POLITICS FEBRUARY 3, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Elizabeth Warren is poised to thrash Scott Brown in their marquee U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, and the reason is simple: Women voters love her. In the most recent poll, in December, Warren and Brown were virtually tied amongst men, but Warren led by 13 percentage points, 51 percent to 38 percent, amongst women.
Warren’s commanding lead is not about her gender (Masssachusetts has never before elected a woman to the Senate or governor’s office: Brown defeated Martha Coakley just two years ago) or even her party (the state has a history of voting for GOP moderates like Brown: Think ex-Governor Mitt Romney and, further back, Senator Ed Brooke.) Rather, she owes her ascendency to the fact that her communitarian message resonates so strongly with females.
President Obama ought to pay heed: Warren’s campaign can offer important lessons to his own. He too will need to secure women voters if he wants to earn re-election. And he, too, could do so by adopting Warren’s proud communitarian appeal.
THE PUREST DISTILLATION of the Warren message can be seen in the video, shot back in August during her appearance at the Massachusetts home of a supporter, which went viral on the Internet and alternately met with applause amongst liberals and apoplexy amongst conservatives.
It’s easy to see why. With evident passion, Warren weighs in against George Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” and, hands knifing the air, rejects the notion that she is stirring up “class warfare.” Not at all, she says. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate…” It was a riveting performance that proved her skill as a retail politician, someone able to relate to regular folks—there was not a trace here of the Harvard Law professor with a specialty in bankruptcy statutes or the policy wonk whose 5,000 word treatise in Democracy led to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Based on such emotive fare, the conventional wisdom is that Warren’s candidacy “will test the limits of true populism,” as Greg Sargent, of “The Plum Line” in The Washington Post, wrote. But that’s off the mark: Warren’s message is as effective as it is precisely because it goes beyond mere populism. “True populism,” in historical terms, is the crude and divisive politics of economic grievance and resentment, as embodied by the struggles of the dirt farmers against the railroad barons in the late 19th century. It’s more of a sentiment than a comprehensive plan for action.
Warren’s message, by contrast, starts with righteous anger, with its pointed reference to “the rest of us,” but it doesn’t halt there. She goes on to offer an affirming brief for society. Individual opportunity, she asserts, cannot be realized without a collective marshaling of public resources. This is a wide-angled perspective that goes beyond the pedantic debates about whether and to what extent the rich pay their fair share in taxes. Her solutions-oriented emphasis is on the civic and economic infrastructure, in the broadest sense—the educational system, the transportation system, the regulatory system—that must be collectively paid for and carefully maintained to make liberal capitalism possible. This isn’t crude populism—it’s an elegant riposte to Margaret Thatcher’s famous utterance, in a 1987 television interview, that “there is no such thing as society.” Judging from the polling in Massachusetts, it also happens to be a message that’s especially attractive to women.
In that way, there are strong demographic reasons for more candidates across the United States to embrace this type of communitarianism. Women not only outnumber men among registered voters—66.6 million to 63.5 million in 2010—but also are increasingly more likely to turn out to vote. In fact, the ‘turnout gap’ between women and men has grown in every election since 1980—so that in 2008, 60.4 percent of eligible women voters went to the polls, against 55.7 percent of eligible male voters, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers. As a result, there were nearly 10 million more female than male voters in 2008, with women comprising 53 percent of the electorate. The women’s vote that year split 56 percent for Obama to 43 percent for McCain, thereby sealing Obama’s election.
But there’s no guarantee that women will support Obama this year in strong numbers. Though Obama’s lyrical campaign poetry was a powerful sway for women voters, his halting governing prose has cost him support. Polls have shown his job approval rating among women dipping below 50 percent. Women are currently more supportive of him than men, but if the President can’t reignite genuine enthusiasm among them, he stands to lose the election.
The adoption of Warren’s unabashed communitarian message could perhaps help Obama rally women to his side. It would be a smooth segue from his campaign persona of four years ago: Her variation on the theme of economic togetherness could add a bass note to his own 2008 signature call for a civic inclusiveness—for a melting away of Red America and a Blue America into a united America. That was Obama at his most inspiring, and there are plenty of Americans (women especially) who would be eager to hear him offer a refurbished and more nurturing version of that idealistic appeal, one tailored to our weary economic times.
He made a good start at channeling Warren (and their Progressive heir, Theodore Roosevelt) with his speech in December at Osawatomie, Kansas that explicitly repudiated “rugged individualism” (even while acknowledging that this sentiment is “in America’s DNA”) in favor of a society in which business titans (nearly all of whom are male) are tethered to a “broader obligation.”
