Does Warren Talk Too Much? Or, What's Really Our Problem?

You've heard it around town, maybe at work, and definitely in the banter of democratic party social groups. The most promising democratic candidates for president are supposedly messing up all chance of a win with their high hopes and verbalized promises.

But is what they say true? Does Warren have unrealistic aspirations? More, does she talk too much for her own good?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Of course not! We would never overcome our weaknesses if they could not be discussed.

So, what's the problem in politics today? 

Our problem seems to be that we're largely uninformed (despite our level of access to communications) and determined to stay that way.

There's a lot of talk about what our Democratic candidates should be saying, and not saying, in order to win the top seat of the once-optimistic republic.

Although most society does demand a form of status quo in conversation, it's disheartening to experience such stolid resistance to talk of liberalism and financial freedom in our United States.

As we approach one of our most critical presidential elections in 2020, apprehension is rising in the wake of what many regard to be a fabric-damaging dictatorial leadership. But is it anything like the feel of 2015, when many had (uninformed) hope of another Democratic president?

Well,  no. We weren't really apprehensive at that point. Rather, we were certain that things could not go the way that they went.

"Since 2016, Republicans generally have consolidated behind the president."

The temptation today is the same. Surely, after everything we've witnessed, there is no way a presidential reelection could take place in 2020. But if the article linked above is any indication of the pulse of the populace, then we already know the result will be another moral disappointment.

So, what's the problem with an open dialogue among the people, and especially among those with wherewithal to enter into the race with the incumbent so reviled? 

We hear so much about the supposed mistake of talking, or talking wrongly. Heck, even the Democratic frontrunners want Warren to shut up. 

Democrats will never win if they don't shut up. 

Warren will never win, she talks too much.  

Recent Democratic debates have propelled her to front-runner status, much thanks to her continually developing trademark resolve. Yet, Republicans would never relent and Warren's fellows show little sign of support.

Does Bernie talk too much? (Of course not; he is "unfiltered" and "brave".) However:

Bernie needs to "change himself", before he can win. (He needn't shut up, but open up.)

Whatever they're doing, Warren and Sanders aren't doing it right (in their respective sexist-regarded ways). 

Sure, back in January Warren was brave. But in the autumn prior to election year, she is unrealistic and risky to the interests of the Democratic Party—such as it is today, almost unrecognizable in its lack of commitment to economic ideations as compared to itself under Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy.

Discussion of issues that plague the success of our nation has become increasingly taboo, it seems, in politics. But we should consider ourselves:

If those most fortunate among us cannot stand up for us, then don't we stand (or sit, as it would be) to lose every fight for egalitarian access to life's essentials?

Finding the Way out of Our Political Staging Dilemma

It's akin to reality TV—not quite real, despite the name. At least, some may suspect this of modern politics. Not the voting and elections of our representatives of course, for that is real. But the staging of contenders and officials has always been susceptible to a kind of requirement of theatrical presence (to be kind). Under the best of circumstances, this has worked in our favor regarding perceptions of our most admired and appreciated officials.

However, the worst of circumstances bring us the exaggerated, often untrue hyperbole of our best worst actors: Trump, in the age of social media, as well as G.W.  . . . McCarthy's McCarthyism, to name just a few of the 20th-century opportunists of political theatrics known for their baseless or misguided, but popular, accusations, insinuations, and warnings. Such is the stuff that sometimes sways elections—powerful enough to change lives or leave them in peril based on misinformation.

It's unfortunate, for us all, that (it appears) the public likes to be fooled. The accusation isn't directed at politics but a reference to so-called Reality TV—that particular genre of television programming that implies an unscripted experience, but which has been revealed to be scripted. We cannot ignore the conscious and subconscious adjustments of personality that undoubtedly rise as a result of the (usually) lesser-known actors' knowledge of the presence of cameras, hence audience. The same sort of exaggeration happens on the political stage where the result, of course, is a much greater, often irreversible influence on public life.

Our "differences are amplified by the two parties, which use them to mobilize their base voters", says Charles Lipson, Real Clear Politics contributor.

As Lipson points out, political contenders—in order to appeal to their public audience and attract votes—must amplify their message. More, they must exaggerate their positions in order to fit their platform of acceptance and encourage its constituents to get out their votes (for them). When they do mobilize voters based on hot-button issues that get blood boiling and voters moving, they are essentially baiting hooks to direct votes away from the greatest societal needs.

How can we beat this problem?

Politics: independent vs. Independent

Speaking of independent politics, we must address the popularity of the idea as well as our goals with this site.

The idea of independence has gained such popularity again in this age of identity success that the idea has been capitalized and endorsed as a new political party. While this is a good thing (at least, it adds to our options and buffers the influence of the two major parties of division), we need to be able to separate the idea from any political party. 

We want to be clear, that when we speak of independent politics on this site, we don't necessarily or usually mean to indicate that we're speaking of the American Independent Party or its characteristics. Although we will, from time to time, host posts relating to any political party. When we do, we will use the appropriate capitalization of the designated term, as well as other indications. 

Generally, the term independent as it's used on this site will not be capitalized. An independent or nonpartisan politician (or constituent, voter) is an individual not affiliated with any political party. 

There are many reasons why someone may stand for office as an independent, or care to remain independently free to vote per election. Independents may support policies which are different from those of the major political parties. Independents may simply wish to dissociate from parties that have veered off course. The list goes on.