Blogs
Featured Image
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks during the first night of the Democratic presidential debate on June 26, 2019 in Miami, Florida.Joe Raedle/Getty Images

March 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – With Elizabeth Warren’s decision to drop out of the 2020 presidential race, the progressive pundits have flung themselves into fits of mourning. 

Warren was, we are being told, a magnificent candidate, with her penchant for perfect plans and her brilliance rendering her the obvious choice. The fact that people obviously did not see her this way has the commentariat calling out the stupidity of Democratic primary voters, with Megan Garber in The Atlantic announcing that “America Punished Elizabeth Warren for Her Competence” and Jessica Valentia sniffling that “It Will Be Hard to Get Over What Happened to Elizabeth Warren,” among dozens of other hard-to-make-up headlines.

It must first be pointed out that America didn’t punish Elizabeth Warren for anything: It was the Democrats who decided to go with one of two geriatric white men over her. That is the sort of thing that Democrats claim to care quite a lot about, so perhaps a bit of soul-searching about the obvious chasm between the professed values of the Democratic elites and the preferences of their voters might be in order. One obvious factor that nobody likes to discuss is the fact that African American voters are actually far, far more socially conservative than white Democratic voters — they lean heavily left economically, but are not, as a demographic, big fans of the LGBT agenda. (That is one of the key but unspoken reasons Pete Buttigieg could not get any traction in the black community.)

We’ve seen this all before. When Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, many progressives claimed that she lost because she was a woman. Over and over again, we were told that she was the most competent and qualified candidate ever to run for the White House, and those parroting this line did not seem to realize that many Americans simply thought that was nonsense. Many Americans felt that Clinton had spent her entire career fighting for things they found reprehensible, and were willing to gamble on a Trump presidency to avoid handing her the keys to the Oval Office. But apparently there is no such thing as a bad female candidate (or at least a Democratic one, that is) — only bad and stupid voters who do not understand what is good for them.

Much of this has to do with abortion. Millions of Americans will crawl over glass to vote for a presidential candidate they dislike personally because he doesn’t believe it is a moral good to butcher babies in the womb throughout all nine months of pregnancy. To millions of people, Clinton, Warren — and yes, Sanders and Biden, too — are champions of a kill count that sits at 65 million and rising. Elizabeth Warren, that paragon of righteousness that everyone was too blind to appreciate, voted against protecting children that survived an abortion in a 2019 vote. To accept the premise that a Democratic candidate is the best man or woman for the job is to first accept the premise that killing the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family is a right rather than the greatest stain on America since slavery.

So no, Elizabeth Warren did not lose because she was a woman. She lost because she was Elizabeth Warren, the same way Hillary Clinton lost because she was Hillary Clinton. Millions of Americans would be happy to vote for a female presidential candidate, but somehow I doubt that the commentators mourning Warren’s departure would be as supportive of Nikki Haley, for example. And that’s because, like most Americans, it isn’t the gender of the candidate they really care about. It is the candidate’s values. If Nikki Haley runs for president, we will be seeing these same commentators explode with the same vitriol they directed at Sarah Palin. 

Because the only female candidates these people want to see are those who affirm that the destruction of preborn children in the womb is a prerequisite for women’s liberation.

Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he and author Mary Eberstadt discuss the decline in religious belief in western civilization. Did the secularization of society lead to the death of the family, or did the death of the family lead to the secularization of society?

 You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below: 

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.