Helping Elizabeth Warren Understand
During the second Democratic Party presidential debate (depending on how you count them), someone named John Delaney apparently had the audacity to suggest that many candidates were throwing around promises like candy, rather than accepting the limitations of government action and economic realities. Against Delaney’s daring introduction of common sense into a de facto rally of the Communist Party USA — as if a bunch of modern teenagers were trying to decide on the next movie to watch next while getting drunk and having sex on the couch, and someone’s dad walked in and said, “Hey kids, how about Singin’ in the Rain?” — Elizabeth Warren got the big “score” of the night by answering Delaney on behalf of drunken teenagers everywhere.
Specifically, Delaney said: “I think Democrats win when we run on real solutions, not impossible promises; when we run on things that are workable, not fairy tale economics.” He then went on to commit the ultimate faux pas in current Democratic politics, namely suggesting, on the example of Detroit, that there is an important role for the “private sector” in economic revitalization. Oops. Talk about not knowing your audience!
To these remarks, which might well have seemed normal, even within the Democratic Party, until a mere generation ago, one of the oldest Democrats on the stage, Warren, delivered the following response, to the delight of the live audience, the media, and the Twitter mob:
I don’t understand why anyone goes to all the trouble of running for the president of the United States to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t be fighting for.
Warren supposedly won the night and destroyed Delaney’s presidential aspirations with that “zinger.” But that, of course, is only because there were no adults in the audience, the media, or the Twitter mob to offer the obvious response. Allow me to do so now, on behalf of rational humans everywhere (if any such there be):
Warren: “I don’t understand why anyone goes to all the trouble of running for the president of the United States to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t be fighting for.”
Rational Human: “Why? Because when the presidency has already wildly exceeded the constitutional limits of its authority – the limits explained by great philosophers and actualized by great statesmen to define the difference between a free republic and a tyranny – the only acceptable presidential candidate is the one who has the courage and humility to talk about what the president can’t and shouldn’t do, rather than joining the rest in drooling like a rabid animal about how much further and faster he can take the country along the path to progressive totalitarianism.”