Three Lies and a Truth:  Long ‘New York’ Article on Elizabeth Warren Cut Down To Size

Printed from: http://newbostonpost.com/2018/07/24/three-lies-and-a-truth-long-new-york-article-on-elizabeth-warren-cut-down-to-size/

New York Magazine published Monday a long article about U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Cambridge) by Rebecca Traister. If you like edgy-sounding vulgarities and ponderous run-on sentences, dive right in.

If not, here’s a pithier summary, in four acts.

1.  The Claim:

“He’s built one of his reliably racist shticks around his nickname for her, ‘Pocahontas’ — deploying it at least 26 times between 2014 and 2017 — in reference to her claim as a young law professor from Oklahoma that she was part Cherokee.

The Truth:

In a 7,177-word article, this is the sum total on the issue that disqualifies Elizabeth Warren from yet-higher office. As New Boston Post has pointed out in detail, Warren appears to have used non-existent American Indian heritage to help her get highly sought-after, highly paid work. The facts seem clear, and her occasional denials over the years have been neither detailed, nor supported by evidence, nor plausible.

It’s not racist to criticize someone for using a false ethnic identity to help her get jobs at two Ivy League law schools. Calling Warren “Pocahontas” isn’t a slur against indigenous peoples; it’s a slap at a fraudster.

But this long article doesn’t even describe Warren’s problem accurately. Warren’s “claim as a young law professor from Oklahoma that she was part Cherokee” isn’t her problem; it’s that she used it to get something that others sought and that she wasn’t (on that basis) entitled to get.

2.  The Claim:

“The battles have burned hottest with Trump himself; it’s clear that Warren scares the president nearly as much as that other 60-something white grandma did, and he devotes an inordinate amount of energy to insulting her.”

The Truth:

Elizabeth Warren is a dream opponent for Donald Trump in November 2020.  The only way she could win is if the country’s situation is so bad that any Democratic nominee would win.

Warren is not only far-left; as noted above, she appropriated other people’s ethnic identity to get what she wanted. For most voters, that’s a huge turn-off.

Put another way:  If a conservative Republican had used a false ethnic-minority status to help get two highly paid jobs … would we be talking about this person as a presidential candidate in 2020? And what Democratic incumbent wouldn’t want to run against a Republican challenger like that? There aren’t that many national-election swing voters in Massachusetts. There are lots of them in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

And how exactly did the unnamed-above Hillary Clinton “scare[]” Donald Trump?  It’s possible she’s the only Democratic candidate Trump could have beaten in 2016 … which he did.

3.  The Claim:

 “In the very near past, much of Warren’s agenda would have been considered untenably far left, but now it’s practically standard for serious Democratic contenders.”

The Truth:

This sentence is true, and it’s the most interesting statement in the article.

In the short term, this keep-going-left strategy hurts Democrats, because it makes it less likely they’ll get elected in the near future. In the long term, it hurts the country.

There are two reasons. First, it drives our citizens ever farther apart, and over inane demands like ending Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Debating the kind of immigration policy we should have makes sense. Debating whether we should enforce our laws doesn’t.

Second:  At some point Democrats will take control of the White House and Congress. (Since 1900, Democrats held the presidency and the U.S. House and Senate 1913-1921, 1933-1947, 1949-1953, 1961-1969, 1977-1981, 1993-1995, and 2009-2011.)

An ever-farther-left Democratic Party bodes ill, because destructive ideas may eventually become destructive policies.

And if that happens, we will in some measure have Elizabeth Warren to thank.

4.  The Claim:

“And so we head to the side porch to meet Bailey, named after Jimmy Stewart’s George Bailey, the community building-and-loan officer from It’s a Wonderful Life, whose adversary is the cruel corporate banker Mr. Potter. In the movie, Bailey calls his foe a ‘warped, frustrated old man’ and asks him, ‘Do you know how long it takes a workingman to save $5,000? Just remember … this rabble you’re talking about, they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?’ “

The Truth:

George Bailey is a fictional character, but he has done more for the American people than Elizabeth Warren.

In the movie It’s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey tries to help people (almost in spite of himself), and he succeeds. To most he offers not handouts, but loans – loans which people are expected to pay back. Before the major crisis of the movie hits, George is doing well, because the building and loan is doing well – because people are paying back the loans that George authorized, with interest.

That’s how a capitalist system works.

In Elizabeth Warren’s world, economic justice is delivered through government regulation and control, which has the effect of making loans harder and more expensive to make, thus hamstringing not only lenders but also borrowers trying to make their way in the world. And it’s all done from Washington, far from most of the people who get hurt.

George Bailey made things better in the make-believe world of Bedford Falls and in the lives of everyone who has seen the movie. Elizabeth Warren just makes things up.

There is no comparison. And I can prove it.

Senator, I watched George Bailey. I knew George Bailey. George Bailey was a friend of mine.

Senator, even your dog knows you’re no George Bailey.

Comments

comments