« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Elizabeth Warren (D CAND, MA-SEN PRI) declares Barack Obama unevolved.

No, really, that’s what she said. The exact statement was “I want to see the president evolve [on same-sex marriage] because I believe that is right; marriage equality is morally right…” – with the implication being that anybody who does not support same-sex marriage is not, ah, fully evolved.

Funny thing about that.

That 28/62 breakdown from Pew dates from February 2012, and it’s not particularly different from the last time Pew surveyed the field in 2011. It is also no accident that the administration finally decided to move in 2010 on ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: African-American support for the measure was dropping like a stone. God only knows what the numbers would be now on that question if it was still being surveyed.

But let that pass to the side for a moment: let’s instead look at what Elizabeth Warren just said there*. A white liberal academic with a potential (and justified!) grudge against the current Presidential administration that threw her under the bus came out recently insinuating that the President of the United States – who happens to be black, mind you – is insufficiently evolved. This kind of commentary is, of course, a drearily familiar one to anybody who knows something about the history of racial relations in the USA: African-Americans – who, by the way, share the President’s public disapproval of same-sex marriage, and would thus likely be included in Warren’s call for evolution – have long had to endure the slur that they were not as human as white people. Not as… evolved, if I may make the point blatantly obvious.

And this is the candidate that Massachusetts Democrats are apparently going to pick to face Scott Brown in the general election? Someone who cannot even follow the same set of verbal and rhetorical rules that they (usually shrilly) expect the rest of us to follow?

Um. Thank you?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Please note that the aforementioned rules explicitly note that certain words and terms may not be co-opted by the majority even if those terms are used by members of minority groups for the purposes of self-description. Subjective, of course, but then speech codes typically are. So… if intimating that African-Americans are not as fully evolved as white people is now acceptable discourse, then Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the progressive movement should say so. Explicitly. And aggressively defend any conservatives who might end up straying into the same rhetorical minefield. What’s that, they don’t want to do that? Well, they can at least live up to their own set of rules, then.

*And let me note for the record that I personally happen to support passing same-sex marriage legislation at the state level, with full, reasonable respect given to concerns about federalism and individual conscience. I mention this solely for the purposes of full disclosure.

COMMENTS

  • nedhastings

    has a number of meanings, most of which have nothing to do with humans and monkeys. Why should we attribute to Warren (and for that matter, to the President himself, who also used the term to describe his own position on gay marriage) a meaning which, from the context, was clearly not being used?

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Investing so much energy to suppress one aspect of the truth only to have it arise elsewhere, fangs bared.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Elizabeth Warren can either live up to her own speech code, which is infamously intolerant of this sort of thing; or she can repudiate her fellow-progressives for trying to impose said code. She may *not* have it both ways. And neither may you.

    But thanks for letting me know that this stung!

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Like to see her get peer-reviewed for suggesting that an individual organism could evolve.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    ouch

  • nedhastings

    One application of this concept is in biology, but the word predates those theories and is frequently used in other contexts.

    If Warren, or some similar liberal, had identified “evolve”as a racially charged term, than yes, you would be right. But I do not recall this happening. If it has, let me know.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    And don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that you didn’t activate this account for precisely that purpose. Again: not my fault that you people can’t live by your own speech code.

    You will now stop threadjacking this post. Understand? – Spoiler warning: the only right answer is “Yes, Moe.”

  • nedhastings

    I’ve just never seen this “speech code” you’re talking about in which “evolve” has inherent racial connotations.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    nt

  • civil truth

    …and the consequences of continued digging.

  • minty

    errrrrr

    (Ed.: Yep, and so were you…)

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    .I mean, burning an account over Elizabeth Warren? That’s the epitome of Poor Life Decisions.

  • minty
    nedhastings, plz contact me at jtrsned@yahoo.com
  • jasonva

    As a liberal academic, Warren accepts the theory of evolution as gospel truth, and more than likely, believes the popular theory that the first members of the homo sapiens species to come on the scene were African negroids. Believing that black people are less evolved is an inescapable extension of these two theories (Not that you’ll be able to find someone like Warren who would be willing to admit it).

  • BillM

    I KID, I KID, pay no attention to the man heading off for Friday Happy Hour.

  • Kyle-MI

    And yet she says, “…marriage equality is morally right…”.

  • civil truth

    Very simple, really.

  • Bill S

    You won’t be back.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    ,,,

  • BuckeyeTexan

    I think she meant “marriage equality feels right to me.” Liberals base all of their decisions/positions on feelings. Morality has nothing, whatsoever, to do with their thought process – if one can call it a thought process, that is.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    They know it when they see it. Only applies when it’s to their advantage. Otherwise, it doesn’t exist.

  • bogornes

    I think that it’s pointless to bring up this line of attack, especially as it references an issue which you admittedly are at odds with many conservatives. I know the attack that you want to make, but the primary issue (gay marriage) inevitably overshadows your secondary point, and consequently highlights a major division that is developing in the conservative movement, and an issue that probably gains her support in a very blue state. Best to drop it, IMHO.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I think that it’s best for me to keep hammering Elizabeth Warren for her inability to live by her side’s own, oft-repeated, speech code. You’re free to do as you like, of course.

    Moe Lane

    PS: Free advice: I react badly to people telling me what I really think. I am not ‘at odds’ with many conservatives on same-sex marriage; I merely disagree with them. If people want to be ‘at odds’ with me on that or any other issue then that’s their lookout.

  • renl57

    There is a hypersensitivity about “dog whistles” and “code language” on the Left.

