Elizabeth Warren names unfair advantages: "beauty, luck, physical skills, height, knowing someone who can fix the outcome"

Elizabeth Warren knows that the people of Massachusetts have been tricked, cheated, fooled and mistreated. But has all of that predation happened only at the hands of connected banksters and real estate sharks?

At the Daily Caller, Charles C. Johnson digs up a 1996 quote in which the 2012 Democratic Senate candidate from Massachusetts lists other tools that the 1 percent use (uses?) to keep the rest of us down. In a Harvard Law School yearbook profile, Warren channeled her inner Diana Moon Glampers

“What is the one thing you have never done but always hoped to do?” the unnamed interviewer asked.

 “Win a contest that has nothing to do with brains,” Warren responded. “I want to win something because of beauty, luck, physical skills, height, knowing someone who can fix the outcome — something unrelated to smarts.”

Johnson allows that Warren may have been speaking sardonically, fashioning her own public persona by what she claimed to reject. Johnson's theory is that Warren in fact made use of a factor unrelated to smarts by claiming American Indian heritage in order to score hiring diversity points.

Warren, who is challenging Sen. Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) in a high-profile race, has built a popular following by voicing public resentment toward the wealthy. Her view is that contemporary Americans have, without their consent, been shackled to a future of all-consuming debt. Because she does not generally include public debt among her concerns, Warren believes this problem can be solved technocratically, through generous debt forgiveness (As We Forgive Our Debtors is the title of a 1989 book co-authored by Warren); tighter restrictions on markets at all levels; and more aggressive public management of the financial system.

But in that long-ago puff piece Warren highlighted the world view that produced her particularly combative economic theory. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hyperion||

    knowing someone who can fix the outcome

    Nice that she could point out one of the cornerstone platforms of her party.

    But she left out, 'lying about your hertiage to gain unfair advantage'

    Imagine that.

  • BarryD||

    It's also a cornerstone of her party that an upper-middle-class white woman, who has never been the victim of racism, or even the inconvenience of not being affluent, should be given an advantage by claiming to be 1/32 Cherokee.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm reading Bastiat's The Law (thanks to a comment someone made here, in fact), and here's what he has to say to Ms. Warren. . .from the grave:

    “Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”

  • Trespassers W||

    The Law is both timeless and quotable. You could conduct an entire argument with the "Tony" hivemind through judicious selection of quotes. Which is depressing if you think about it.

  • Drake||

    Don't forget the nepotism. That really helps.

  • R C Dean||

    generous debt forgiveness

    I don't suppose she has any clue what that would do to the balance sheets of those holding the defaulted debt?

    Although I suppose its nothing that another bailout can't "solve".

  • John||

    She doesn't have to. It is called argument by implication you twit. Look what she says

    Win a contest that has nothing to do with brains,” Warren responded. “I want to win something because of beauty, luck, physical skills, height, knowing someone who can fix the outcome — something unrelated to smarts.”

    What is the point of saying they are unrelated to smarts if not to point out that they are unfair?

    That is exactly what she is saying and you know it.

  • John||

    Sorry that was in response to Joe. Below. Damned threads.

  • R C Dean||

    /slips brass knuckles back into pocket/

  • ||

    Whoa, I really gotta admit she's gunning harder than anyone for that Handicapper General seat.

  • The Renegade||

    Gonna be tough to challenge Diana Moon Glampers.

  • R C Dean||

    Johnson's theory is that Warren in fact made use of a factor unrelated to smarts by claiming American Indian heritage in order to score hiring diversity points.

    I'm not sure what proof you would need to elevate this from theory to fact, but my personal threshold has been met, seeing as she only made this claim during the window of time, and to the people, when it would give her a career boost.

  • The Derider||

    Where does she describe these as "unfair advantages"?

    Your headline/byline writer is absolutely terrible.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't see her calling these advantages unfair. Maybe we can assume that, but she definitely doesn't say it.

    This could just be an instance of an ugly girl wishing she was pretty.