But it was only a start. Communitarianism is not only about ideals, but about practical action. Obama needs to talk more about his particular policy proposals and how they link up with America’s “underlying social contract,” in Warren’s phrase. That’s perhaps the most promising way to reconnect his campaign, so far lacking in any sense of grand aspiration, with its natural demographic base.
Paul Starobin, author of After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age, lives in Massachusetts.
33 comments
Communitarianism as a theme warms the heart, but "particular policy proposals" freeze the theme. Obama's SOTU proves he knows the advantage of themes and disadvantages of specific policy proposals, something he could have learned from the master communicator himself, Ronald Reagan. Freedom. Opportunity. Personal Responsibility. Strength. Now if he can can connect these themes with fixing our infrastructure, great; but once a Democrat wanders into the weeds, he almost always loses his way. Sure, I would prefer that Obama and Romney provide lists of particular policy proposals, and that voters choose their candidate based on a thoughtful evaluation of them. I would also prefer that my lottery ticket be a winner this week, the odds of which are probably better than voters choosing their candidate based on thoughful evaluation. Politics, like religion, is an emotional endeavor.
- rayward
February 3, 2012 at 7:31am
I'm not sure how just yet, but I'm going to figure out a way to cross the broder from CT to Massachusetts and vote for this woman. We could use another 99 senators just like her.
- Tristan
February 3, 2012 at 10:30am
You call it "communitarian" I call it reality. Conservative and (even more so) Libertarian political notions often seem best understood as a form of late-adolescent male fantasy -- a fantasy of outsized individual power and, if not immortality at least indomitability, in which broader economic developments (beyond one's own control) of course have no impact and vulnerability and dependency is never acknowledged (and therefore graditude is never considered or expressed) and cooperation is seen a capitulation to one's inferiors. The sufferer goes from smug, unrealistic confidence in his own superiority in youth to paranoia and angry resentment of a litanty (ex-wives, feminists, libtards, gummit, yatta yatta) of forces arrayed against him -- that have, in his mind, limited his power and/or refused to acknowledge his superiority -- in midage. (Conservative women fall for the same fantasy -- except they're looking for indomintability in someone else, not themselves.) The rest of us recognize that were not heros in a Swartzenagger action movie, that our species is one that has survived and thrived on the skills of collaboration and communication, that bad things happen to good people, that we all stand on the shoulders of others, that every life hands out times of vulnerbility, and that it is the natural order of life (not the dictates of government or the nagging of your mother) that creates our responsibilities toward each other -- that dictate that the strong, whole and powerful's accept responsibility for the vulnerable.
- esmense
February 3, 2012 at 10:57am
Excellent essay. This is exactly what is needed to show that Randian hyper-individualism is not only contrary to most people's morals and very unpleasant for most, but also just doesn't work very well. While it may be good political strategy, it's also the way to bring moderate communitarian ideas back into the spotlight, where they look very good in comparison with the war of all against all. "He made a good start at channeling Warren (and their Progressive heir, Theodore Roosevelt)" A minor quibble from a compulsive proofreader - I think you mean "ancestor" not "heir".
- K_Wilson
February 3, 2012 at 11:41am
You are right, a speech is a powerful weapon. It saved Obama's back side during the last campaign when Wright opened his anti- Semitic maw. Obama's reflexive defense was his speech in Philadelphia on race. No one mentioned that Obama cheered this Wright anti- Semitism for 20 years. Called him his spiritual mentor, gave him the title of his book, baptized his children... The Clinton's and the Republicans where caught in the headlight. They said nothing in fear of now be labeled racists. They still do not point the fingers at Obama to this day because of that speech. I did not vote then not wanting to vote for Palin. This time I will vote for anyone but Obama. I have had enough of this anti- Semite in the White House. Obama is an image carved by exercise hiding his true self to the American voters. The best example is h9im speaking with a phony Southern accent when speaking to a Black audience and an Hawaiian born accent when speaking to Whites. Another one, watch how he descends the stairs from the Presidential plane not looking down but straight, fast and not holding the ramps. This takes a lot of effort to do well and not falling on his face like another President did while holding the ramp. Obama you see is not the real Obama but a smoke and mirror to hide the real Obama you should not vote for, just like I will do not soon enough.
- Poupic
February 3, 2012 at 12:03pm
"Another one, watch how he descends the stairs from the Presidential plane not looking down but straight, fast and not holding the ramps. This takes a lot of effort to do well and not falling on his face like another President did while holding the ramp" You know, I've been wondering how to spot the hidden anti-semite. All this time I thought it would be things like refusing to back Israel when the Palestinians made a declaration of statehood to the UN, or refusing to arm Israel with the latest most sophisticated weapons, or refusing to hire Jewish men and women for senior positions. I had no idea the secret was carefully watching how he walks down the staircase when exiting Air Force One. Boy do I feel dumb! Thanks, Poupic.
