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 happen to personally 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.


  • Rob Crawford says:

    “with full, reasonable respect given to concerns about federalism and individual conscience.”
    That’s the rub. No such respect will ever be given. Look at Illinois, where they’ve used the “civil unions and religious liberty act” (seriously) to chase the Catholic church out of adoptions.
    Listen, I have no problem with civil unions — even of removing the word “marriage” from the official documents and having *all* marriages be done that way, so long as this is instituted by the legislature rather than the courts. But that’s what California *HAD* and it wasn’t enough for the activists. Given that, and their behavior following Proposition 8, I have to conclude that the purpose of the gay marriage movement is to punish churches and religious people.
    And, dude, I’m an agnostic. I don’t go to church except for funerals and weddings; I have no personal stake in the religious argument. But I can recognize an assault on religious liberty when I see one.

  • lourae says:

    So, Ms. Warren–is Tom Hanks evolved, or what? Just tryin’ to keep track.

  • NotSoBlueStater says:


    She’s what national liberals believe will work in Massachusetts. It’s a spectacular own goal by the Democrats. Mass fielded some pretty good Republican challengers during the change election of 2010. They ALL lost to home grown Democrats. You nailed it, Moe. A thank you is in order here…

    • Moe_Lane says:

      General note for anybody trolling the site: I have VERY high standards when it comes to trolling, particularly when it comes to people struggling against the constraints of actually living up to their own set of rules. If you don’t like said rules when they apply to you, change ’em.

  • Wombat-socho says:

    That’s going to go over REAL well with all the Puerto Rican and Portuguese Catholics in Boston. She really needs to get off the Harvard campus more often.

  • lourae says:

    How does Obama thread this needle? Or is the MSM so in the tank he could do Denis Leary’s ‘f**k you dance’ on the White House lawn at this point? And for the record, I am a same-sex marriage supporter–but is there anything O could possibly do to erode the African-American base?

  • […] seem to have struck a nerve with this post holding Elizabeth Warren to the same speech code that she and her fellow progressive buddies are so […]

  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    So, if the online left is mad about this post, some may have read my “own goal” comment. This makes me happy.

    BTW, it looks as though the president may, in fact, become more enlightened before the election.

    And since I didn’t say it before, Moe, this is an outstanding observation and a totally valid point.

    And for folks who don’t know Moe: You DO realize that he and the president are currently on opposite sides of this issue, right?

  • Anon says:

    While I certainly appreciate the effort to point out hypocrisy on the left I have to say this is a little misleading. There’s kind of a leap that isn’t so clear ms. Warren makes.

    If she says people who don’t believe in marriage equality are not fully evolved, that means all people of all ethnicities. So i don’t see where the author figures she must have meant black people exclusively.

    Nonetheless it’s disheartening when people are derogatory about others’ moral opinions

    • Moe_Lane says:

      This is a violation of Elizabeth Warren’s faction’s speech code, not mine. If she and her fellow-progressives can’t live by those rules, then they can shut the heck up about trying to make anybody else live by them, too.

      Seriously, it’s not my problem that Warren used that language. And the whining that I’ve gotten from it elsewhere simply tells me that I’m on the right track. 🙂

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by