Elizabeth Warren’s war on men is an insulting, losing strategy, by Miranda Devine.
Elizabeth Warren made the political calculation this week that she doesn’t need men to win the presidency.
“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men,” she told a rally in Washington Square Park Monday night.
“In fact, we’re not here because of men at all,” she said, emphasizing the “m” word like an expletive.
Great. Then she won’t mind if men don’t vote for her, nor women who like men.
It’s a losing strategy, taken straight out of the playbook of Hillary Clinton, from whom, reportedly and inexplicably, Warren has been taking advice.
Millions of American women showed in 2016 that they weren’t prepared to vote for Clinton just because she had a second X chromosome. White, noncollege-educated women in particular voted almost 2-to-1 for Donald Trump in 2016.
Most likely, they didn’t approve of the denigration of their menfolk as “deplorables” abusing “white male privilege” when the truth is that the males they love are doing their best, even if jobs are scarce and they’re dying of overdoses.
So when a Harvard law professor stands on a stage in New York and says “we’re not here” because of men, there’s a lot of ideological baggage attached. Warren’s supporters in the 10,000-strong crowd understood before the words were even out of her mouth, giving her the biggest applause of the evening.
Actually, if you have an ounce of humility, you’d have to admit we probably all are here because of men, famous or not. Men who fought wars, men who drilled for oil, men who built monuments, men who cured illness, or men like Christopher Columbus, who sailed the ocean blue, and whose statue will be removed from Central Park for the crime of being male, if certain city officials get their way.
It’s hard work getting votes by demonizing one identity group to get the votes of the other identity groups. So many eggs to break! Such is the way of the tribalist.