Jonah Goldberg: Warren, Trump may have a lot in common | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Warren, Trump may have a lot in common

Jonah Goldberg
1912143_web1_1386911-2a595478b8374fbca53ecc562ce87992
AP
Sen. Elizabeth Warren arrives at Chicago’s Auditorium Theater at Roosevelt University for a town hall event June 28.

Culturally, Elizabeth Warren is a lot more like Donald Trump than you might think.

Hold on. I know: Going by their personal lives, their demeanors and their ideological agendas, they’re apples and oranges. But apples and oranges actually have a lot in common: They’re both fruits, they’re round, and they grow on trees. The most relevant difference boils down to a matter of taste. And that’s what I am getting at.

One of the best things about partisanship is how it sharpens our skepticism about the other side. When Trump gives a speech, liberals are like contestants on “Jeopardy,” eager to hit the buzzer the moment they hear anything that pings their radar for hypocrisy, deceit, hyperbole, etc.

But the downside of partisanship is that it blinds us to the fakery of our own side. When the same liberals listen to someone like Warren, the buzzer gathers dust. In the 2000s, for instance, “Saturday Night Live” rarely let a week go by without skewering George W. Bush. When Barack Obama was president, “SNL” ignored him almost entirely, save as an excuse to mock the people who didn’t like him.

Bush then, like Trump now, was an easy target for “SNL” writers — and for writers at elite media outlets generally. Warren, however, is the opposite. Which might explain why “SNL’s” most recent cold open was nearly a campaign ad for Warren.

Warren’s catchphrase, “I’ve got a plan for that,” has as much cultural resonance with her base as Trump’s “Make America Great Again” does with his, and it’s remarkably similar to Trump’s “I alone can fix it.” It tickles the intellectual erogenous zones of a certain type of progressive wildly overrepresented in the upper echelons of the meritocracy. It screams: “We have all the answers!” and “We know what to do!”

Technocratic liberalism isn’t just an ideological worldview dating back to Walter Lippmann’s 1914 “Drift and Mastery,” it’s a cultural orientation. If you can’t see it, it’s probably because you’re part of it. Fish don’t know they’re wet, after all.

The media loves to point out the craziness and impossibility of many of Trump’s promises. He said fixing health care would be “so easy.” He vowed to eliminate the deficit in eight years. (It’s up nearly 50% since he took office). He was going to ban Muslims and make Mexico pay for the wall. Whether his supporters believed him or not, they liked what these promises said about his priorities. “Don’t take him literally,” we were advised, just “take him seriously.”

Warren has played precisely the same game, promising a slew of absurdities, from an illegal fracking ban to an unconstitutional wealth tax to a dead-on-arrival Green New Deal.

The problem for Warren is that you can’t say, “Don’t take her literally.” The whole appeal of her shtick — and it is a shtick, even if she believes it — is that she does her homework. She’s no reality-TV star making it up as she goes, she has a plan!

But let’s say using a lot of policy jargon and accounting gimmickry wins Warren the nomination and the presidency. What then? It’s axiomatic that she will fail to achieve what cannot be achieved. Will she admit that she overpromised, or will the apple lady follow the playbook of the orange man and blame a rigged system and shadowy evil actors working to deny us our heart’s desires? The latter is likely, given that such rhetoric is another thing she has in common with Trump.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.