Warren a 'victim' of her own party's identity politics

Taylor Armerding

My mother was raised on the plains of Oklahoma, with many of her relatives born and raised on the plains of Kansas. I have high cheekbones, and I’m not exactly fair-skinned.

I’m sure somewhere in there, I’m between 1/64th to 1/1,024th Indian – the result of the test Warren made public in hopes that it would confirm for all of us that what “momma” and “daddy” and some other extended family relatives allegedly told her was true.

It doesn’t seem to be working so far, in part because it is such a hilarious stretch. As more than one logical analyst has noted, if she’s a minority, then we’re all minorities.

That’s even with frantic efforts of her supporters and apologists to say the 1/1,024th math is all wrong, and she’s really more than 1 percent Native American.

But, all that said, I can see why she so desperately wants to claim some kind of connection to minority identity, no matter how gossamer thin.

It’s because being a white woman (which she obviously is) has become a political liability almost as serious as being a white man.

Yes, in our hyper-identity, hyper-tribal (no pun intended), hyper-victim political environment, simply being a woman is no longer good enough to pass the Democratic presidential candidate qualification test.

In particular, being a white woman automatically moves you down the oppression ladder, and being a white woman with money ($350,000 for teaching a single course at Harvard Law) and power puts you among the privileged oppressors, not the oppressed.

How can Warren compete with fellow presidential aspirants and genuine minorities like Sens. Kamela Harris, D-Calif., Corey Booker, D-N.J., or former Attorney General Eric Holder, when we are now at a place, at least in the Democratic Party, where the mirror opposite of Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream is in place – to be judged not by the content of your character, but by the color of your skin?

Recall the recent rally where the hottest Demo flavor of the month, Democratic congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York, told a raucously cheering, mostly female crowd in Boston that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s credibility should be based on his race and gender.

“Can you imagine if Brett Kavanaugh had to sit before of a panel of 11 women of color deciding his fate?” she shouted.

Which means, in Warren’s case, that her presidential ambitions rest less on her “progressive” bona fides – calls for bigger, more powerful government and punishing those who commit the sin of being financially successful – and more on whatever DNA evidence she can muster to support her claims that she isn’t really among the rest of us European invaders and her family was among those who were here before anybody else.

And so far she’s getting heat from both the left and right – from Native Americans who accuse her of cultural appropriation, from other lefties who say she shouldn’t have brought up such a trivial, distant, alleged ancestral connection three weeks before the mid-term elections, and from those on the right who say her “proof” is only proof that she’s a fraud.

Poor Warren. How unfair. If she complains about being judged as white as the rest of us who have minute amounts of DNA from here, there and everywhere, she’ll sound like a racist.

And how unfair to be stereotyped as a white woman when she obviously wasn’t among the 52 percent who apparently voted for President Donald Trump, destroying the hopes of other, much more valuable, females who had hoped to put a white woman, Hillary Clinton, in the White House.

She could probably blame Republican Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine, who (in the looking-glass logic of the left) must have done what her husband told her to do when she voted to confirm Kavanaugh. Of course, it would have been OK if she had done what they were telling her to do.

But not all that unfair for someone who is more a faux populist than a faux Indian. Not all that unfair for somebody who joins the rest of her party in demanding racial preferences.

Why shouldn’t racial preferences extend to the presidential pool? Sorry, your qualifications may be outstanding, you may be smart and you may be just as progressive as any other aspiring candidate, but you can’t promote affirmative action for colleges, universities, employment and boardrooms and then say it shouldn’t apply to politics as well.

Indeed, with the Democratic presidential sweepstakes set to go into high gear after the mid-terms, there are already multiple signals that white women aren’t just not victim enough, they’re not even victims.

Kyle Smith, writing in National Review online, catalogued a series of recent headlines and declarations regarding white women. Among them:

“White women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain.”

“… (W)hite women have often played the protagonists in the history of sexual violence, and black women have been relegated to the supporting cast.”

“White women use strategic tears to silence women of color.”

“Why white women keep calling the police on black people.”

Yes, to say Warren is somehow complicit in any of those already distorted accusations is, of course, blanket stereotyping.

But to declare that “women should be believed” and men should be automatically guilty if they are accused of sexual assault, is blanket stereotyping as well.

Warren is white. She is a woman. She is rich.

And what goes around is coming around.

Taylor Armerding is an independent columnist. Contact him at t.armerding@verizon.net