Elizabeth Warren--when push comes to shove

Unlike the so-called pundits, I admit when I was wrong. My scenario #2382 was quite wrong. The glaring flaw in that naively idealistic was that James Comey was a man of integrity. I will spare you the invective that many of us 99ers have evinced about this.

So, it is with humility that I offer this following thought. Now, I must honor the contributions of two of my mentors: Mr Bailey and Mr Seagram. That conversation occurred yesterday, after we read this two-tiers of justice affirmation by James "Mr Reasonable" Comey. I found this parley intoxicating, to say the least. However, I digress.

Now, please read along with me without scoffing too loudly--at least until you have finished my suppositions. There are lessons in social psychology and biology here. After all, we are supposed to be a scientific community.

First, for biology: we are aware of the nature of symbiosis. This is a situation when two different species coexist to the benefit of each other. Examples are numerous, such as the happy coexistence of our intestinal flora with ourselves. This makes for a beneficial coexistence. Of course, the basic premise of symbiosis is that the relationship between the symbiotes is that they sustain each other; in other words one symbiotic does not due damage to the other symbiote. Got that?

Now into psychology: there are examples of interaction between two separate actors. The actors may be singular or plural. Examples could be of single individuals such as husband and spouse. The actors may also be be groups of any number, and not necessarily equal number. One example, which may be more apparent July 25, is the group(s) of protesters and the militia ordered to control them in Philly.

It is in the nature of the social interactions that there are multiple possible outcomes. It is possible that the two parties are mutually supportive. It is also possible that the two parties interact in a neutral fashion--a sort of live-and-let-live arrangement. A third possible outcome is mutual opposition of the two groups towards one another.

This third option is actually not so simple as one might think. But consider group or person A vehemently dislikes group or person B. This dislike may, or may not be reciprocated. Further nuances in this situation are also demonstrable, making such adversarial interactions much more complex. For instance the intensity of dislike between the two groups may be mutual. Groups/persons A and B may feel negative about each other. Further complicating this situation is that the degree of animosity can be of different mutual intensity. Also the two groups feelings/responses to the other group tend to fluctuate in time.

Now into Social Psychology, a discipline that studies the behaviors of groups, which may not be quite identical to the three options posited above (i.e., comity, neutrality, opposition).

The tenets of Social Psychology often are applicable about specific groups and/or situations. The range of the following responses are not mutually exclusive. These responses can be roughly be segregated again into three major different kinds:
these different kinds are also quite applicable to individuals as well as groups. These situations may be classified as follows:
1. Approach - approach: generally the tendency of individual to get involved with one another--this mutual approach does not guarantee an amicable result. But amicability is most likely a result of this type of interaction.

2. Avoidance - avoidance: the two groups/persons tend to avoid each other. This type of situation is mainly characterized by neutrality. Warning: avoidance - avoidance can become quite hostile if one group feels abused the other party, such as acting in a perceived way as inimitable to the other group's well-being.

3. Approach - avoidance: on the individual level this characterizes the predator-prey relationship. Dogs do not like being eaten by alligators. This reaction could apply to groups: e.g., a group of Bernie supporters outside a Trump Rally.

Now that the biology, psychology and social psychology have been elucidated, let's put them to use. Hopefully, the logic of this has survived my encounter with Misters Bayley and Seagram.

Of course the point of this essay is to relate to the debacle of this 2016 election. One given is that Bernie has not given up and still taking the fight to the HillBots. Perforce, WhichHillary is beginning to co-opt several of Bernie's positions. However I don't believe a word that emerges from her oral orifice. (anatomical reference: it is often difficult to discern Medusa's oral and anal orifices from one another). So Bernie is finally exerting at least a verbal PUSH on Hillary. She seems to currently taking a path of lesser resistance than her original blatantly corporatist positions. (By the way what happened to those promised Goldman-Sachs transcripts?) Now, she may in danger of breaking her ankles by such policy contortions, as her feet are firmly nailed to the platform of corporatism.

So, what's all this got to do with Liz Warren? Again, my fatigued brain, trying to contemplate this game of 9-dimensional chess has already faltered. But, here is what I find most intriguing. The Washington Monthly published an article: Liz Warren's genius move.

We all know this even tone-deaf, cloddish Clinton: LW is an extremely effective orator. She inspires interest, and often confidence, when she speaks. HRC needs LW on her team because it is probably the only way Medusa is hoping to lure Berners to her cause. She NEEDS LW if there is to be any hope for pre-election of party reunification. HRC's wonderfully intolerant and short-sighted supporters have been extremely successful at Berniecrat alienation. When you read this article, you will have no trouble discerning the fact that LW is getting way out in front of "her" candidate. The linked speech contains contains many, if not all, of the financial Bernie and us consider as essential. Let me emphasize again, LW is getting way out ahead of Her Heinous in making this bold policy statement--and don't expect it to be her last on the subject--and possibly other items on the Progressive Agenda. So here we are, my thesis is that HRC eagerly clutched LW to her bosom expecting a symbiotic relationship (e.g., putting Liz at the service of the Queen). So here is the genius: LW is now on the "inside" of the Heir Apparent's campaign, yet she is exerting a strong SHOVE pushing the unwilling candidate further to the left.
Now Hillary has got a Hobson's choice:
1. She can tell Liz to shut up and thereby alienating LW supporters and possibly LW herself. If that happens, the Hillary can definitely kiss party unity goodbye.
2. HRC doesn't try to muzzle LW, but goes about her merry-corporatist ways, thus negating what LW is saying. But remember this: LW is getting way ahead of HRC in pushing a progressive agenda. Plus, as mentioned above LW is much better received by both press and the public in terms of honesty plus the kind of charisma that Hillary can't buy or steal.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Raggedy Ann's picture

I have been dissing LW for her endorsement of her majesticness. I'll back off and see if this has legs. I'll remain open to the game.

up
0 users have voted.

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

but I'm still not voting for clinton even if LW is her VP pick.

up
0 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

I lost my respect for Warren. If there was anything to her she would have endorsed Bernie back in the fall when it would have done some good. She's working for herself not us, and is plastic as hell singing praises to the $hill.

I'm done with all the dems - a bunch of crooked corporists. Can we build a Green party? I don't know, but that's a better choice IMO. Go Green!

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Liz Warren can be quickly neutralized the same was Bernie was: The media can ignore her and give all their attention to Hillary.

up
0 users have voted.

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Liz as Shill's VP will be rendered sterile. No way any VP will outshine Shill. Hill will capture Warren's minions to get elected, then kill her off or ruin her. Just watch. Unless Hill strings her along, then dumps her for a better liar.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

74 bodies and counting associated with the Clinton crime family.

up
0 users have voted.