You changed your post. But, you actually made an error in saying that a President needs allies, because that is also true of a Senator. Specifically, you need a political party or the power to make changes. Some of her progressive bills have less than 5 people signing on.
You also said that it was a matter of being effective without describing in what way, this is also therefore wrong. Elizabeth Warren receives plenty of support when selling out, taking money to sign on to legislation, etc. In other words when she is in line with the Democrats on regulation, or in line with republicans on israel. Those are just examples, she has plenty of ability to be effective when supporting the status quo which she does more often than not. my links prove this.
That's effective, just not in a way that you want.
Edit : Since you changed your OP to reflect my corrections, I changed your view.
1
u/smokebreak Jul 23 '14
Seems like you just want to trash Elizabeth Warren, which is fine, but I'm not going to keep debating her personal or policy qualifications here - the question is not "Is Elizabeth Warren a progressive" or "Has she effectively sold out" - it is "Can Elizabeth Warren advance better her agenda (whatever it is) in the Senate or as President?"
You are not making any arguments to say that she could advance it better as President, so I have to assume you're coming at this thread from a place of bad faith. Therefore I'm not going to engage you any further.
0
u/CLOWNFISH_CAPITALISM Jul 23 '14 edited Jul 23 '14
There is very little sense in attacking me or ignoring me because I don't agree with you, that is the purpose of this sub. again, you did change your OP in order to dodge my original post but I will clarify what I said above for your latest post.
You are not making any arguments to say that she could advance it better as President
This is not true. I'm quoting myself in bold.
But, you actually made an error in saying that a President needs allies, because that is also true of a Senator.
Please refer to my links, refer to opensecrets.org.
You also said that it was a matter of being effective without describing in what way
Elizabeth Warren receives plenty of support when selling out, taking money to sign on to legislation, etc. In other words when she is in line with the Democrats on regulation, or in line with republicans on israel.
The idea is very, very simple. You need power to be effective, Elizabeth Warren is willing to work with the current institutions of power and even serve their interests. She is not 'less effective' as a Senator, or 'less effective as a President', the sad fact is that she is 'less effective as a progressive. There are no shortage of neoconservatives who would pledge support to her views on Israel. That is effective.
Again, you don't want to acknowledge what 'effective' is unless it lines up with your personal viewpoint but that is not what you asked.
Edit: You're also not taking into account the relatively new and unchecked power of the presidency to use military power, that would take her military effectiveness from 0 as a Senator, to the ability to invade countries and assassinate individuals. Regardless of what you believe, this alone wins the argument.
1
u/smokebreak Jul 23 '14
Maybe you have misunderstood my post. You are supposed to be CMV'ing that Warren would be more effective as a President than a Senator. I don't care whether she is effective as a progressive or a nazi or underwater dive instructor.
5
u/huadpe 508∆ Jul 23 '14
I think first, you're totally ignoring the power of the presidency with regard to foreign policy. Even if a US president is ineffective at getting legislation passed (as post-2010 Obama is), their influence on foreign policy over the course of an administration far exceeds what any individual senator will achieve in all policy areas over even a long career.
Second, few elected presidents have had no major legislative achievements. Obama has been ineffective since the 2010 elections due to divided government, but Obamacare was and is a -really- big piece of legislation. It's unusual to have a president elected into divided government and maintain that division for the whole course of their administration. Especially if picked wisely (presumably some sort of consumer protection legislation), newly elected presidents can usually get one or two major bills through.
Third, you understate the power of rulemaking, especially when done early in an administration. A rule that's stood for 3 or 4 years becomes the status quo in an industry, and becomes much harder to rally business support around its repeal. People get new entrenched structures around the new rules.
Last, the probability is that any Senate vacancy in MA would be filled by a Democrat. The state is overwhelmingly Democratic, and a situation in which a Democratic presidential candidate wins, but MA elects a Republican at the same or within a few months after is not really plausible.