- Tristan
February 3, 2012 at 12:29pm
Her passion reminds me of deceased Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone. Let's hear it for unabashed, unapologetic liberals.
- Claris
February 3, 2012 at 12:48pm
I was recently at a small event for Warren (people gathered in a large conference room, where I was lucky enough to sit about three seats from the head of the table, where she was) and she knocked my socks off. I understand why she keeps winning best teacher awards -- for teaching bankruptcy law of all things. She had very interesting numbers about the % of our GDP spent on R&D and education in the 1960s compared to now, emphasizing how we are not a country that's investing in our future. She also emphasized that she's emphatically not anti-capitalism, that she is pro-competition, but that all the huge companies (mega banks, mega pharmaceutic als, etc.) have taken over the political process, which is bad for smaller businesses as well as consumers.
- shellski
February 3, 2012 at 12:54pm
Elizabeth Warren may be the most educated American politician. She knows the relationship between the individual and society. Individuals live in society. They don't get rich and powerful in a vacuum. Paul Anka and Frank Sinatra ("I Did It My Way") and Ayn Rand were simply stroking themselves with their I-stand-alone-in-my-power-and-my greatness "philosophy." Conservatives want to stand alone and on top. The only time they have the courage to turn to other people and say "let's work together on this" is when making money or pushing their agenda is involved. And by doing so they negate their own idea that they did it their way alone.
- magboy47.
February 3, 2012 at 3:39pm
Warren is not a populist. She is a Progressive/Liberal in the poltical vein of TR, FDR, Stevenson, LBJ (for domestic policy), Humphrey. BHO is not-- he is not going to learn from her. He is more in the vein of Fillmore, Buchanan, Chamberlain--- nice, bright humanitarian compromisers not up to the challenge of their times. Like Mittens. God knows (and cares less) who wins in a contest between two candidates who would in other cicumstances be unelectable.
- drofnats1
February 3, 2012 at 3:43pm
"God knows (and cares less) who wins in a contest between two candidates who would in other cicumstances be unelectable" Ummm... my history isn't as strong as some other posters on here, Dro, but didn't Obama already win a major election at some point? Hang on while I google that, I could have sworn I read something... Or does "unelectable" mean something different where you're from?
- Tristan
February 3, 2012 at 4:08pm
That's a serious accusation about Obama, Poupic, which made me wonder what we had missed in the past. For example, this: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/27/georgebush_wideweb__470x346,0.jpg Here we see a picture of President Bush also walking down the steps from Air Force One not holding the rail and looking straight ahead, oh, AND saluting AND holding a dog all at the same time! Which I guess, by your measure, pretty much means pogrom-size Jew-hatred, right?
- ironyroad
February 3, 2012 at 4:24pm
One should never listen to anyone's belly button, no matter how it's spelled. ;-D
- K_Wilson
February 3, 2012 at 4:42pm
I would like to second rayward up there at the top that policy is not only unnecessary for successful political rhetoric but generally inimical to it. Exhibit No. 1: "compassionate conservatism," one of the greatest political slogans ever coined. Utterly devoid of meaningful content, you devilish in its ability simultaneously allow everyone from the far-right to somewhere slightly left of center to read into it exactly whatever they want to find there.
- roidubouloi
February 3, 2012 at 4:46pm
Tristan. No offense, but the past is not the future. Hoover also won an election. As did Chamberlain's party. BHO among Independents has about a 40% approval rating, Mittens about 30%. Thoise are normally unelectable numbers, especially for an incumbent. Capisch?? In Texas, 40% and 30% rarely get you elected. [Or do 40% and 30% mean something different where you are from??] Progressives like us need face reality about a non-Progressive president-- past, present and future.
- drofnats1
February 3, 2012 at 5:22pm
Great essay, Paul. I really admire Warren for her intelligence, drive and concern of economic equality for all citizens. Yes, Obama could learn a great deal from her, considering how quickly he threw her under the bus during her confirmation hearing. Yet through it all she somehow demonstrated a grace under pressure. This woman is the real thing, and she does do the retail politicking very well. And I have to second tristan's comment. I'm from Ohio and wish I could vote for her.
- rewiredhogdog
February 3, 2012 at 5:40pm
roi. I'd take a different tack. Policy is not necessary for successful political rhetoric in the short run. It does matter, however. Compassionate conservatism WAS a great slogan-- but how is it regarded today? Even by Conservatives? "Change you can believe in" is similarly in BHO's toilet. What new slogan can he realistically present?? I'm not as crazy as x?? My change didn't work-yet?? His re-election depends on economic forces that he neglected to control. And will now not be able to control.
