Daily Times

In 2020, all women will be likable. They have to be, since the charge of “unlikable” is now, yes, sexist.

A recent Politico article wondered whether Sen. Liz Warren’s newly announced 2020 bid was going to remind people of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, not least because both women have low likability ratings.

Outrage ensued.

Despite Warren and Clinton being white women of roughly the same age, with a similar manner of speaking, similar personal styles and worldviews, the mere comparison made media and political types angry.

Why? Warren’s defenders cried “sexism!” and “misogyny!” Warren naturally made hay of the article with a fundraising pitch claiming that such “beard-stroking” is always aimed at women. Of course, the author of the Politico piece is Natasha ­Korecki, a woman, so not exactly the best target for Warren’s gripes about how men are holding women back.

Korecki even quoted sources pushing back against the “unlikable” charge. “They say that about women,” one Dem operative told Korecki. “As you go up the political ladder and go up in the polls, you will get that criticism. First it was Hillary Clinton. Then it was Nancy Pelosi. Now it’s Elizabeth Warren. Who knows who is behind her.”

Yes, they say “that” about three very similar women with very similar public personas. They don’t say “that” about ­Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or even Kirsten Gillibrand. Harris and Gillibrand, two possible 2020 contenders, won’t have their “likability” ­become a story, because whatever their flaws, likability isn’t one of them.

With her foot-stomping about how likable she is, Warren merely exposed the modern use of identity to protect certain people from criticism. Fact is, Warren comes off as stern, abrasive and unfriendly.

In 2020, all women will be likable. They have to be, since the charge of “unlikable” is now, yes, sexist

But we can’t point out the obvious, because she’s a woman. She can deflect any and all criticism by playing the sexism card.

Meanwhile, the hundreds of articles about how Ted Cruz has a “punchable” or “slappable” face went mostly unanswered during the 2016 election. Instead, mainstream journalists had a lot of fun pinpointing what exactly is so offensive about his face.

George Washington University neurologist Richard Cytowic wrote a piece for Psychology Today noting there’s a word for Sen. Ted Cruz’s face in German: Back­pfeifengesicht, “meaning a face in need of a good punch.” Cytowic was quoted in USA Today, New York and many other outlets, including, yes, Politico, as journalists good-naturedly ­debated the problem with Cruz’s face.

Had Cruz been a woman, he would have been inoculated from the possibility of anyone being allowed to say he has a face that needs hitting. Relatedly, it’s hard to imagine a Hispanic man like Cruz getting this treatment if he were a Democrat. Such takes would immediately be branded racist.

Similarly, we wouldn’t let a man get away with calling a woman “a large orange elephant,” as Warren has called President Trump. Meanwhile, Trump’s “Pocahontas” taunts at Warren, which take aim at her patently made-up Native American heritage, are widely ­denounced as racist by the good and the just.

Besides, the likability fight may all be for naught. As Breitbart’s John Carney tweeted, likability “is the wrong metric, anyway. The real question for voters is: ‘How much would the candidate like me?’ It’s an empathy test. And it explains every presidential election since 1988.”

Trump isn’t particularly “likable” but Clinton calling his voters “deplorables” may have clinched him the election. “She doesn’t like us” is far more damaging to a candidacy than “we don’t like her.” And Warren similarly dismisses those who voted for Trump as racists. If Warren wants to be seen as different from Clinton, not calling voters names is where she should start.

We all want to be likable, and it probably hurts Clinton, Warren and Cruz when media outlets make it a point to say how unlikable they are. But politics is a game for those with thick skin, in particular when trying to reach the highest office.

We keep hearing about how women are on the ascent and how they are the future. Taking criticism, including about likability, is an important part of being on top. Clinton didn’t win, despite her many complaints about sexism or unfavorable ­media coverage. Elizabeth Warren should take that lesson.

Published in Daily Times, January 8^th 2019