Third Party & Independents Archives

Fakeahontas and the Real Hiawatha

While a slight fuss has been raised, and understandably so, over the location of the Run Warren Run office in the Cedar Rapid’s suburb of Hiawatha, it may have unintended ironies for those who make fun of its location. The fact that Warren desperately invoked a dubious Native American Heritage to help her gain Ivy League employment is now part of her record, as it should be for anyone who may soon be seeking the Presidency. The fact that Hiawatha was mistakenly used by Longfellow, however, to refer to an Ojibwa trickster rather than the historical, if mythical, unifying figure that helped shape the Iroquois Confederacy is the unintended irony of those who have pointed out the Native American fake connection. That’s because the essence of Warren does not really encompass her silly little stumbling dance back when with identity politics - while Hillary is locked in a death waltz with identity politics whose embrace she can’t or won’t break - but rather the serious substance of her radical views on political economy.


It may be somewhat embarrassing for Warren to be reminded of all this, and her reaction will be interesting to see, but her real power is her potential, and it is merely unrealized potential, to unite the left around her attacks on Wall Street. She seems to be heading - like another Massachusetts senator - down the Ted Kennedy route, one that gave us the disastrous stagflation of the mid and late 70's. And it's on this issue that she may be able to gain real political traction with everyone from hard core feminists to outdated union activists to academics and environmentalists and students and everyone who know exactly why your freedoms should be limited by the state. A Confederacy of the Correct; as in politically, socially, economically, and why not, even in terms of identity.

So while the jokes about Fake-ahontas may be funny and may even serve to energize anyone who finds her sermons, if you will, a little troubling, Warren is closer to the real legend of Hiawatha rather than Longfellow's mistaken attribution. And the battle with Warren will be about economics, policy, and freedom, rather than identity politics.

Posted by AllardK at February 16, 2015 8:15 PM
Comments
Comment #388938

Allardk,
Apparently you do not like Warren. After three paragraphs, I still do not know why. Can you cite an example of “her radical views on political economy”? How in the world can her “attacks on Wall Street” result in stagflation? What attacks are you referring to? Warren demanded lawbreakers in the financial sector be held accountable. How would prosecuting fraudulent mortgage lending practices lead to stagflation, or even be a bad thing in the first place?

When Republican Yoder (KS) inserted an amendment by Citigroup into the recent must-pass budget, giving Citigroup taxpayer backed protection for risky transactions, and Warren condemned this… How would that lead to stagflation? Or a loss of freedom? Why is condemning that amendment radical?

Are Too Big to Fail banks a good thing? Warren does not think so, and neither do I. Please explain why Too Big to Fail banks make us more free.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #388970

Good question, phx8. What exactly is the criticism of Warren?

I did learn something new, though, from the post. I didn’t realize until now that it was Ted Kennedy that caused stagflation. Considering that stagflation started during the presidency of Nixon-Ford, it was quite an accomplishment.

Posted by: Rich at February 17, 2015 10:49 PM
Comment #388980

Well, Rich, I saw the statement about “the Ted Kennedy route, one that gave us the disastrous stagflation of the mid and late 70’s.”, but I did not go down that rabbit hole.

I don’t know if it would be accurate to consider WB a microcosm of conservatism, but there are some similarities. Conservatives seem to have lost the ability to make coherent arguments. I know they dislike Obama. They are partisan, but they no longer seem to know why, other than they hate Obama and Hillary and Warren.

Part of the problem is the conservative narrative these days, which is basically one of fear. They constantly push a fear of ISIS and illegal immigrants. It seems to me if a person was going to be afraid, it would be over the loss of an average of 32 Americans a day to gun violence. As far as I know, no American in the US has ever been killed by an ISIS militant. Someone pointed out the police in one little town in WA, Pasco, have killed more people in 6 months- four people- than the UK police in three years, even though the UK has a population of 80 million. Same goes for Germany in one year. I mean, we’re not talking about potential terrorist attacks; we’re talking about an average of 32 Americans killed every day, and that’s not even counting suicides. That is real. That is actual. And we are supposed to be afraid of ISIS? Huh?

Another example of conservative incoherence comes with the threat to shut down DHS. It is an incredibly foolhardy threat, and yet, the extremists and radicals in the House want to do it. They were even given a total gift when a TX conservative judge gave an injunction to prevent implementation of an executive order. That has zero chance of holding up on appeal, but it did give the House GOP the chance for a graceful exit from the corner they painted themselves into, and pass a clean bill to fund DHS; and yet, they won’t do it.

It goes to show… the disasters of the Bush years were not flukes.

Posted by: phx8 at February 18, 2015 12:55 AM
Comment #389028

Phx8

People tell you all the time why they disagree with leftist policy. You just make it personal so it’s easier to dismiss.

People can’t disagree with government stripping their freedom of choice, force them to purchase what government approves, and paying for the irresponsible, no, to you it’s hate of Obama and “the others.”
People can’t disagree with illegal entry into their country, no, to you they hate “brown people.”
People can’t agree with their country being bullied and taken advantage of, no, to you they fear.
People can’t understand and respect their 2nd Amendment rights, no, to you they live in fear.

