E.J. Dionne responds to George Will’s dismantling of Elizabeth Warren’s famous youtube lecture. The merits, or lack thereof, of Warren’s little sermonette have been discussed at length around here and I see no reason to revisit it. Nor do I think that Dionne adds a whole lot to the substance of the debate.
But he does make an assertion that I think needs to be rebutted. For a couple weeks, I’ve been hearing liberals talk up Warren’s video as if it’s a really big deal for conservatives. A few pests keep emailing or tweeting me about it and about how she “scares” conservatives. Dionne buys into this argument too. He concludes:
In light of my respect for Will, it seems only appropriate that I close by offering words of admiration — for him, and for Elizabeth Warren. Will doesn’t waste time challenging arguments that don’t matter and he doesn’t erect straw men unless he absolutely has to. That Warren has so inspired Will, our premier conservative polemicist now that William F. Buckley Jr. has passed to his eternal reward, is an enormous tribute to her. And remember: On the core point about the social contract, George Will and Elizabeth Warren are in full, if awkward, agreement.
Meh.
I think Dionne and countless other liberals are missing something important. There’s nothing whatsoever that is novel or particularly insightful to Warren’s case for liberalism. The only thing that is relatively novel is that she’s making a case for liberalism at all. Dionne is right that liberals don’t make the pure case for liberalism very often. They usually hide their ideological preferences in piecemeal emotional verbiage about this or that program or policy without bothering to make the principled case for their larger ideology. And for this, I suppose Warren does deserve congratulations.
But does anyone really believe that George Will(!) was challenged or threatened by Warren’s spiel?
That gets to my point: The reason conservatives responded to Warren’s “declaration” is simply that liberals were relentlessly hyping it. It didn’t become a YouTube sensation among conservatives. It became YouTube sensation among liberals who were inspired by it and then conservatives responded to that.
It’s an important distinction because to listen to liberals, Warren’s argument strikes fear into the heart of the right because it’s so powerful and super-terrific. It really doesn’t and it really isn’t. I’m sure Will wrote a column about it not to pay “enormous tribute” to her brilliant insight. Rather, it’s because liberals wouldn’t shut up about it.
In other words, the conservative response to Warren isn’t nearly as interesting as the liberal reaction. For conservatives — who as EJ Dionne notes in his book Stand and Fight, like debating political theory more than liberals do — it’s a welcome thing for a liberal to emerge from ideological hiding and engage on first principles. The real question is why is liberalism so arid and why are liberals so dejected that when a liberal politician offers a fairly trite exegesis on the social contract, leftwing bloggers stand up and cheer like it’s a St. Crispin’s Day speech?
You have hit on the rationale for Palin Derangement Syndrome. The hate for Sarah Palin isn't because liberals are afraid of her; she is a simpleton who speaks in nothing but cliches. What scares liberals is the way conservatives slobber all over themselves to defend her. What is worrying is that people see her as Reagan in heels. That she could be taken seriously is scary to anyone with concern for the future of the country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe true test is seeing how many liberal politicians get warren to come campaign for them. i'm betting not many
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I find interesting is how many people still judge a person's ability to run for office on their academic record. Really? Haven't we had enough of that?
I think some people are scared and they buy into Warren's "I care" stuff and they see she has this prestigous academic record so they want to put her in charge.
Kind of scary how some people think.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe's the one who's campaigning. So - no - she's not likely to campaign for someone else. The true test is whether she beats Brown, which she's already beating in the polls after announcing she's running less than a month ago.
I imagine in a few more months though that she'll be so far ahead of Brown that she may hit the road for some other folks.
Keep your eye on her - she didn't even need an office in order to push the CFPB. She'll have an even bigger platform as a Senator. LOL!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's why Obama's "spread the wealth around" moment was so remarkable -- it articulated what his opponents long suspected.
If the chattering class ever decided to debate the merits of "spread the wealth" (whose wealth? spread to whom? by what formula?) maybe people would be more informed when they vote.
Same with Warren, who uttered what we all suspect the Dems sincerely believe. Dionne, loyal tool, professes shock that we'd want to debate it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you remember where you were when you heard about Elizabeth Warren's youtube thingy?
I know I do. It seems as if it was only a minute ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYea, and I was shaking in my boots so hard I came right out of them. Oh, wait...I wasn't wearing any to start with. But I swear my skin was crawling. OK, that's not true either. Warren who?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt prompted a calm and collected ammo inventory.
Good to go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny, that's what it did to me, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse^ Men who say creepy things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWas that self referential?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn Mass, Warren is a shoe-in to win the seat. She hits all the hot buttons for the moonbats, who make up close to half the voting population. She displays all the signals that send lefties into spasms of pleasure. Plus, Brown is just warm mush. The energy for him is gone now that he has morphed into Arlen Specter.
As to Jonah's point about Warren not being a threat, I agree. If the Let starts talking like this regularly, they go back to being a minor academic cult. The reason they have punched so far above their weight for the last century is they *avoided* the candor we see from Warren.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDionne is grasping at straws. Not unusual. Kind of funny, though, this time. Suggesting her speech was epic because Will refuted it, therefore it must of been. Is this a "chicken or egg" thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen a dozen or so of my liberal friends of Facebook passed around that image of Elizabeth Warren with her infamous quote, what I felt was pity, not fear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The reason conservatives responded to Warren’s “declaration” is simply that liberals were relentlessly hyping it."
A very common tactic on the left. It's like, every left-wing reporter gives Rick Santorum the Third degree on gay marriage, DADT, or whatever... then the left whines that gays are all Rick Santorum ever talks about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLikewise the birth certificate hubbub, in which MSNBC and CNN talked about the topic relentlessly, while in comparison Fox News spent little time on the matter at all. But of course it's conservatives that were obsessed with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEllsworth Toohey approves of Wesley Mouch's YouTube clip.
Shocking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs. Warren's assertions sounded a bit like the following to me: "It takes more than one person to play Bridge, or Parchesi, or Risk. The winner could not have won the game alone. And because other players were there to help him win, the winner is morally obligated to surrender an undesignated amount of points to those who were not winners. My objective is to make that moral obligation a legal requirement, and use force if necessary to compel his compliance."
I think the "social contract" discussion needs some bounds. Few (if any) conservatives would cast aside the social contract - they would say that, as a minimum, individuals within a nation need to surrender a portion of their wealth in order to provide for the common defense, order, and protection of property. Conservatives usually would say we need to stay very close - constitutionally close - to this minimum. "Liberals" or "Progressives" advocate a greater surrender of personal wealth in order to provide for more than the common defense. The problem is getting them to say HOW MUCH more. One sometimes suspects they have no maximum.
The conservatives have declared a minimum; the liberals need to declare a maximum.
The conservative vs. liberal polarized debates might elevate to more reasonable discussions if the liberal side could establish a maximum amount of personal wealth a government should EVER take from an individual. I will not hold my breath while waiting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs Margaret Thatcher once observed, "The facts of life are conservative." Warren's pathetically weak argument does nothing to change that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only thing I thought about Warren's nonsensical spewing was "Do you parents spending $100,000 per year to send your kid to Harvard to listen to this nitwit think your money is well spent? If you do--I have some fine property in a wetlands habitat (that means swamp) to sell you!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse