I think you're being a bit unfair to both Rampell and Warren.
Warren first. She's very very smart and very very well informed. But she's also a skillful politician in a democratic (if for the moment) polity. Democracy runs on demagoguery. Warren is smart enough to know this, and smart enough to work it. In this, she is far ahead of most D politicians, who would rather be respected by professors than actual voters. IOW, Warren often bullshits, with skill and brio. She's so good at it that she can do esoteric and exoteric messaging at the same time. A professor-type like you can defend her esoteric message, while the voters get both a convenient demon and a policy that will rescue them from said demon. (Said policy--real antitrust law--is a righteous one, of course.)
Rampell could only see Warren's exoteric message: hence your screed. She's generally okay: a half-step to the left of the center of the D party, and and maybe a full step to the left of the median WaPo reader. She usually explains well. That Warren is a lot smarter than Rampell is no knock on Rampell--Warren is a lot smarter than most of us.
PS: I agree that her penultimate paragraph is really bad, and sounds royalistic. She might be right on oil, because Ukraine. The student debt stuff? Oy!
I think you're being a bit unfair to both Rampell and Warren.
Warren first. She's very very smart and very very well informed. But she's also a skillful politician in a democratic (if for the moment) polity. Democracy runs on demagoguery. Warren is smart enough to know this, and smart enough to work it. In this, she is far ahead of most D politicians, who would rather be respected by professors than actual voters. IOW, Warren often bullshits, with skill and brio. She's so good at it that she can do esoteric and exoteric messaging at the same time. A professor-type like you can defend her esoteric message, while the voters get both a convenient demon and a policy that will rescue them from said demon. (Said policy--real antitrust law--is a righteous one, of course.)
Rampell could only see Warren's exoteric message: hence your screed. She's generally okay: a half-step to the left of the center of the D party, and and maybe a full step to the left of the median WaPo reader. She usually explains well. That Warren is a lot smarter than Rampell is no knock on Rampell--Warren is a lot smarter than most of us.
PS: I agree that her penultimate paragraph is really bad, and sounds royalistic. She might be right on oil, because Ukraine. The student debt stuff? Oy!
I did try to say that it's wrong to critique political rhetoric as economic analysis. Not that Rampell's analysis is anything to write home about.