Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders had a dust-up in January. After that, a number of Sanders supporters directed the snake emoji at Warren on social media. You know the one. It’s the one in the photo above. What’s going on here? Is Warren a snake?
No, not exactly. Or so I’ll argue. Sanders supporters got it wrong with the snake emoji. But I don’t think they know why they got it wrong. I’ll say a bit about why and what I think they miss.
Why Did Sanders Supporters Post the Snake Emoji?
On the surface, Sanders supporters posted the snake emoji in response to a couple of things Warren did. The first was her claim that Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win the 2020 election. The second was her decision not to endorse Sanders after she dropped out or once it became apparent she wouldn’t win. Those are different dates, by the way. Warren dropped out in early March, but it was obvious by mid-February she wasn’t going to win. And it was very unlikely she’d win as early as January or even December.
I won’t belabor that last point. I wrote earlier about why Warren didn’t win. Her campaign suffered from deep strategic problems, and she made all her fatal errors by October 2019.
But I think this all goes beyond the surface reasons above. It wasn’t just about strategy and results. Team Bernie felt genuinely betrayed by Warren. Why? In a few cases, it was misogyny. However, in far more cases, it was this: they thought Warren was on their team!
The Tacit Argument
I think Sanders supporters ran through a certain reasoning process, whether explicitly or implicitly. It goes like this:
1. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are a part of the same broader political movement – the ‘social democratic’ or ‘progressive’ wing of the Democratic Party.
2. Warren betrayed her commitment to that movement with her actions (e.g., backing off of Medicare for All, going on the attack against Sanders, not endorsing Sanders, et al.)
3. Therefore, Warren is a traitor of some kind. Perhaps, one might say, a snake…
I think that captures the argument. If this is your reasoning process – and if the premises are true – it makes sense to direct a snake emoji at Warren. That doesn’t necessarily make it a good decision. Perhaps it’s bad politics, or perhaps it fosters a certain misogynistic element of U.S. culture. But I get why you did it.
Why the Tacit Argument is Wrong
The tacit argument provides a few insights. As I’ve argued in the past, Warren did renege on Medicare for All. Her supporters offered a litany of excuses, but all rang hollow. And so, there’s a lot that’s accurate about the second premise.
Trouble is, the tacit argument has a big problem. And it’s a problem the electoral left must face. The problem? The first premise is false!
I think we can identify some signs of a nascent social democratic movement in U.S. politics. But it’s barely half-baked, and Elizabeth Warren has never been part of it. She has never endorsed broad social democracy at any point in her career. And on the few occasions she endorses a social democratic program, her commitment isn’t strong – e.g., Medicare for All. Warren grounds her politics differently.
There’s nothing dishonest about Warren’s approach. She – and her supporters – occasionally conflated her politics with those of Sanders. But she didn’t do it more than anyone else did. The deeper problems are that the U.S. electoral left lacks a broad program of political education and Sanders supporters think their movement is much larger than it really is.
Some Cases From Iowa
We’ve had a couple of recent primaries in Iowa that played out in a way very similar to the Sanders/Warren rivalry. In 2018 and 2020, we had Sandersista candidates – Cathy Glasson and Kimberly Graham, respectively – facing off in a large field against Warrenista candidates – Nate Boulton and Eddie Mauro, respectively.
Glasson and Graham lost. Badly. (Note: The Warrenista candidates lost by even larger margins.) Neither came within miles of winning. Glasson won about 20% of the vote, and Graham won about 15%. Bernie Sanders himself won about 25% in the 2020 Iowa Caucuses, which was enough to win in a large field. But these numbers represent about the size of the social democratic faction within the Democratic Party when voters have broad options.
Part of the reason the social democratic faction is small is because candidates like Boulton, Mauro, and Warren look similar on paper but couldn’t be more different. They represent relatively white, wealthy, and highly educated progressive voters who want means-tested programs and progressive taxation without fundamental change. They don’t want social democracy, and they certainly aren’t socialists.
For the social democratic left – and Sanders supporters in particular – these are inconvenient facts they must grasp. Maybe they can convince a few Warren supporters, but Warren supporters aren’t really the best targets. To win, the electoral left will have to reach different groups. Otherwise, they’re just Sisyphus pushing the boulder.
