Marianne Williamson (photo, left) is running for president again, and it appears she’s heeding that advice this time.
When she sought the Democratic nomination in 2020 in an open field, she came off as a quirky eccentric. Her campaign largely consisted of verbal zingers like “harnessing love.”
Uh, get serious. Nice concept, but the world doesn’t run on love. If you want Ukrainians or Taiwanese to self-govern send them tanks, artillery, and F-16s.
Williamson, unlike the Republicans she seeks to oppose, at least is demonstrating an ability to learn from experience.
Huffington Post reports (here) that, “Perhaps aware that her first, short-lived bid inspired more chuckles than … support, Williamson is maintaining a laser-like focus on economic inequality.”
Williamson is pitching to the progressive, i.e. Bernie Sanders, wing of the party. (Remember, Sanders isn’t even a Democrat, even though he ran as one; he self-identifies as an independent socialist.) She says, “The level of wealth … inequality is unsustainable,” and, “The Republican Party, the way it is today, represents a kind of nosedive for our democracy.”
Certainly, those are the two top issues for progressives (and many centrist Democrats), but it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. You won’t find any other Democratic candidates who disagree with her on this. So what unique thing does she bring to the table that validates her candidacy, and gives us reason to take her seriously?
Not experience in public office. Williamson isn’t new to politics, being a longtime activist (read her bio here), but nothing in her background has prepared her for governing. She hasn’t been a governor, senator, cabinet secretary, or even a local school board or city council member.
Marianne Williamson isn’t going to be president. She’s one of those candidates who’s in the race to get visibility and stimulate discussion of ideas she wants to promote. Her goal is to get on the debate stage and have a national audience for what she wants to say. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
She fumbled her first attempt by trying to get attention by being cute. She apparently learned from her mistakes, and this time is more disciplined about filling her “15 minutes of fame” with substance. I know that I won’t agree with all of her ideas, but any constructive conversation is a worthwhile conversation, and her fresh perspective on national issues can be her unique contribution to the upcoming public debate over the direction of our country.
And if it did come down to a choice between her and, say, DeSantis — who’s now trying to roll back his state’s open-records laws and draw a dark curtain around his governing (see story here) — I’d vote for her before him, simply based on the trustworthiness factor. That’s not saying a lot about Williamson, because almost anyone is more trustworthy than DeSantis.
What that really says is the GOP has a severe leadership deficit, not to mention a lack of practical ideas for governing. But I’m not saying anything here that you don’t already know, am I?