Three reasons why Elizabeth Warren shouldn't challenge Scott Brown
Yesterday I made the case for why Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and special adviser to the president, should challenge Scott Brown for his Senate seat in 2012. Today, I offer a counterpoint: That Warren shouldn't run because she's better off where she is now (or could be soon). Three points of clarification:
1) Warren would make a better head of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. That's the response David over at the progressive blog Blue Mass Group offered after reading my post. "She's a pioneer in government and I think she's going to be able to do more from where she's at than if she were to run for Senate and be 1 of 100 voices in a very flawed system," he had argued previously on the site.
Warren is currently serving as the temporary head of the CFPA. Some, especially many progressives, believe she would be one of the best people to lead the agency in its infancy — not only because the CFPA was her idea, but because she's proven to be such an effective advocate for the middle class without a government agency behind her. Think what she'll be able to do, the argument goes, if she is actually running the place.
Warren already has the support of consumer advocacy groups. And there is reason to believe Warren could handle the job well. Take her decision to hire Holly Petraeus, the wife of General David H. Petraeus, to head the CFPA's Office of Servicemember Affairs. It was as practically smart as it was politically brilliant. Practically speaking, Petraeus is known for her years of strong advocacy on behalf of military families. And politically, who could better preempt attacks from Republicans opposed to the CFPA than the wife of the top American commander in Afghanistan?
2) Warren's platform now is bigger than it would be as a senator. Warren already has the ear of the national media. She appears on television regularly, and nary a negative word has been written about her in most newspapers and magazines. (The Wall Street Journal — predictably, one could argue — being a notable exception.) While being in the Senate would offer her a vote on economic issues, and she'd undoubtedly become the body's go-to person on consumer protections, she already has the ear of lawmakers. Plus, as a senator, she'd have to concentrate on issues as diverse as fishing law and military spending. Her own time and attention would be split, and other issues would threaten to drown out her message on consumer protections.
3) As a politician, she'd have to engage in politics. Effective legislators compromise; effective advocates usually don't. Part of Warren's appeal is her passionate fight on behalf of consumers. Would she even be able to cut deals that may water down what she sees as necessary protections?
And why would Warren want to dirty herself with political mudslinging when she could continue to enjoy her almost untouchable perch as a public crusader? Does she really want to follow the trajectory of Ralph Nader? As a campaigner, Warren would have to be prepared to take some hits and level attacks herself. That might not be the best use of her abilities.
Globe photo: Elizabeth Warren in December 2009.
Editors' Picks