    When an Executive dreams of being a Rollerballer, he isn't necessarily thinking it's unfair that he isn't one.

  • John||

    Win a contest that has nothing to do with brains,” Warren responded. “I want to win something because of beauty, luck, physical skills, height, knowing someone who can fix the outcome — something unrelated to smarts.”

    What is the point of saying they are unrelated to smarts if not to point out that they are unfair?

    This is not a case of someone asking her, "what would you like to be". She is talking about why people succeed and others don't. Given the context, I can't see how you could conclude anything other than she is saying it is unfair. Her whole argument is that since people succeed due to reasons beyond their control, their success really isn't theirs but society's.

  • The Derider||

    The quote gives absolutely no indication she's talking about "unfairness". The original article makes no claim she is talking about unfairness. This is a complete fabrication by reasons crack editing team.

  • John||

    How can it not? What the hell is she saying then? As I said below, if the implication isn't that it is unfair, it makes Warren look even stranger.

  • ||

    Fuck off joe, you pathetic scumbag. Are you really this pathetic? It seems impossible, but I guess for you, any level of pathetic is possible.

  • The Derider||

  • ||

    Hey joe, do us all a favor and kill yourself. Short people got no reason to live, right? You demonstrate that every single time you post. Seriously, kill yourself. As soon as possible.

  • Bobarian||

    In shorty's defense, she might not of been talking about unfairness, because if she won any contest that had to do with brains, that would be just as unfair as her winning one based on her looks.

    Unless, maybe, it was an eating contest.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Derider,

    The quote gives absolutely no indication she's talking about "unfairness".


    Nothing unfair about not being prettier or taller... except when you don't win pageants.

    Even my 7 year old can spot that one a mile away. Take off your blinds, D.

  • John||

    I take that back. She was asked that. But it is really a strange answer. She is implying that she has never done anything like that. Does she really believe that she has earned everything she has ever had in life and never benefited from anything but the din of her hard work and how smart she is? That is a massive ego. And of course complete bullshit. Everyone gets lucky sometimes.

    And weirder still, she is saying she wishes she could be a connected insider and have someone fix an outcome for her sometimes. I guess we all have our moments. But that is a really strange thing to say in response to a question of "what do you wish you could do?".

  • The Derider||

    She's saying she's not tall, beautiful, or well-connected--and she wishes that she could have been.

  • John||

    She is not saying she is not well connected. She is saying she has never been connected. That is a big difference. The question is "What is the one thing you have never done but always hoped to do?". That means she honestly thinks she has never benefited from a connection, which is complete bullshit, especially coming from a person who lied about being a Native American to get ahead.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    In today's democratic party even wealthy insiders can be losers.

  • The Derider||

    1) There's no proof of that assertion.
    2) Racial identity =/= personal connections.

  • John||

    There is a ton of proof of that assertion. We know she has no native American blood. And we know that Harvard held her out as the first "female native American law professor". Where did Harvard get that idea if not from her? And how did someone with a very mediocre academic record and a degree from Rutgers get hired as a tenured track professor at Harvard if not because she claimed to be a Native American?

    And yes being a minority is better than personal connections in academia. It automatically lowers the bar and allows you get a job at Harvard where no other Rutgers graduate would even be considered.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Does she really believe that she has earned everything she has ever had in life and never benefited from anything but the din of her hard work and how smart she is?

    She, and no one else, did that. She built that. Typical leftist reasoning.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Derider,

    Where does she describe these as "unfair advantages"?

    Here:
    "Win a contest that has nothing to do with brains," Warren responded. "I want to win something because of beauty, luck, physical skills, height, knowing someone who can fix the outcome — something unrelated to smarts."

    That is: I'm not pretty or lucky; I lack physical prowess or height or don't know the right people"

    That totally explains her envy-driven world view.

    Even my 7 year old could've read what she meant.

  • Fluffy||

    You're assuming that content because you know who she is.

    If I told an interviewer I wished I could play in the NBA, that really wouldn't in any way indicate that I was saying it's unfair that I can't play in the NBA.

