In 2014, I was part of the unsuccessful effort to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for President. I joined that cause for two reasons: because Senator Warren was inarguably the greatest champion for progressive causes in the country, and because she would make a fantastic President. I still believe both of those to be true.
When it comes to the vice presidency, the conventional wisdom is that it isn’t an important job, until it is. Set aside for a moment the tie-breaking role they play in the Senate, and set aside the political benefits they provide to the party’s ticket: Nine of the 43 people to serve as President assumed that office in the middle of their term as Vice President. That’s more than one in five. They step into that office during times of national mourning, global war, and the widespread loss of confidence in our politics. So when we’re choosing who to name as a vice-presidential nominee, the first criteria must be the ability to effectively step into the office of President of the United States at one of those chaotic and historic moments.
Elizabeth Warren can do that.
But politics do matter, and Vice President is an inherently political role. Only a handful of people other than Hillary Clinton will have the ability to effectively speak on behalf of her ticket or administration, and the Vice President is going to be at the top of that list. Her nominee will have to be someone who can unite the opposing factions of the party, reach out to new constituencies during the general election, represent the President at high-level international affairs and politically sensitive meetings, and effectively lobby for the administration’s agenda with lawmakers and interest groups.
Elizabeth Warren can do that.
Knowing that she can serve the administration’s needs, we then need to ask if she can continue to maintain her own political identity and her advocacy on behalf of progressive interests and issues even as part of a Clinton administration (recognizing that there’s not a whole lot of daylight between her positions and the mainstream of the Progressive Movement). And here is where people start to get worried.
As part of a national ticket and a presidential administration, a Vice President Warren would be expected to not just echo, but actively endorse and support her boss’s positions. Her role would include using her own credibility to sell Hillary’s decisions to the public and to lawmakers. Though Hillary’s legislative record was far, far more progressive than a lot of people seem to give her credit for, it’s a near-certainty that she and Warren will diverge on some issues, just as they would if Warren remained in the Senate.
But would Warren be immune from such pressures as a Senator? As a leader in what we hope would be the majority party, a Senator Warren would also have to help promote a Democratic President’s agenda. She would still need to compromise to achieve legislative victories, and would have to work with the White House to promote major ideas and initiatives. She would have to forge alliances with dozens of other legislators — most of whom are to her right — in order to get anything done. And she would be doing all of that while confronted with the same Republican obstructionism we’ve all come to know and loathe over the past decade.
On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren is much, much more than just a pliant, empty suit, and I strongly believe she would be an integral part of the Clinton administration. She’s universally admired and respected as a leader within the party. The “Elizabeth Warren Wing of the Democratic Party” is a force to be reckoned with. National progressive organizations stand ready to defend her. Her acolytes and allies litter both houses of Congress, as well as state houses and city halls around the country. Her presence changes the calculus for the White House concerning whose support it can look for, which groups it can turn to for help, and which issues it can afford to turn into major political fights. Having Elizabeth Warren in the administration means that it becomes more likely they will choose to fight over substantive, progressive, big-ticket issues, because they will be more likely to have a path to victory that runs over progressive territory. If demographics equals destiny, then imagine the destiny of a political machine that has Elizabeth Warren as one of its primary weapons.
Far from being shut up as a Vice President, it’s more likely Warren would be amplified.
No matter what, Elizabeth Warren will be touring the country all summer and fall. She’ll be vocally and enthusiastically supporting the Clinton campaign, promoting down-ballot candidates, raising money from top donors, appearing on every television news show, giving interviews to every paper and magazine, signing tens of thousands of email blasts and direct mail solicitations, and rallying the troops to deliver a resounding victory this November. The question is only in what role she should do all that.
Personally, I want her on the ticket, just as I wanted her to run for President, because she fights hard and unapologetically for the causes I care about. Politically, I think putting her on the ticket benefits everyone, from progressive activists and candidates to Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren herself. And as a straightforward question of merit, I can’t think of anyone more deserving than Senator Warren.
There are really only two people’s opinions on the subject who matter, though. Each should do what’s best for their respective roles in the future of the country. But if they’re asking my opinion, then I’m still, and always, Ready for Warren.