- drofnats1
February 3, 2012 at 5:41pm
I didn't say or intend to say that policy doesn't matter, drof. What you do in office (or more properly what happens while you are in office, whether it is your doing or not) matters a great deal. I just don't think policy proposals are useful for campaigning or for garnering political support for . . . policy proposals. As rayward says, political rhetoric is designed to hit people at an emotional level because that's what works. It is the ongoing fantasy of the left that it will be rewarded for its fine attention to the details of policy. Never happens, never gonna happen.
- roidubouloi
February 3, 2012 at 6:12pm
I wish I could vote for her for president now.
- roidubouloi
February 3, 2012 at 6:13pm
roi. if it's an ongoing fantasy it is a fantasy of the left and right (google tax cus and tea party) and center (google compromise). But I'm not sure it's a fantasy. My assessment is that most presidents do try to meet their policy commitments. If I pushed you re Romney, I bet I could get you to admit (Ve Germans haf ways und means) that his policy statements on abortion, gay marriage do affect you-- and you believe vhe'll try nbto implement them.. Much more, in fact, than any budget balancing policy promise.
- drofnats1
February 3, 2012 at 6:38pm
ditto on warren.. Progressives would be much better of IF BHO were NOT running.
- drofnats1
February 3, 2012 at 6:40pm
We're talking past each other a bit here, drof. I am not saying that policy doesn't matter. Republican policies are a nightmare. Nor am I denying that both left and right have policies they desperately want to implement and would given the chance. But the right has demonstrated that you can make almost any claim, tell any lie, and no one cares much whether the policy dots connect. They care about the sentiments expressed in the lie, not about whether it is or is not a lie. Hence, policy details merely provide an opportunity for you to be attacked or held to political account. Not necessary or useful for the left to be chained to policy rhetoric while the right is free to say whatever it pleases and thinks will move voters.
- roidubouloi
February 3, 2012 at 7:15pm
@Dro - I don't agree with you about Obama, but you make many fair points, my friend.
- Tristan
February 3, 2012 at 8:01pm
Elizabeth Warren is one of the nuttiest idiots out there and the Democrats better be careful with her in Massachusetts. I am befuddled that she is being embraced for this Senate run. She was a complete failure in working with the Congress to get her agency up and running. She could never aknowledge anyone else as have any significant argument and as such she ended all alone. This expeerience to me represents her years as a college professor where she have never been challenged. Her raise to fame is mostly a product of her 2nd marriage to Bruce Mann. This relationship helped her land teaching assignments around the country that she really would not have gotten without the marriage to the Phd Professor. She specialized in Bankruptcy at a perfect time and made herself available to the media as an expert. Perfect timing. Unfortunately she saw these middle class people in trouble and thinks it was all the Bank's fault. She never really developed any innovative ideas that could be translated into new laws or financial instuments to manage these problems. She thinks people need to be educated and banks need to be regulated to fix these problems. Classic 1960's liberalism. And she really can be accused of Elitism. While she has been at Harvard since 1995, they kept their home in Philadelphia for many years. At a time when college costs are skyrocketing she has had a very generous position wwithin these Universities. I have not seen anything she has done to work to reduce college costs or how she helped in any toward industry. Lastly was her claim last year that she didn't take her clothes off to support herself thorugh college. Her swipe at Scott Brown was a little bit deceptive and not really honest. Ms. Warren did take off her clothes during her college career and had two children before recieving her bachelor's degree. Hmmm, how does a woman in 1970 have two children and pay for college? Oh, that was her first husband, the one she dropped for one of her Professors. I guess the marriage jokes and Fannie Mae paycheck issues only apply to Republicans like Newt Gingrich.
- CRS9TNR
February 3, 2012 at 8:19pm
"I am befuddled that she is being embraced for this Senate run." Uh huh.
- roidubouloi
February 3, 2012 at 8:27pm
roi. right on re Warren.. As for policy lies, they are recognizable as lies only after threy are forcibly pointed out to be lies ... which BHO and the Dems are not now doing. So unanwered lies win. And I am convinced that Progressive policies re fairness, universal heath care, etc, etc-- lies or no, properly artculated have as much emotional appeal, an conservative policies. Lies or no. try.. Women have smaller brains on average than men and therefore intellectually inferior to men . That was dogma premise and conclusion to the politically left and right 150 years ago. The premise is still true, the conclusion is not--malamutes are not obviously smarter than chihuahua's. Elephants and blue whales have bigger brains than homo sapiens. Between species its brain/body weight ratio that is most critical. And within a species, even that often doesn't hold well. [It may be dumb to get overweight, but you really don't gain IQ points by dieting.]