  • wareagle||

    your argument would work if you told the employer that you would make the NBA if not for a lack of height and/or skill. She says she wants to win something not based on intelligence, something based on factors she sees as coming out of the genetic lottery.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The proper analogy would be you saying:

    I want to do something completely unrelated to being white, play in the NBA, open a taqueria, have some hot animal sex - something that white people don't do.

    And then claiming that there wasn't any racial subtext to the comment.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Fluffy,

    You're assuming that content because you know who she is.


    I'm assuming it because I'm not a fool. Even my 7 year old can spot the envy-laden language in her answer.

  • Fluffy||

    Here's the thing:

    I'm pretty sure she thinks that being intelligent is an unfair advantage, too.

    Her kind of warmed-over Rawlsianism requires that.

    So I don't think she's saying, "I win contests by smarts and that's fair, but here's a list of other things that win contests that I think are unfair."

    I think she's just saying, "It would be totally awesome if I could win a beauty contest." (Insert Forever Alone face.)

  • John||

    She is saying more than that. She is saying she has never won anything that didn't relate to smarts, which is very odd.

  • wareagle||

    so you're saying she wishes she was a Kennedy? Maybe she's simply being asked a stupid question and Reason has tossed out the red meat knowing what the result would be.

  • John||

    The more I think about it, the more I see your point. I think she still is implying that those things are unfair. And she is just wishing she could benefit from them.

  • OldMexican||

    Elizabeth Warren names unfair advantages: "beauty, luck, physical skills, height, knowing someone who can fix the outcome"


    And then shoots Harrison Bergeron dead.

  • John||

    Beauty, luck, falsely claiming to be a minority are all things that help people our.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    What a useless dangerous sack of shit. The fact that Massholes may elect this retard to public office confirms my believe that we are DOOOOOOOOOOMED. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED, I say.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's like she stepped out of "Harrison Bergeron" and into real life.

    Unbelievable.

  • Randian||

    Er, did you read the post?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Er, yes.

  • Randian||

    I guess I was confused why you made a Harrison Bergeron reference when Tim C. made one in the OP.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You didn't ask Old Mexican the same question.

    Racist.

  • Randian||

    I try my best to avoid Old Trollxican.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Mass has been lonely, it's been cheated,
    It's been misunderstood.
    It's been washed up, it's been put down,
    And told it's no good.

  • Pro Libertate||

  • Pro Libertate||

    From the linked report: "Of 1,145 usable survey responses, the researchers found that support for free-market, laissez-faire economics was linked to a rejection of climate change. A tendency to believe other conspiracy theories was also linked to denial of climate change. Finally, climate-change deniers were more likely than others to say that other environmental problems have been solved, indicating a dismissive attitude toward "green" causes."

  • wareagle||

    but saying "deniers" believe in free markets doesn't make them look nearly as loony as saying they're conspiracy nuts.

  • Randian||

    I am not a denier - I just don't care.

    I wonder whose head that would make asplode.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    I, for one, welcome the shores and beaches of Lake Michigan to mid-Michigan.

  • wareagle||

    not caring makes you a particularly bad kind of denier in these folks' eyes. The headline is deliberately deceptive. To them, you are not merely scientific ignorant, you don't care about the planet and there is no greater sin than not caring. Why do you hate Gaia? And her childrenz?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Looks like this isn't a scientific study at all--just some observations about a survey on the Internet. Still, won't be surprised to see it cited all over.

  • Scooby||

    Why is innate "brains" or "smarts" somehow privileged? Is it because that is supposedly her advantage?

  • wareagle||

    interesting that she treats brains as something no one would squander, unlike looks, height, or physical skills. The world is full of tall people and/or natural athletes who never panned out in sports for lack of drive, much as it has numerous seemingly intelligent people who just didn't care to do the work.

  • The Derider||

    No, look at the question she was asked-- "What is the one thing you have never done but always hoped to do?"

    She's always been smart. She's never been tall or pretty.

