Julius Caesar was undoubtedly one of history’s more compelling figures. In addition to being antiquity’s greatest general (referenced well into the Napoleonic era), he was also one of its foremost authors (his writings on the Gallic wars being one of the era’s only primary sources still extant today). Perhaps more significantly, he seemingly embodied charisma. He was the consummate amorist (and seducer of other men’s wives). And, as far as I can tell, had as much success gaining the allegiance and quelling the discontent of his soldiers as any military leader before or since. One wonders, then, had Caesar been born in Dickensian England would he have ended up a common vagabond; dirty and discontent living in down by the Thames, kicked and ridiculed by monstrous, illiterate children. In other words, is charisma innate and to what extent is it unlocked when the right inborn personality is fitted into the correct nexus of historical and geopolitical circumstances?

I doubt that Elizabeth Warren and I share a comprehensive worldview. Almost certainly we would have disagreements about how we construe the nature of capitalism or democracy. Whereas she seemingly identifies with certain broad themes of the American political narrative (the benefits of an authentic capitalist democracy), I remain skeptical. I won’t bore you with the details. Suffice it to say we wouldn’t reach any philosophical understandings. Nevertheless, I find her exceedingly charismatic.

Funnily enough, I like Elizabeth Warren’s image as a “mom.” Had you asked me before she started her run, I almost certainly would have been dismissed this brand. “Unappealing,” I would have claimed, “who gives a shit.” But it is significant, I’ve learned. The United State is a MASSIVE electorate. In order to appeal to such a large number of POTENTIAL voters one needs to achieve some sort of MASSIVE cultural resonance. And due to the extreme and sometimes insane nature of political ideologies therein, this message needs in some way to overstep politics. Enter the nuclear family. Regardless of whether you agree with it in principle (and most don’t even question it as the normal modus operandi so it’s probably moot) it is our primary measure of social constitution and cohesion. This applies to all members of the center right, hawkish right, as well as alt-right (in order Schumer Democrats to Trump Republicans) as well as to the few members of the nascent left. They all have moms who chasten and upbraid, protect and abide. And Elizabeth Warren is the ultimate mom symbol politically.

Anyone watching and listening to her can immediately tell that she is looking to provide for the nation. Whether you think she is doing so incompetently or that her political philosophy is insane, I don’t think you can doubt her conviction. It’s easy for me to accuse people of opportunism. I throw out this accusation way more than most. And I’d apply it to nearly all the other democratic candidates, with the definite exception of Bernie Sanders (who is similarly completely motivated by conviction). But Warren’s determination speaks to her creed. That is, to improve the plight of all American families. And this is borne out by her agenda.

Warren’s campaign, as far as I can discern, is based primarily on ending corruption and upending our current plutocracy. She astutely identifies income inequality and vested corporate interests as primary threats to democracy and like a stern mother is intent on rebuking those who perpetuate this system and making them tow the line. She knows that even they have no perspective on what they’re doing. They’re following their baser, greedier impulses because they have great incentive to do so. Power and money are enormously alluring and self-perpetuating. In these circumstances you desperately need a mom to at the very least stamp out the excesses. And Warren is one who does so with appropriate venom, calling attention to the venality and thoughtlessness of the officials that often goes otherwise unquestioned.

More significant, she serves as the protector of the American citizen. From her start in government as a consumer advocate to her work in the Senate as the primary antagonist of scheming bankers and other hucksters, she has consistently advocated for the everyman. I don’t think it’s opportunistic or disingenuous that she have a rally in Washington Square Park right near the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory and make it a primary part of her campaign. Unlike other politicians, I think she has empathy for the sufferings of the women who died gruesomely in the fire at that location, and she continues to CARE. It’s more than I can say for all the others (except again for Bernie).

Now, as to her agenda is the best. I think it probably is. It’s seemingly well thought out and data and goal driven. It’s execution remains dubious but politics are inherently unpredictable. Sometimes all you can account for is the character of those involved. And Elizabeth Warren’s, in my opinion, is beyond repute.