Nathan J Robinson of Current Affairs makes a strong case for justified skepticism about "sources" from the Warren campaign who claim Bernie Sanders told her in a private meeting between the 2 of them while Warren was considering her run for the 2020 nomination that "a woman could never be president." Asked to comment on the story, Warren herself appeared to confirm it in so many words, sharing with a reporter that Bernie Sanders expressed doubt to her that a woman could win the general election in that meeting, and that she disagreed. Reading the headlines about it yesterday I was already skeptical. This doesn't sound like the Bernie Sanders I know. If it were unequivocally demonstrated to be true in the sense that is being darkly intimated, it would paint a disturbing picture of an uncharacteristically obtuse (and hypocritical) Sanders that could only lead either to stubborn denial or to appropriate disillusionment on the part of his supporters. Is that what "sources close to the campaign" are prepared for?
As things stand, although the Washington Post reports that a witness characterized Sanders' remarks as cautionary based on the near certainty that Trump would not let a little thing like accusations of misogyny stand in the way of misogynistic attacks on a female opponent, there is a sense that given that it was a private meeting, Warren would have us know that what Bernie said to her is his word against hers. As Nathan Robinson points out, this being the case, we can only go by what we know about each candidate in order to assess the validity of the rumor. Based on what we know, the story is lacking in verisimilitude. The burden of proof is greatly on Elizabeth Warren, and frankly given her demonstrated repeated capacity for opportunistic fibbing, I do not feel remotely persuaded to believe her in this highly improbable instance.
I will let Nathan Robinson's article make the case. What I'm left with is a queasy feeling about Elizabeth Warren who until this point has been my unqualified second choice candidate. A distant second, to be sure, but alone in that position. I've had qualms about her from day one, but the ugliness from her camp this week has engendered involuntary uneasiness in me about the prospects of Warren and her circle in the White House, let alone as the victors of the democratic nomination. The rumors of Sanders' unwitnessed discouragement to her was only the second volley this week against Bernie Sanders' lead in the race-- the first involved Warren expressing disappointment in Sanders for a rumored okayness on his campaign's part with his canvassers disparaging Warren's chances in the general election to voters on the basis that her supporters are chiefly white, wealthy, well-educated with a habit of primary and general election voting regardless of who the democratic nominee is, whereas Sanders' voters are more diverse, less wealthy, less likely to have secondary education and less likely to vote except for Sanders in the general election. Warren herself did not express disbelief at the basically untrue rumor (the talking point was proffered by a volunteer and not approved by the campaign which instructs its volunteers not to disparage Sanders's primary opponents). But aside from the truth or falseness of the charge against Sanders*, once again we have the Warren camp only too eager to let rumors fly and the chips land where they may.
Although the Warren campaign has strategically volunteered this "detail" of her private conversation with Sanders on the eve of the final debate before the Iowa caucuses, it has not volunteered a context in which the words were supposedly uttered. In light of this we are free to imagine. Giving this version of the truth a reprieve from the burden of proof for a moment, could a context for such a sentiment have been a discussion of strategy for ensuring the success of a progressive agenda as a way to defeat Trumpism in the 2020 election? The only conceivable way I can imagine Bernie Sanders entertaining the difficulty of a Warren candidacy against the master of misogynistic manipulation of a rabid Republican base would be in the context of strategizing a progressive victory. Might Bernie Sanders, the perpetual organizer, in a moment of weakness, knowing the strength, determination and resources of his own movement, the uncertainty of hers and the limited time he has left to see a progressive platform ride a wave of grassroots momentum to victory in this critical time of wealth inequality, drumbeats of war in the middle east and impending global climate catastrophe have posed a choice to Elizabeth Warren as she considered her own run for the presidency: Do you care most about the cause or do you care most about the glory?†
Bernie Sanders has been a consistent voice for workers, women, the poor, the LGBTQ community, veterans, people of all colors, genders, religions and walks of life for 40 years. His current campaign has raised the hopes of millions of voiceless Americans. His entry into the 2016 race came only at the assurance from Elizabeth Warren that she would not challenge Hillary Clinton. It's good to remember that Elizabeth Warren, originally a self-described "die hard Republican" who became a Democrat only in the 1990's, and still a "capitalist to her bones" was a latecomer to progressivism and her commitment to it has rather shallow roots. Perhaps nothing exemplifies this in quite the way that she has so cavalierly risked the coalition necessary for change to finally come to ordinary Americans, and to the world.
Elizabeth Warren is a Harvard law professor and a United States Senator from Massachusetts, the 15th largest state by population in the country. Her status is due in no small part to her gifts and talents. But the incidents this week are sharp reminders that she is also a fierce competitor who will sacrifice truth, judgment and/or principle if it will contribute to her victory. This might be good for Elizabeth Warren, but her rather reckless disregard for the hopes and aspirations of the supporters of her fellow progressive has left me very distressed and doubtful about what a victory for her would mean for the country.
~~~~~~~~~
* And some might argue that if it's true, So what? It's not like the talking point is a lie. More like a mildly inconvenient truth: Warren's supporters ARE overwhelmingly white and ARE more highly educated and they WILL vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee in November, whereas a sizable contingent of Sander's supporters — the otherwise disenfranchised whom Democrats need on their side to win in November— are demonstrably much more likely to vote at all only if Sanders is the nominee.
† Sam Seder of Majority Report imagines an intriguing alternate scenario: Assuming the Sanders-Warren meeting happened after Warren's bizarre unsuccessful attempt in the fall of 2018 at spinning the results of the DNA test she voluntarily underwent in response to Trump's needling of her as 'Pocahontas' that on the contrary conclusively refuted her career enhancing claim of Native American ancestry, might Sanders out of kindness have opted to more gently discourage Warren from opening herself to further humiliation on that score by proffering the less personally embarrassing to Warren but still problematic issue of Trump's success at wielding misogyny against female opponents?
No comments:
Post a Comment