- drofnats1
February 3, 2012 at 10:14pm
CRS9: "I am befuddled that she is being embraced for this Senate run." Don't worry about it. It won't be anything like your befuddlement when she wins in November.
- ironyroad
February 4, 2012 at 12:31am
Warren Said "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate…”" Uh, no, actually, 50-something percent get more from government than they put in. Which means they in fact did NOT educate anyone or build roads. Only once you earn $60 to $70K are you putting more in than you get out. And, coincidentally, those making $60 to $70K or more "get it" and don't subscribe to the class warfare and envy party. She's also a multi-millionaire, lives in a house worth $5M, she has a portfolio of stocks and bonds worth as much as $8M. Sure, she talks the talk. But who doesn't these days? And you guys keep lapping it up. Edwards did the same. And now you know what he really thought of the commoners. They are laughing at us behind their backs. This is a shtick. A ruse. All it takes is a hollywood type or a wealthy businessman to publicly profess their desire for more taxes or ding Bush. And then its hands off. They stumble through this world amassing even more money, never giving a dime to charity, flying in their private jets, consuming more and more, and the progressive media leaves them alone. It's a very simple contract. If they talk once per year about CFL bulbs, or show up at an event in an electric car, then they aren't just given a pass, they are boosted to the level of Supreme Leader of All That is Good. Which allows them to have several houses across the world, stuff money in offshore accounts and a guarantee that nobody will ever say or write anything except good things about them. Even when they tie up government lawyers for 10 years, as Buffet is doing as he tries to claw back a few hundred million from the IRS, you still smile and consider him a good egg because he wishes he paid a few more million each year in personal income tax. You've been duped. Read up on Warren and her settlement with the asbestos industry and tell me if you really think she is looking out for consumers...
- seattleeng
February 4, 2012 at 2:22am
Obviously the banks and the Republicans don't share seattle's views on who Elizabeth Warren is fighting for. To listen to him, one would think they would of put on a good show of opposition to this mole for monied interests and then grudgingly allowed her to be confirmed, laughing all the way to the bank about how they sneaked one of their own into the very heart of the regulatory agency intended to protect consumers from theft and fraud by financial institutions. Meanwhile, seattle continues to believe that the market is the perfect measure of all things and that the contribution someone makes to society is neither more nor less than their taxable income, as defined by the tax laws. Conversely, in the libertarian fantasy world, the wealthy, whose wealth depends entirely on the existence of capital, social and otherwise, that they did absolutely nothing to create, don't "get" anything from government because, for them, they don't get a government check, or a direct service. That's how it is, seattle. When your are the house, you get a cut of everything, and it doesn't need to be in the form of a direct payment. You take it in prices in a system that is designed to let you collect those tariffs. Say, didja read how the SEC keeps giving waivers to big banks so that they don't suffer the regulatory consequences of the various frauds they commit?
- roidubouloi
February 4, 2012 at 8:16am
I enjoyed and admired the piece by Paul Starobin. My only regret is that Vann Woodward, once a contributor to TNR pages, is gone and cannot respond to the misguided concept of "mere populism." i urge Mr Starobin to look at Woodward on Tom Watson or any of the essays George Tindall collected or talk to Jacquelyn Dowd Hall. Or just get a good history textbook and look at what the people calling themselves Populists did in lawmaking between 1893 and 1899. Mere populism was in fact quite "fact encrusted" as Woodward put it and practical and result-oriented as Hall teaches it. I gladly bring Elizabeth Warren into the redneck den of "mere Populism"!!!!
- jackroper
February 4, 2012 at 10:30am
"Sure, she talks the talk. But who doesn't these days?" The Republican Party?
- ironyroad
February 4, 2012 at 5:05pm
SeattleOink""Uh, no, actually, 50-something percent get more from government than they put in. Which means they in fact did NOT educate anyone or build roads. Only once you earn $60 to $70K are you putting more in than you get out." Why would you even quote a statistic during a recovery when government is boosting needed consumption as evidence negating government's contribution to the success of business? That statistic makes the opposite point.
- Nusholtz
February 5, 2012 at 9:39am
What we need is a good magic government, where everyone "gets out" exactly what they put in. Even better. a magic Reaganite government, where everyone gets out more than they put in. Or, we can have one where the people who take out more in resources from the economy that is the work of our entire society have to put more back in. I believe that is called "progressive taxation." Best of both worlds, the benefit of free-market allocation and democratically determined justice.
- roidubouloi
February 5, 2012 at 11:27am