  • wareagle||

    she also says she never took advantage of a fixed outcome which is not true given her claim of Indian heritage to gain employment. And nothing has ever stopped her from improving the physical skills needed to win something.

    It just sounds like woe-is-me-nerdism. Most nerds are aware of their strengths and limitations, and lean on the former without whining about the latter.

  • Scooby||

    "Why can't success be based only on my innate advantages, instead of many different combinations of many innate advantages, most of which I don't possess?"

  • T||

    She's always been smart

    Unfounded assertion.

  • Scooby||

    Why is innate "brains" or "smarts" somehow privileged? Is it because that is supposedly her advantage?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    “What is the one thing you have never done but always hoped to do?” the unnamed interviewer asked.

    “Win a contest that has nothing to do with brains,”

    Which happened when she was hired at Harvard.

  • John||

    +100

  • R C Dean||

    Apparently she's going for a twofer by running for office.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: VG Zaytsev,

    Which happened when she was hired at Harvard.


    Looks like anybody can be hired at Harvard as long as you can prove you belong to some disenfranchised group and you can fog a mirror.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It sure does.

    So why does that clown college get so much respect?

  • R C Dean||

    I like to think its because of the sterling qualities of its graduates who don't go into "public service."

  • Randian||

    Warren is perfect for the role of Glampers. I never made that connection, but it works well.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Andrea Martin is great in that movie, which I didn't even know about until today.

  • Randian||

    So...they picked Samwise Gamgee to play the smartest, most attractive, most athletic man in the year 2081?

    O.K.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Actually, I take it back. I just watched the whole movie and Martin is only in it for one minute. They turned Diana Moon Glampers into a walk-on and gave chief villain duties to Capt. von Trapp.

  • Brandybuck||

    Actually the story was changed for the movie. Still a good movie, just not true to the Vonnegut plot.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    what that would do to the balance sheets of those holding the defaulted debt

    That's okay. We'll just get the FDIC to roll them all up into one megauberbank and then nationalize it, thereby relieving it of the need to adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

  • Tim||

    Is there no truth in beauty?

  • John C. Randolph||

    The truth is, she's no beauty. A lifetime of sniveling tends to make a person unattractive.

    -jcr

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I keep reading that quote, and it makes less sense each time. Aside from saying, "It's HAAAARD, being the smartest gal in the room!" what the fuck is she trying to say?

    It's just (extremely high-pitched) jibberjabber.

  • Tim||

    It tells me she must hate Scott Brown in her gut. He's tall, attractive, lucky, etc.

  • The Derider||

    This quote is from 1996. Scott Brown was a town selectman in 1996.

    The Daily Caller is just scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  • John||

    What does that have to do with anything? Does she or does she not still think this way? If she does, she much really hate Scott Brown.

  • The Derider||

    Has she said anything else in the past 16 years to corroborate that?

  • John||

    So the standard now is you must corroborate something every few years to prove you still believe it? Now embarrassing statements by politicians have a statute of limitations?

    She said is and clearly believed it then. The burden is now on her or her defenders to show she has changed her mind. This is why people on here hate you so much Joe. You make dishonest arguments like this.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Of 1,145 usable survey responses

    In other words, the ones which support our conclusions.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    There's something seriously wrong with our culture when a detestable cartoon villain like Warren is a serious candidate for national office. Let alone that she's some kind of socialist folk hero. It's really the equivalent of David Duke or some other neo Nazi being a serious contender for a Senate seat and being lionized by one of the major political parties.

  • John||

    When it comes out that you lied about being a minority to get ahead and that doesn't end your career, our society is fucked up.

  • Tim||

    She didn't lie John. Her family had a "tradition" and a "narrative" that didn't hold up in light of the facts.

  • robc||

    My family has the same "narrative", but Ive never used it on a from, because I cant prove it.

  • Killazontherun||

    She lied because she used that unknown quantity to her advantage. Also, has any reporter verified that it is a family legend? I know a guy who made that claim and his brother scoffs it as bullshit. Likely, no different with Warren.

