What happened to Elizabeth Warren

There was something about her.

Elizabeth Warren's candidacy made so much sense. Therefore, her campaign's collapse requires explanation. 

The punditry and commentary world is awash with stories about Warren, and lots of things would be sufficient to explain it:

Big early lead. 

Some say Bernie Sanders had it all sown up because his supporters were loyal. Some point to her choosing to be Bernie-lite rather than clearly more moderate and "capitalist to my bones." Some say she ruined her credibility by taking the DNA test. Others say the test wasn't the problem, that it was being bullied and humiliated by Trump that did it. Some say she just reminded them too much of Hillary.

Some people identified her voice: "shrill." Some people said she seemed "schoolmarmish." Others said "elitist." Others  "know it all." Others  "bossy."

There was one other thing I heard from citizens, voters in Massachusetts and elsewhere, and it came up repeatedly: There was something about her they just didn't like.

There is an argument that this last one is simply undisguised misogyny, although it might not be recognized by the person him or her self. The comment was more frequent in men than in women but I heard it from both.

Voters may be experiencing as unpleasant or discomforting what is simply an intelligent, articulate, powerful woman speaking serious truths to the public and they aren't used to that. Voters have a right to respond negatively--it is their vote, after all--but it is an indication that a woman cannot do what a candidate must do to be credible as a president, speak with confidence about matters of substance. 

This blog received a comment that reflects the point of view of several women of about my age, professional women who were on the front line of Second Wave Feminism, that cohort of women who broke into the professions in the 1970s. They said misogyny can be subtle and pervasive. Men think they are being lighthearted, perhaps with a comment or observation or a joke or an adjective that embeds misogyny, and in so doing are reinforcing power on their part and illegitimacy on the part of the demeaned. Misogyny is out there, pervasive, and men do it even when they don't realize it.

     "The strongest opponents of so-called political correctness are almost uniformly white men. It's easy to make fun of other people's sensitivities if you--the generic you, that is--are not and have not historically been on the receiving end of ill treatment. . . . Even a superficially "harmless joke" may lie on the same continuum as genuinely harmful actions."

This blog attempts to look closely at messaging, both intended and unintended. 

One way to look at the women's comment is to urge them to lighten up. Don't assume offense, assume good will. Women so fragile and sensitive to offense are an impediment to progress. Who would dare hire them? They are walking time bombs in a work setting or in daily life. Everyone has some identity of gender, ethnicity, body size, age, religion, financial condition, something to find offense over, and everyone could be guilty of some offense. If we aren't careful everyone will be looking for a reason to have hurt feelings and the world will grind to a halt. Or go to war. Laugh a little. Love one another.

[That is my own point of view. I think the woke progressive left has made itself an easy target for Trump's anti-PC message. We are moral scolds. People hate self righteousness and scolding. It doesn't work. Worse, it backfires.]

Not everyone agrees with me. Another view is that my opinion is one given by the comfortable and the oppressor, not the oppressed. It reflects my blindness and privilege, not an honest understanding of the injustices in the world. 

Elizabeth Warren would have heard a lifetime of jokes, asides, comments, and put-downs. No doubt in recent months she got earnest advice from campaign aides who told her that she comes across to some people as shrill and schoolmarmish and elitist. I watched her adjust to dampen the elitist part with her Oklahoma-poverty story.

She did not change the forceful, intelligent, informed woman part. She kept that. There are ways of being a powerful woman where one works quietly, behind the scenes, indirectly. Not Warren. She had a plan. She risked being thought hyper and overbearing and know-it-all and female all at the same time. She refused to be agreeable and demure. We saw her in-the-face takedown of Bloomberg at the debates. That is who she is.

She may have paid a price. People from different walks of life told me "there was something about her" they didn't like. That something may have been that she didn't campaign like a woman, whatever that is supposed to be in the minds of voters.