    This was taken to ridiculous heights with multiple alleged “racial” slurs involving the word “niggardly”–a term whose definition and etymology have NOTHING to do with race.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22

    If the Left is upset about making an issue out of Warren’s use of “evolved,” they should look in the mirror and stop playing imaginary “dog whistle” games like this.

  • freedom555

    Do Mass. voters feel any urgency over this issue?

    After several years of allowing same sex marriages in the state, I suspect voters aren’t thinking of this as Issue #1.

    As to whether Warren expressed herself ‘insensitively’—–Yikes! Hmmmm, I wonder what Mass. voters have said about it.

    Has Scott Brown pointed this out?

  • indieinvirginnie

    Is good in my book. She is precisely the kind of elitist, condescending, self-righteous liberal I cannot stand (I am sorry– was I redundant?)

    However, this line of attack is a low-probability shot for two reasons. First, liberals get a pass on unfortunate word choices, which is probably what this was. They just do; it is a rule. Second, it is too nuanced for the entire segment of the possible audience, except for the segment that is already totally on board — the choir, as it were.

    Did you see the “young adults” that Jesse Watters interviewed on Fox the other night? On the beach. That’s representative of the group that needs to be convinced. We need to speak slowly, use monosyllabic words and rely heavily on pictures.

  • jasonva

    Otherwise, if its meaning equals its face value, you?ll need to clarify what you mean.

    I used the expression, not because it is meaningless as you seem to imply, but because it has multiple meanings. My intent was to imply a juxtaposition of two of the meanings that I found entertainingly ironic ? perhaps it was too subtle. The term stems from the idea that the message of the Bible (gospel = good news) is objectively true, as an article of faith. To the secular humanist, that which, as a society, we have long accepted as gospel is actually bad news, because it countermands their juvenile desire to see themselves as inherently good. Instead, they take the theory of Darwinian evolution to be true, again as an article of faith, because it liberates them from responsibility to a higher power and affords them the self-determination that they seek.

    I find it curious that so many who reject one set of religious dogma as superstitious nonsense that serves only as a crutch for the weak-minded and backwards, adhere, themselves, to what amounts to just another set of religious dogma ? all the while considering themselves to be morally superior.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Having been chided multiple times here for prolixity, I was attempting to cram a paragraph into the comment title and clearly was overly brief. I am actually in full agreement with your statement–to which my “Yes” refers. The balance of the line ‘excepting the null content associated with terms “gospel” and “truth”‘ was intended as an extension of your thought in the context of what “Warren accepts”. So more explicitly, I was simply stating that in the materialist’s mind, the terms “gospel” and “truth” are ultimately devoid of content and therefore unlikely to be used in self-reference; you certainly did not suggest that she would do so, I was just playing with the idea that even if she did it would be a linguistic accident.

    And I’m fully in agreement with your follow-up as well. (FTR, I’ve long been steeped in both Van Til and Schaeffer, the latter of which my two pastors sat under in the heyday of L’Abri.)

  • jasonva

    I took your agreement at face value, but was merely confused by your use of “null”, not realizing that you were referring to Warren’s point of view – perhaps you were the one who was too subtle; or perhaps my pathology midterm-addled mind isn’t as nimble as it should be…

  • zachv

    “We?ve moved on. I encourage everyone else to move on,” Brown said. “It should be decided state by state basis. I?m focusing on those other things.”

    I would believe from that quote that Brown in 100% in line with the ‘not Issue #1′ here. I can’t find anything though that says Brown responded to Warren’s evolution demand.

  • clintonformccain

    From what I can see, he’s not looking to push a lot of wedge social issues to the forefront in this election. Rather, he’s trying to present himself as doing a very good job for the people of Massachusetts.

    For example, Kennedy was famous for a very high level of constituent service. Brown kept the same offices and all of the veteran constituent service staff from Kennedy’s offices, preserving the same level of responsiveness without missing a beat.

    There’s absolutely no benefit to Scott Brown’s re-election bid to raise issues like gay marriage or contraception or pornography. Just the opposite… he’s poked some fun at the more extreme stuff Republicans throw out there like noting that Santorum’s new Secret Service detail is likely the first time he’s ever used protection. Some of the national politicians in the Republican Party should pay attention to Scott Brown and the way he goes about presenting a Republican message.

    If Warren makes a few mistakes and presents herself as the moonbat she is, I could see Brown clobbering her in November. This is very critical election for him and for the Repubican Party.

  • Kyle-MI

    but I suppose that has nothing to do with his stand on social issues and his resulting standing in the MA polls. Because as we all know, as goes MA so goes the rest of the US.

  • iamhungry

    Your memory of the niggardly incident is completely wrong and your own link proves it. Even the NAACP came out and said the man who used the word should not be fired. Here’s what the chairman of the NAACP said:

    “You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding. David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back ? and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them.”

  • clintonformccain

    I still have to pinch myself. Going to the polls that day and voting for him was the most fun I’ve ever had casting a vote in an election.

    He’s one of the new breed young guns in the Party (with Rubio, Jindal, Nikki Haley, Christie, etc.) who are no longer putting social issues front and center like Republicans did in the 90s.

    It’s one of the things that makes a guy like Santorum seem so “last century”.

  • Kyle-MI

    aren’t social conservatives? You can’t even cherry pick candidates with a straight face.

  • joeyjojoshabadoo79

    When Obama claims his beliefs are evolving, I doubt he’s somehow insulting himself. He is signaling an inevitable 180 on gay marriage, and his duplicity is certainly fair game.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Further review was not kind to you.

    That’s enough sticking up for Barry, buddy.

  • zachv

    … social conservatives. But, they don’t go about pushing social issues like Santorum. I’d also ad Paul Ryan to the list. Speaks out entirely on budget issues and deficits, but on social issues?