A lot of people view Senator Elizabeth Warren as a person who is working to make the United States more equal and therefore as a person we should support by voting for her, especially if she ends up--as some are now speculating--being Hillary Clinton's VP running mate in 2016.

I don't think anything useful can be obtained by voting for Warren. Here's why.

#1. In "Voting for President in America: History is Trying to Tell Us Something" (which I strongly encourage you to read if you are planning to vote in the next presidential election) I look at every U.S. president from FDR to Obama and draw from their actual deeds (as opposed to the promises they made during their campaigns) the following concluding paragraph:

Should We Vote for President?

No. There is no good reason to vote for president. The electoral process is not a way for voters to have a say in government at all. Voting for president only enables the ruling class to claim undeserved legitimacy for a government that serves it, on the grounds that the politicians, who in fact obey the ruling class, are following the will of the people expressed in a democratic election. Even in the rare case when a president, after getting elected, decides to go against the ruling class, he or she will be assassinated, as happened to John F. Kennedy. When millions of Americans see the elections for the fraud they really are and start to organize a revolutionary movement for genuine democracy, then and only then will we be on the road to having a real say in our society.

#2) There is no evidence whatsoever that the plutocracy that controls the United States will give up its control because of an election. Just consider what this plutocracy did when the people of Chile voted in a president opposed to the plutocracy there--they murdered him and established an overt dictatorship of the rich, as the late Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez describes here.

#3) Even Senator Warren's promises are bad. First consider foreign policy. Here is her position on Israel, from her own website:

"To me, it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel, and I am committed to ensuring its long-term security by maintaining its qualitative military edge. Israel must be able to defend itself from the serious threats it faces from terrorist organizations to hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.

"I am also a strong proponent of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I believe to be in the interest of Israel and the United States, with a Jewish, democratic state of Israel and a state for the Palestinian people."

The Israeli government refuses to allow the millions of Palestinian refugees from what is now called "Israel' to return to the land inside Israel from which they were violently driven out in 1948 and 1967 by the soon-to-be (1948) and actual (1967) leaders of Israel simply because they were not Jewish. Israel refuses to let them return today simply because they are not Jewish. This is ethnic cleansing, pure and simple. Those who support this ethnic cleansing use racist arguments. They claim that all non-Jews are innately and latently if not overtly anti-Semitic and therefore Jews cannot live safely among non-Jews: pure BS! Some also use this racist argument: "The Palestinians left voluntarily so they forfeit their right to return." Aside from being false historically, this is racist because those who say this would never apply the same logic to, say, themselves or Americans who voluntarily left their country to go on vacation or attend a business conference, would they? The argument that "God gave the land to the Jews" is too absurd to even dignify with a rebuttal. (Many of those who use this Bible argument are in fact atheists. The joke is that their opinion amounts to this: "God does not exist and he gave the land to the Jews.")

Elizabeth Warren is a staunch defender of this ethnic cleansing. Her support for a "two-state solution" is support for making the ethnic cleansing permanent, with the Palestinian refugees forever barred from returning to their villages inside Israel (many of them still possess keys to the houses inside Israel that they once lived in.) Warren's "two-state solution" tells the Palestinian refugees to be happy with a tiny little "statelet" in--at most--22% of Palestine, which Israel will totally control the way it totally controls the Gaza Strip (75 percent of the residents of which are refugees from what is called Israel) that it nominally has "withdrawn from." Supporting ethnic cleansing is something racists like the KKK do. Why would any of us want to vote for a politician who does that?

Second, let's look at Warren's domestic policy statements. Has she ever said the rich should be removed from power? No. Has she ever said that there should be real equality, meaning no rich and no poor? No. Does she support capitalism? Yes. Does she want an egalitarian society? No. Does she say the problem is class inequality and it should be abolished? No. This makes her a perfect politician from the point of view of the plutocracy. Why? Because all the plutocracy needs to retain its power is to make sure that the principle of class inequality is not challenged by a large number of people. It matters not to the plutocracy that a politician defends the principle of class inequality while adopting vote-getting rhetoric about limiting various excesses of class inequality. The plutocracy couldn't care less, for example, that Warren talks about reducing the interest students pay on student loans or that she calls for more regulation of banks. These are crumbs compared to the fundamental injustice of our class society in which, to take just one example, people who work (or study in order to work later) are told they owe money to bankers who don't work. In fact, the plutocracy wants politicians like Warren to use such rhetoric if this is what it takes to persuade people to rely on voting instead of revolution.

Let's keep our eye on the prize--an egalitarian society with no class inequality. This is the only kind of society that can prevent the emergence of what has emerged in the United States today--a class of billionaires who oppress the rest in order to protect their wealth, privilege and power. All that is required for extreme inequality to emerge is that the principle of class inequality has legitimacy. Senator Warren, like all other American politicians (including Bernie Sanders about whom more below) refuses to call for the abolition of class inequality. What more could the plutocracy ask?

Senator Bernie Sanders announced he's considering a run for president. He calls himself a Socialist and never calls for the abolition of class inequality (making him a typical Socialist, by the way.) Go to his web page and you will find not a hint of his wanting to abolish class inequality. What you will find is this:

"That is why Bernie will be showing the Robert Reich documentary “Inequality for All” as part of a first-ever Vermont town meeting in four places at once this Sunday."

Robert Reich, whom Sanders promotes, advocates "equal opportunity" for some to rise in a society based on class inequality. "Equality" for Reich and Sanders most definitely does not mean no rich and no poor--it means some rich and many poor. Thus Reich can write:

"Charles and David Koch should not be blamed for having more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans put together. Nor should they be condemned for their petrochemical empire. As far as I know, they’ve played by the rules and obeyed the laws."

Let us not forget: the billionaires who control the United States were never elected, and they cannot therefore be unelected. We need a revolution to remove them from power. PDRBoston.org is about building an egalitarian revolutionary movement; you can chip in and help too!