It has nothing to do with arguments not being coherent, and everything to do with a lack of integrity.

Posted by: kctim at February 18, 2015 10:45 AM
Comment #389030

kctim,
In the example of Elizabeth Warren, can you name what “leftist policy” the writer of this article disagrees with? How has Elizabeth Warren done something- anything- that resulted in someone being stripped of their freedom of choice? She is best known for demanding big banks and mortgage lenders and ratings agencies be held responsible for illegal practices. She wants the Too Big To Fail banks broken up, much like Teddy Roosevelt trust-busted Big Oil back in the day. Are you opposed to this? She opposed an amendment by a conservative that puts the taxpayer- you and me- on the hook to bailout Citigroup if their risky investments go tits up. They get the profit. You and I get the loss, thanks to that amendment. Do you believe mortgage lenders should be allowed to get away with fraudulent lending practices? That is what the Consumer Financial Protection prosecutes. Conservatives did everything possible to prevent it from functioning. Conservatives attempted to repeal Dodd Frank, which put in place financial protections to prevent another economic crash. Do you think Big Banks should be free to eventually tank the economy again as a matter of deregulation? Conservatives do.

And it IS personal. The last economic crash nearly destroyed my family’s prospects. We all lost our jobs. Our investments were nearly worthless at one point. So yeah. It is personal. So when people gas about the economy with no apparent idea of what they are talking about, repeating conservative talking points from FOX and Limbaugh and Hannity, I will call them on it.

And I don’t put up with fear-mongering, either.

Our country is being “bullied”? Really? We spend as much on defense as the next ten biggest defense spending countries combined. We are generations ahead of the nearest competitor. Not just one generation. Generations. As in more than one. Our surveillance techniques are ridiculous. The idea that we are being “taken advantage of” by some other country makes no sense. We are the 500 pound gorilla in the world’s living room, and no one can do anything about it. But even King Kong can be taken down if the big monkey is dumb enough to do things like climb the Empire State Building, or alienate allies like the UK or France, or invade Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes…

Posted by: phx8 at February 18, 2015 11:19 AM
Comment #389036

Phx8

You make it personal by claiming it’s all about hate of Obama, Hillary, Warren etc…, instead of the policy they support.
When we tell you that we don’t like the individual mandate, you dismiss it as hate for Obama. When we disagree with your economic opinions, you dismiss it as being fed talking points. When we tell you that we believe immigrants should follow the law, you dismiss it as racist fear-mongering.
That is not what you do IF you are looking for coherent arguments.

Yes, our country is being bullied. Really.
Foreigners are coming into our country and expecting us to accommodate them and their way of life, rather than them assimilating to us and our way of life. If we question it, they call us racists. The same way a bully calls you a pussy for questioning him.

Terrorists are kidnapping and executing our fellow Americans, and plotting attacks against our country. They know they can’t defeat us, so they just keep popping us in the nose, over and over again, just like a bully does.

But, no, the enemy you guys want to destroy are your fellow Americans who dare disagree with your opinions and who don’t want to give you your government programs.

Posted by: kctim at February 18, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #389042

I don’t like Warren because she is a progressive and progressive equals communist. I dislike communism.

Posted by: tdobson at February 18, 2015 1:06 PM
Comment #389050

With the left, it’s always about “hating” someone. It’s impossible for a conservative to have a difference in political views, without the “hate” word being thrown around. There was never so much visceral hatred for conservatives, when conservatives were in power or running for office, by the left; but it was ignored. I will be the first to say, I don’t like Obama and I don’t like liberal leftists. I don’t like their tactics and I don’t like the policies. If the left wants to construe that as hatred toward another individual, go for it…who am I to try to change their mind. But, I find it PURE HYPOCRACY for the left to talk of hatred toward liberals, after the politics of personal destruction that we have witnessed from their side.

Regarding Pocahontas E. Warren; she’s a liar, a leftist, and a destroyer of the American Dream…much like her mentor Obama.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 18, 2015 2:15 PM
Comment #389057

tdobson, Sam Jones,
Not much content in those comments. Just name calling.

kctim,
Warren is not responsible for the individual mandate, but since that is the only mention of anything specific, let’s look at it anyway.

The individual mandate was developed by the Heritage Foundation in 1898 as an alternative to single payer.

“The annual fee for not having insurance in 2015 is $325 per adult and $162.50 per child (up to $975 for a family); or 2% of your household income above the tax return filing threshold for your filing status, whichever is greater.”
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-individual-mandate/

It does not apply for anyone who already has insurance through work (about 85% of us) or insurance through the web sites (about another 11 million) or does not meet a minimum income threshold, or qualify for certain exemptions.

This means about 4 million, or less than 2% of the population, will face paying a fee for not choosing to have health care insurance.

These people who choose to go without insurance provide an example of the ‘free rider’ problem. They are essentially people who want to do on an individual basis what the Big Banks want to do on a large scale, namely, privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Individual free riders want to save money by not paying for insurance, but expect to be provided care when they need it. Often this involves a visit to an emergency room, and 40% of all those cases never pay. Free riders require the most expensive treatments of all, and if it is ruinously expensive, they will simply not pay and declare bankruptcy.

The individual mandate addresses this problem.

“Foreigners are coming into our country and expecting us to accommodate them and their way of life, rather than them assimilating to us and our way of life. If we question it, they call us racists.”

Well, that’s a jaw dropper. I’ve had many opportunities to come into contact with foreigners of all kinds; in fact, my wife is technically 1/2 Hispanic and my children 1/4 Hispani; but I have to say, I never encountered this problem. Ever.

Posted by: phx8 at February 18, 2015 3:22 PM
Comment #389058

whoops. 1989. Heh.

Posted by: phx8 at February 18, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #389062

Lemme see how these work:

Hillary Clinton/Elizabeth Warren ticket

Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro ticket

Hillary Clinton/Bill Clinton ticket(would this be legal?)

They all sound pretty good to me. Especially since the next step would be Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.

Did anyone see this about the secret meeting.

Secret meeting, oh no this is really going to upset the right wing spin cycle.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 18, 2015 3:52 PM
Comment #389064

Speak,
I figure Obama is a lock for an eventual position on the Supreme Court. The current administration even leaked a story that Hillary was briefly considered for the SCOTUS. Hint hint, Hillary.

Clinton/Castro would be an interesting ticket. Julian Castro is a savvy, careful, thoughtful politician. Went to Stanford, Harvard Law, three-time mayor of San Antonio, and a cabinet position as the Secretary for HUD. Like a lot of candidates, he lacks foreign policy experience, but as VP he could be sent around the world to attend funerals and meet world leaders…

Posted by: phx8 at February 18, 2015 4:03 PM
Comment #389065

Phx8

In your response to Rich, you stated: “Conservatives seem to have lost the ability to make coherent arguments. I know they dislike Obama. They are partisan, but they no longer seem to know why, other than they hate Obama and Hillary and Warren.”

I was addressing that, not your opinion of Warren or AllardK. That is what I am being very specific about.

I do not care who “developed” the individual mandate, it is wrong for government to force individuals to purchase things against their will.
I also don’t dismiss attacks against our freedoms because it’s only a few dollars and only effects a small percentage of people.
IF you would listen to people, instead of dismissing their concerns as nothing but hate, you would understand that money is not what those concerns are based upon.

“I never encountered this problem. Ever.”

Good for you, but have you ever heard about them? The refusal to learn English? The demands to ignore our immigration laws? The demands that certain flags not be displayed? The demands for our license laws to be bypassed? The demands for benefits?

It’s not that it’s not happening, it’s that you just don’t care that it is happening. Probably because it’s politically beneficial to the far-left.

Posted by: kctim at February 18, 2015 4:07 PM
Comment #389066

phx8, I think Castro would make a great VP. What he lacks in experience he can easily make up for by just being the person that he is. Someone who holds out hope for the future, a belief in the past and a mother that raised him to respect his fellow citizens.

It would be pure pleasure to see Obama’s briefs and dissensions with regards to Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas positions.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 18, 2015 4:13 PM
Comment #389094
They all sound pretty good to me. Especially since the next step would be Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.

There’s only one problem…it would require Obama to actually show up for work. How would he get his vacations and golfing in?

Obama believes he is above the job he now has; could you imagine that narcissistic fool being required to sit before a Republican controlled Senate conformation hearing and being required to intelligently answer questions.

I don’t think we have to worry about that one…

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 18, 2015 8:10 PM
Comment #389109

In case anyone is wondering, so far Obama has spent 125 days on vacation. At this same point, Bush spent 407 days on vacation.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/08/presidential-vacations/

Reagan took about as many days of vacation as Bush. Clinton took about the same number as Obama. By any metric, Obama has been one of the hardest working presidents of the modern era.

Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2015 12:32 AM
Comment #389162

Narcissistic fool? Brave words from a two bit commenter on a rather insignificant blog. Hope your statements about our President help you feel better, I know it must be a struggle to define him the way you do when he is doing such a great job.

I believe phx8’s factcheck belies your contentions but that won’t stop you, we know.

What do you think of Bill Clinton being a VP? What a perfect ambassador to the world for us to have. One of the most liked Presidents in recent memory traveling the world as a VP to his spouse. Stay tuned, you never know.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 9:46 AM
Comment #389213

Speak,
Hillary will need to use the VP slot to develop the bench. Bill is already in her corner. He would make an awesome surrogate anytime she needs a top-notch set of eyes and ears abroad, or working the legislature.

Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #389218

Bill will be an asset in any capacity for her and her ambitions. As he already has been. It would be interesting to see a VP as a husband of the President though, if for no other reason than it has never occurred before and it would be something that he would be profoundly good at. I expect that she will make a more reasoned choice if she does decide to run and pick someone else. I am not certain Warren would be her best choice as Senator Warren is a good person to have in the Senate from Hillary’s perspective. Castro would be a good choice along with several others. I would favor someone like Castro if for no other reason than to, as you say, develop the bench. Who knows someone like Castro, if elected, could go on to become a fine Presidential candidate in 2020 or 2024.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 3:09 PM
Post a comment