By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, February 09, 2017
I have argued for some time that there are certain
“standing roles” in American public life, and filling one of those roles
presents a way forward for certain aspirants who are otherwise undistinguished:
There are a number of permanent and
semi-permanent roles in American public life, for instance MLK Analogue, the
job held for a long time by Jesse Jackson, which Al Sharpton expects to
inherit. There’s Boss Woman, which was Gloria Steinem’s gig for years, and
right around the time Ann Richards was interviewing for the position Mrs.
Clinton swept in and took it. (As young women, and particularly young
feminists, turn their backs on Herself in great numbers, that position may pass
to Governor Richards’s daughter, Cecile, currently head of the Butchers’ Guild.)
There’s the not-especially-desirable position of Go-To-Libertarian Guy (Senator
Paul, in the family trade) and Evangelical Pope (Franklin Graham, with Mike
Huckabee trying to set up his own Avignon operation, presumably at Fox News)
and Mr. Anti-Trade (Donald Trump), etc. You can trace the decline of parts of
American public life through who holds these jobs: From Martin Luther King Jr.
to Al Sharpton? Hyperion to a satyr. From Susan B. Anthony to Herself? Chicken
salad to chickens**t.
After Mrs. Clinton’s humiliating defeat at the hands of
Donald Trump, there have been whispers, if not shouts: “The queen is dead.”
Elizabeth Warren is doing her best to take over the
position from Mrs. Clinton, and hence her dopey defamation of Jeff Sessions,
alongside whom she was perfectly content to serve in the Senate until his
nomination as attorney general gave her what every aspiring progressive leader
wants most of all: a white, southern, Christian, male antagonist. Mitch
McConnell has been criticized for making a “martyr” of Warren by invoking
Senate rules mandating decorous behavior on the floor (my, but Republicans have
picked a peculiar time to rediscover decorum!),
but I do not think Warren has quite sealed the deal.
It is important to her that she do so and do so soon,
because as anybody who has ever watched her up close doing the actual business
of campaigning (as I have) knows, she is a terrible politician: awkward, stiff,
humorless, afraid. One of my favorite political memories is watching Elizabeth
Warren in Boston on Evacuation Day (a big deal in Boston), trying to sing
“Charlie on the MTA” with a bunch of red-faced Muldoons who at 9 a.m. had
already been going hard at the open bar, clapping like a seal and doing her
best impersonation of a human being. She’s a very strange kind of populist, one
who manifestly is much more comfortable with “the People” than with people.
If she cannot get herself promoted to Mrs. Clinton’s role
and enjoy the sacrosanct position that comes along with it, she’ll have to seek
advancement (either to the presidency or to a position of genuine national
Democratic leadership) through the ordinary means of vote-grubbing and
money-grubbing. She does not seem to have much of a gift or a taste for either.
But she will pretend to be whatever she thinks she needs
to be. People who knew her earlier in life, from back in her Harvard Law days
and her early career, describe a very different Elizabeth Warren, politically
moderate and personally circumspect, not given to wild-eyed denunciations or
bare-knuckled partisanship. Christopher Caldwell has even argued that she was,
once, something of a “closet conservative”:
In 2003 Warren cowrote a brilliant
and counterintuitive work of pop economics called The Two-Income Trap. People were going bankrupt at an alarming
rate. . . . Warren herself later said she was looking for some failure of
self-control, for “too many Gameboys.” But this was not the case. Bankruptcy
was actually getting harder to
declare, Warren proved. For bankrupt families, the ratio of nonmortgage debt to
income rose from .79 in 1981 to 1.06 in 1991 to 1.5 in 2001. To quote, italics
and all, the most stunning line in her book: “Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman will end
up in financial collapse.”
Why this was so had nothing to do
with consumerism. Parents spent 32 percent less on clothing, and 52 percent
less on appliances. What they spent more on was big necessities: mortgages (up
76 percent), cars (up 52 percent), taxes (up 25 percent), and health insurance
(up 74 percent). And the reason for all but the last of these was the entry of
women into the workplace. Working mothers “ratcheted up the price of a
middle-class life for everyone, including families that wanted to keep Mom at
home,” Warren wrote. . . .
You can euphemize this account any
way you like — and God knows Warren tries — but Michele Bachmann would find
nothing to object to in this narrative.
Warren, who comes from a quite modest background in
Oklahoma, has tried out for many roles: writer of silly self-help books (back
when she was advertising herself as “Dr. Phil’s financial guru”), academic,
Naderite populist, etc. You’ll note that her response to Senator McConnell’s
invocation of Rule XIX was rhetorically organized around her being a woman, which had precisely nothing to do
with her violation of Senate rules. But that is the role for which she is
auditioning today: First Lady of the Left.
It’s a pretty good role, and a growing one: Back when
Gloria Steinem had the job, all that meant was being popular on the college
lecture circuit and editing a second-rate magazine. When Mrs. Clinton had the
job, it meant being quite close to winning the presidency. Elizabeth Warren,
the Clarice Starling of Democratic politics — which is to say, “a well-scrubbed
hustling rube with a little taste” and a creepy mentor (Hannibal Lecter has
nothing on Chuck Schumer) — is nothing if not upwardly mobile.
If you do not like this version of Elizabeth Warren,
don’t worry: There will be others.
No comments:
Post a Comment