Sam Burnham, Curator
Speaking of working class families, here is another proposal by a progressive politician pandering to them. Sweeping anti-corruption legislation that is going to eliminate the influence of money in Washington and make heavily centralized government work for working families "again."
There are so many problems in this tweet that it is worthy of an article.
Let's look at the unsaid portion first. This isn't about pending or proposed legislation. This is about a soon-to=be-announced presidential run. This is a buzzword laden work of propaganda designed to launch a campaign for the highest office in the land. It sounds good in the ears of struggling parents, looks good on paper, but it is essentially nothing. While having secured a role as a media darling, Senator Warren has the charisma of the dust I boldly swept from the front porch this morning. She's Hillary Clinton without the stage presence.
Here's a look at the buzz words:
"Bold new plan" - Did you suspect that she might describe her plan as recycled, weak, mediocre, or routine? No. She adds hyperbole and tries to get you excited about it. I'm not.
"Change the way Washington does business" - Washington does business by continually grabbing power through sweeping legislation. She's saying she's going to change the way Washington does business by enacting some business as usual. In essence, smoking is not only the cause of cancer, it is also the cure.
"Anti-corruption" - That town has been claiming to be working on anti-corruption legislation since the government relocated the anti-corruption efforts there from previous efforts in New York and Philadelphia. It never works, it is always corrupt, it is never going to be not corrupt.
"Eliminate the influence of money" - Elizabeth Warren, a college professor who CNN estimates to be worth between $3.7 million and $10 million and lives in a $1.9 million Victorian mansion is going to eliminate the influence of money in her $174, 000 job? I'm not convinced.
"Works for working families 'again'" - The way she says this suggests that Washington once sided with the working class, regular people, over the rich and powerful. This has never been true. It has never happened. There has never been a time that it was the prevailing philosophy. Ever.
The federal design, as used today, is not one that can be friendly to the working class. It is too far removed, too out of touch, too reliant on lobbyists and donors. Working class people are so busy trying to survive that they don't have the time, or really the energy, to lobby Washington themselves. The three seats that represent them in Congress are a drop in the bucket.
The only answer is to move the seats of power closer to the people, where they will have more access, more influence, more say. Allow state and local governments to make decisions for themselves - especially on specifically local, state, and regional issues. Want to really help the working class? Make it easier to start small business, maintain family farms, and level the playing field to help small banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions. If you want to really help the average Joe, get the federal government out of his way so he can help himself.
Most of all, quit slinging the same 240 year old line of bull. It's tired.
Historian, self-proclaimed gentleman, agrarian-at-heart, & curator extraordinaire