  • R C Dean||

    Her family had a "tradition" and a "narrative" that didn't hold up in light of the facts.

    Did they? Then why haven't any of them actually said so, in support of her?

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2.....ee-claims/

  • ||

    I really don't see her winning, most of the lefties I speak to don't really mind Brown and Warren seems like a lunatic.

  • Scotch Man||

    Elizabeth Warren is the latest example of a great populist candidate who will settle into her roll as a shill for corporations, banks, and big government projects. Just wait and see.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    She already has.

    She represented insurance companies against asbestos lawsuits and she's directly profited from foreclosed homes.

    Not to mention drawing a mid six figure salary from an institution that forces people into debt.

    She's an evil 1percenter - by her own standards.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    There's something seriously wrong with our culture when a detestable cartoon villain like Warren is a serious candidate for national office.

    I know "otherwise" intelligent people who think she is possessed of a godlike intellect, and represents everything noble and good in humanity.

    I think it's because she's a, you know, womyn.

  • John||

    The Deacon who married me thinks just that. That guy has a PHD in engineering, can read biblical Greek and Latin and probably knows as much about theology as anyone I have ever met. And he is fucking in love with Warren. Leftism is truly a sickness.

  • Killazontherun||

    For the progressive, Warren offers a safe way to oppose Wall Street while upholding a political system where bailouts are still viable policy.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    “Win a contest that has nothing to do with brains,” Warren responded. “I want to win something because of beauty, luck, physical skills, height, knowing someone who can fix the outcome — something unrelated to smarts.”

    Sorry, Tim, you misquoted her. What she really said was

    “Win a contest that has nothing to do with brains,” Warren responded. “I want to win something because of beauty, luck, physical skills, height, knowing someone who can fix the outcome — something unrelated to smarts or being a Native American.”

    I was also going to say that it's Tim's dream to win a contest with something related to smarts, but I understand it's considered bad form to make fun of Reasonettes.

  • Randian||

    I can't tell if you really think that is what the quote says or if you are making an extremely unfunny joke.

    So, instead, here's another one of your reviews:

    I thought your last book was off-the-wall, but this one is pathetic. The Blade says clean up your act! This is Holmes, not steamy romance novels! You deserve a zero, but one star is as low as they go. To everyone else, skip this one.
  • Ken Shultz||

    I swear to God, Elizabeth Warren is like the progressive version of Nancy Grace.

    Not that Nancy Grace doesn't look plenty progressive, too. It's just that Nancy Grace tends to focus on crime, etc., where Elizabeth Warren focuses on supposed economic "injustice".

    The idea of either one of them gaining political power in addition to their influence with the public is frightening.

    If Liz Warren had a talk show, that's exactly what it would be like, too. Liz Warren talks about people who make something of themselves in this world like Nancy Grace used to talk about Casey Anthony.

  • ||

    Sounds like the equivalent of the old job interview exchange:

    Employer: "Whats your biggest weakness"
    Potential Employee: "I work too hard!"

    Lizzie is saying "I'm just too dang smart! Just once I wish I wasn't so goshdarned smart. I'm just, like, the smartest smart thing that ever smarted, and it kind of sucks. By the way - I'm smart."

  • Killazontherun||

    Lizzie, bless your heart, honey, but you're not bright enough to hold your end of the conversation over the cracker barrel at the local feed and seed store.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Check out the big brain on Lizzie! You're a smart motherfucker.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    you're not bright enough to hold your end of the conversation over the cracker barrel at the local feed and seed store.

    "But- I have credentials! From HAAAHVUD!"

  • R C Dean||

    Actually, she doesn't. She has a job there, which isn't the same thing as a degree.

  • Killazontherun||

    So, that's where she got that Manichean viewpoint from.

  • The Hammer||

    "knowing someone who can fix the outcome..."

    Like, maybe, a husband who is already a tenured professor at a prestigious school helping his wife get a job at said school?

  • billy idol||

    I am agree with R.C. Dean.

    http://www.ecopharmarx.net/generic-latisse/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement