Hmm. I’m not so sure Ms. Warren should be proud of that. Nevertheless, she’s probably right: Without her, the Occupy Wall Street protests would have had to build on what? Barack Obama, tepidly calling on the rich to pay their fair share? Warren Buffett, pointing fingers and avoiding taxes?
AP said the left had a fever and the only prescription was Elizabeth Warren talking tax hikes. Now, it’s looking like Elizabeth Warren had the fever first and the only prescription was populist protests. Maybe she meant to goad hordes of kids into Zuccotti Park with her now-notorious spiel. “Nobody got rich in this country on his own — nobody!” That sounds like just about the right slogan for the many rich kids camping out in NYC. They certainly didn’t, even if Charles Payne did. So, let’s give Ms. Warren the credit she deserves.
Incidentally, how solid a foundation does a tent need? Soft grass should do the trick, right?
Republicans have already begun to point out that, by tying herself to the Occupy Wall Street protests, Warren risks backlash from ordinary voters who decry the impolite manners and more extreme tactics of the protesters. But, so far, voters haven’t yet begun to disapprove of the movement so wholeheartedly as one might think. The key is this: Do voters view the movement as essentially an anti-crony-capitalism cause? Or do they detect the envious tone of class warfare coursing through the crowds? If the former, then Elizabeth Warren might have improved her chances at Scott Brown’s Senate seat by connecting herself to OWS. Who doesn’t dislike crony capitalism? And Warren has some surface, visceral credibility in that arena, as she has always been an outspoken advocate for tougher regulations on Wall Street. But, if OWS and Warren veer too far into the redistributive arena, then she loses the sympathy of the successful, who will remember her rousing justification to forget their societal contributions.