Senator Elizabeth Warren (D–MA) has joined the ranks of us deplorables now. After announcing for president, she did a livestream broadcast from her kitchen. In it, she grabs a beer from the fridge and takes a slug straight from the bottle.

Well, we have to expect this. Because it comes straight from the “How To Run For President Manual.” Chapter Two. You want to be a contender? You have to show the humble folk you are one of them. You drink beer. Used to be you sucked it from a beer mug. These days, you drink it from the bottle.

One problem for Warren. She looked as natural doing this as she would handling a cobra. She succeeded in igniting a mass groan of “Give us a break!” across our fruited plain. And throughout the watering holes of America.

Warren reminded me of countless politicians whose campaigns scripted beer-quaffing in saloons. The script: “2 pm: Loosen tie, arrive at Barney’s saloon; 2:05 pm: Hoist beer mug, drink from it, say nice things about Italians and Irish, and say you love beer and drink it every night; 2:06: Exit through back door. Then, stop at the rest room to wash your mouth and take a slug of mouthwash.”

Remember the “Beer Summit” at the White House Rose Garden in the summer of 2009? President Obama and VP Joe Biden were desperate to look like regular guys. Their staff set up a fake beer session with a cop (Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer James Crowley) who had been unfairly accused of racial profiling.

The cop showed up in a suit. He knew the meeting was fake and for the cameras. Obama and Biden arrived in rolled-up shirtsleeves. Script: Before stepping from White House, roll up sleeves, and pull shirt-tails slightly out of trousers.

Biden also gave a shout-out to a Wilmington diner during a TV debate. Regular guy, ole’ Joe. Knows his diners, where us deplorables eat. Right. Problem is the diner had been closed for 15 years.

Why do the politicians pull this inane stuff? Well, the truth is, they know we cannot take the truth. The truth is that by the time politicians hit the big stage they live far more like royalty than like real folks.

The big-time pols don’t shop. Or eat Big Macs, wash dishes, run the laundry, or iron. They don’t change tires, handle cash, drive cars, or hunt for parking. They don’t rent cars, make bookings, fly in economy class, stand in line at the DMV, or sit in doctors’ waiting rooms. They don’t run vacuums, rake leaves, or shovel snow. And they sure as hell don’t hang around saloons, or diners.

The reason they pretend to be a beer drinker is that you are. Or you know people who genuinely, authentically are. And you vote.

You are not as likely to see members of British royalty in such fake activities. They like to be popular. But they don’t have to win votes. Our royalty does need support at the ballot box.

This all reminds me of an old remark for which comedian George Burns took credit in his routines (The quote actually preceded him.): “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

Now for the wrap, Jaclyn Cashman, of the Boston Herald, wrote this about Sen. Warren’s beer-drinking stunt:

“The most authentic thing about the video, in fact, was its bogusness: Warren once again trying to pretend she is something she is not.”

I’ll drink to that.                       

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home in upstate New York. He has a new novel out, called “The Last Columnist,” which is available on Amazon. Contact Tom at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com, read more of his writing at tomasinmorgan.com, or find him on Facebook.

Looking back at 2018’s weather-related news, it seems clear that this was the year climate change became unavoidable. I don’t mean that the fires in California, coastal flooding in the Carolinas, and drought throughout the West were new evidence of climate change. Rather, they shifted the national mindset. They made climate change a political issue that cannot be avoided.

 The Earth’s climate changes all the time. But what we’re seeing today is different: the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather. Wet places are becoming wetter; dry places are growing dryer; where it was hot a generation ago, it’s hotter now; where it’s historically been cool, it’s growing warmer. The global impact of human activity — specifically, the burning of hydrocarbons — is shuffling the deck. And we’re only beginning to grasp the impact on our political and economic systems.

 Warmer overall temperatures, for instance, have lengthened the growing season across the U.S. — by about two weeks compared to a century ago. But the impact on fruit and grain production isn’t just about the growing season: plant diseases are more prevalent, and the insects that are vital to healthy agricultural systems are struggling. Insects that spread human diseases, like mosquitoes and ticks, are flourishing.

 Precipitation is also changing. There will be more droughts and more heat waves, which will become especially severe in the South and West and in cities. This is troubling news. Extreme heat, according to the Centers for Disease Control, “often results in the highest number of annual deaths among all weather-related hazards.” In other words, it kills more people than other weather-related disasters. The human cost and strain on public resources of prolonged heat waves will be extensive.

 The rise in sea levels will be even more disruptive. Sea levels have been increasing since we began burning fossil fuels in the 1880s, but the rise is occurring at a faster rate now, something like six to eight inches over the past century — compared to almost nothing during the previous two millennia. This already poses a threat to densely populated coastal areas — in the U.S., about 40 percent of the population, or some 120 million people, live directly on the shoreline.

 And that’s without the very real potential of melting glacial and polar ice, with calamitous results. It’s not just that this would affect coastal cities, it would also scramble the geopolitical order as nations like the U.S., Canada, and Russia vie for control over the sea lanes and newly exposed natural resources.

I’m not mentioning all this to be alarmist. My point is that dealing with climate change constitutes a huge, looming challenge to government. And because Americans are fairly divided in their beliefs about climate change — a division reflected in sharp partisan disagreements — policy-makers struggle to come up with politically viable approaches. This makes the adverse impacts of climate change potentially much worse, since doing nothing is clearly a recipe for greater disaster.

 The problem is that politicians in Washington like to talk about climate change in general, yet we haven’t seen any concerted consensus-building effort to deal with it. Occasionally you’ll see bills being considered in Congress to study it more, but unless we get real, this will dramatically change our way of life.

 And despite the growing impact of extreme weather, the opposition’s point — that policies to fight climate change will impose hardship on working people, especially in manufacturing states — still has some merit and political legs. In response to inaction in Congress and the administration, some states have taken important steps to address climate change, even though it’s best dealt with on the federal level.

 Still, newer members of Congress appear to have more of an interest in addressing climate change than older, senior members. And the issue holds particular resonance for younger millennial voters, whose political influence will only grow over coming elections.

 Only recently have thoughtful politicians I talk to begun to ask whether the political system can deal with the challenges posed by climate change before its impact becomes unstoppable. The one thing we agree on is that climate change and how to deal with it will place real stress on the system in the years ahead.                

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana.