Sanders and Warren: They Are Not Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum

This post is an oversimplification of my take on the separation between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders:

In his speeches, Sanders expresses the clear and convincing rhetoric of Economic and Social Justice.

In her ‘plans’, Warren has articulated the nuts and bolts of achieving Economic and Social Justice.

Re his personal history and narrative, Bernie is the debater…

Re her personal history and narrative, Warren is the fighter…

Bernie’s flaw is that he must take extreme caution to not become a caricature of himself…An easy target for detractors and nay-sayers.

Warren’s flaw: there is a huge disconnect and divide between egalitarian Democracy and free market capitalism.

Egalitarian Democracy and free market capitalism are natural enemies and as such they are, in my view and ,to all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive….

Making the government work for everyone while capitalism can work only for capitalists is the equivalent ofwalking the proverbial camel through the eye of the. proverbial needle….

Sanders wants to hold Wall Street accountable monolithically or collectively…

Warren wants to hold Wall Street criminally liable as identifiable and indictable and prosecutable individuals and entities….

She is the only candidate who has vowed to prosecute and incarcerate Wall Street financiers and money moguls who knowingly and willingly cause economic harm to the country and/or financial harm to consumers and taxpayers.

A couple of questions: 

Can Sanders or Warren develop a viable hybrid that can function as a new political and economic paradigm going forward?

Is doing so even possible?

A historical note on the matter of ideological purity:

George Washington was the only president to have been unanimously elected by the Electoral College…

Washington is the only President who was ideologically pure at the time of his election and inauguration.

He was elected to office by the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

Washington himself did absolutely no public campaigning, and he even cast doubt on whether he would take the job if elected.

In both the election of 1789 and 1792 Washington received all of the votes from the Electoral College.

During the first election, Washington won the electors of all ten eligible states.

Three states, however, did not contribute to the vote total. Both North Carolina and Rhode Island were ineligible; neither had ratified the Constitution yet.

In addition, New York was unable to participate in the election, as the legislature had not passed a bill in time to appoint its eight electors. In 1792, Washington received all 132 electoral votes, winning each of the fifteen states.

80 total views, 1 views today