Warren in Defeat

My title is not quite accurate: Elizabeth Warren wasn’t really defeated in her race for the presidency, but rather threw in the towel when she failed to win a single state on super Tuesday. But the word ‘defeat’ scans well; and besides, victory or defeat is not the point here. The point is that Senator Elizabeth Warren seems to be garnering more love and emotion after her withdrawal from the race than while she was actively campaigning. It sort of reminds me of the late Adlai Stevenson, who tried for the presidency three times, in 1952 and 1956, (both times defeated by Dwight Eisenhower) and in 1960, (defeated for the nomination by John F. Kennedy) but never succeeded, despite being clearly the most qualified and brilliant contender. But he was a beloved public figure (serving as Illinois governor before running, and ambassador to the UN afterwards), even in defeat. Warren seems to be headed in the same direction.

            The question, in Warren’s case, is why? Why, despite a clear lead in the early days of the campaign, did she falter so badly thereafter, and do so miserably on super Tuesday? There have been all sorts of post-mortems addressing this. Her gender for one. Warren is a highly intelligent woman (she would seem to qualify for the term “egghead” which, not coincidentally, was used as a term of opprobrium for Stevenson). And not a mandarin either. As she was fond of pointing out in speeches, she came up from poverty in Oklahoma, became a teacher, won scholarships to study law, and ended up specializing in banking law at Harvard. From there, she began testifying about banks starting in 2005, and especially after the 2008 financial crisis made her name as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program under President Obama, and set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which she both established and watched over as Special Advisor to the President. On the strength of this reputation as a fighter for the “little guy,” she then ran successfully for the Senate from Massachusetts in 2012, and announced her candidacy for President in 2019. 

            But again, after an early stint as the frontrunner, she faded, and finally withdrew last week. She is a woman after all. And a very smart woman. One who came up with so many policy proposals, all well thought out and detailed, that her proposals themselves became fodder for late night comedians. “I have a proposal for that” became a way to ridicule her. And therein lies the first problem for someone like Warren. She’s too damn smart. Like Stevenson, she is super qualified. She knows what she’s talking about, and makes that clear. And in America, no one likes a smartass—especially a woman who’s a smartass. Unlike most other democracies, we seem to like presidents who keep their intelligence under wraps (or don’t have it to begin with). Stevenson’s main flaw was that he was an egghead. Eisenhower, no dummy himself, came across as an avuncular and plain-spoken guy next door. As was said of George W. Bush often, ‘he seems like someone you could relax and have a beer with.’ Few could imagine doing that with Stevenson or Warren. She just seemed to know too much, especially for a woman. Would she even know how to do the dishes, or the laundry, or change a diaper? Now if this seems stupid and beside the point as a qualification for president, it is. But that appears to be the way American candidates, female candidates, have to at least present themselves if they wish to be seriously considered for the highest office in the land. 

            Then there is her chosen role as defender of the average consumer. One would think that this would endear her to the masses of people in this nation, who know they are being gouged by banks who own their credit cards and mortgages and cars and everything else worth owning. One would think that her proposal to control the banks and tax the ultra-wealthy would appeal to their sense of fair play, or their resentment if nothing else. One would think that average people who are struggling to afford health care would appreciate her stance on bringing a single-payer system into affordable existence. One would think that her proposal to cancel student-loan debt would be perceived as a godsend for students and parents both struggling to afford an education. And that her honesty and precision where all of these programs are concerned would satisfy the budget-conscious bones of average Americans. But no. Too detailed. Too smart. Too aggressive. It is as if Americans prefer someone who is obviously pulling the wool over their eyes—like the current con man in the White House. ‘At least we know he’s a selfish creep,’ seems to be the view. But a woman who’s honest about what she’ll do? How can one ever trust someone like that? And a female egghead to boot. 

            Now, though, now that she’s been defeated, now that she’s shown that she’s resigned to her fate as a beaten woman, well now we can embrace her as one of us. She’s a woman after all. She dared to take on the male establishment, but she’s learned her lesson. Eggheads may be ok in the groves of academe, even a few female eggheads. Maybe even in the Senate. But don’t get too uppity and think you can crack the ultimate ceiling. Because we’ll take you down and show you your real place. And just to show you that it’s the natural order of things, we, the womenfolk, will join in the takedown. 

            And this is where it gets really hard to understand. Warren didn’t even garner the majority of female votes. How could this be? If women actually voted more or less as a block, they would be an absolutely unstoppable force in American politics because they make up a majority of American voters. And yet, at this moment, every woman candidate that started the race for the Democratic nomination has been forced to drop out (except the puzzling Tulsi Gabbard, who has zero chance). And once again, the American voter seems to have closed the door on women for the presidency. And once again, one can only speculate about why. It is clear why men voters, mostly trained in male supremacy, would resist the idea of a woman ruling over them. But what about all those women? Why did so many choose Trump, an avowed sexist pig, over Hillary? Why, this time, did they not support Warren in droves? 

            Perhaps we shall never know. But one obvious thing is her intelligence. Intelligence envy is powerful in America. Another is her refusal to make nice, as a ‘woman’ should. Related to this is that at a certain point in her campaign, her tone became even more strident than usual, prompting one news commentator to admit that he “felt like slapping her.” He actually said that. And he obviously expressed the sentiment of many of his male viewers. But is this the way most women, too, feel about assertive women? That maybe they’re drawing too much fire? And putting all others at risk? Because in a way, Warren did that, taking on the banks, for god’s sake, taking on the wealthy and the powerful—which in the end perhaps puts too many others at risk. At least, that is, until she gives up and gives in and goes along with the program. At which point we can all hug her and love her and express our thanks and camaraderie and welcome her back into the fold of those who know their place, and don’t rock the damn boat so much. Yes. Now we can acknowledge her as one of us again. And wish her well on her next try. When maybe she’ll tone it down some, and people will like her more. And agree that maybe, just maybe, this brilliant woman who cares about real justice for real people deserves a chance to actually make a difference for the rest of us for a change. Maybe. 

Lawrence DiStasi