WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.859 Okay, let's unpack this. Welcome back to another 00:00:02.859 --> 00:00:05.440 custom -tailored deep dive built specifically 00:00:05.440 --> 00:00:07.700 for you. Thanks for having me. We really have 00:00:07.700 --> 00:00:11.000 a fascinating one to get into today. We do. Today 00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:13.400 we are looking at something that perfectly illustrates 00:00:13.400 --> 00:00:17.640 just how unpredictable modern communication can 00:00:17.640 --> 00:00:21.000 be. Right. Our mission for this deep dive is 00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:25.000 to explore how a few off -the -cuff, highly procedural, 00:00:25.300 --> 00:00:28.359 word -spoken, in a very formal setting, managed 00:00:28.359 --> 00:00:31.120 to escape that room and take on a massive life 00:00:31.120 --> 00:00:33.359 of their own. It's honestly wild how fast it 00:00:33.359 --> 00:00:35.479 happened. It really is. We are going to be diving 00:00:35.479 --> 00:00:38.340 into a comprehensive Wikipedia article that details 00:00:38.340 --> 00:00:41.100 the origin, the viral explosion, and the intense 00:00:41.100 --> 00:00:43.159 political debate surrounding the phrase, nevertheless, 00:00:43.539 --> 00:00:45.950 she persisted. We're going to track how a dry 00:00:45.950 --> 00:00:49.130 administrative Senate ruling morphed into a global 00:00:49.130 --> 00:00:51.710 meme and a rallying cry almost overnight. And 00:00:51.710 --> 00:00:53.670 before we jump into the timeline of how this 00:00:53.670 --> 00:00:56.009 all unfolded, it is worth setting the stage for 00:00:56.009 --> 00:00:57.810 you regarding how we are going to approach this 00:00:57.810 --> 00:01:01.060 material. because this event became such a massive 00:01:01.060 --> 00:01:04.540 politically charged cultural touchstone our source 00:01:04.540 --> 00:01:07.680 material covers some incredibly passionate reactions 00:01:07.680 --> 00:01:10.640 from both left -wing and right -wing perspectives 00:01:10.640 --> 00:01:13.280 yeah people felt very strongly about this exactly 00:01:13.280 --> 00:01:15.939 so just to be clear right from the start our 00:01:15.939 --> 00:01:18.659 goal today isn't to take sides or endorse any 00:01:18.659 --> 00:01:21.680 of these specific viewpoints we are simply here 00:01:21.680 --> 00:01:23.739 to act as your tour guides we'll be exploring 00:01:23.739 --> 00:01:26.670 the history the timeline, and the arguments exactly 00:01:26.670 --> 00:01:29.010 as they're documented in our original source 00:01:29.010 --> 00:01:32.030 material. We are just here to map out the anatomy 00:01:32.030 --> 00:01:35.569 of a cultural phenomenon for you. To really understand 00:01:35.569 --> 00:01:37.909 how this happened, we need to transport you back 00:01:37.909 --> 00:01:41.480 to February 7, 2017. Picture the United States 00:01:41.480 --> 00:01:44.120 Senate chamber. Right. The senators are in the 00:01:44.120 --> 00:01:46.079 middle of debating the confirmation of Senator 00:01:46.079 --> 00:01:48.560 Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who had been nominated 00:01:48.560 --> 00:01:50.939 to become the new U .S. Attorney General. And 00:01:50.939 --> 00:01:53.000 Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has 00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:56.140 the floor. She is speaking against his confirmation, 00:01:56.500 --> 00:01:59.840 specifically focusing her criticism on his historical 00:01:59.840 --> 00:02:02.519 record regarding civil rights. She decides to 00:02:02.519 --> 00:02:05.239 build her case by bringing historical documents 00:02:05.239 --> 00:02:07.480 into the congressional record. Right. She doesn't 00:02:07.480 --> 00:02:09.560 just give her own opinion. She starts by quoting. 00:02:09.610 --> 00:02:11.210 including a statement made all the way back in 00:02:11.210 --> 00:02:15.050 1986 by former Senator Ted Kennedy. OK, what 00:02:15.050 --> 00:02:17.889 did Kennedy say? At that time, Kennedy was speaking 00:02:17.889 --> 00:02:19.949 about a period when Sessions had been nominated 00:02:19.949 --> 00:02:22.909 to be a federal court judge. Kennedy's statement 00:02:22.909 --> 00:02:26.409 was quite sharp. Yeah. He stated he is, I believe, 00:02:26.650 --> 00:02:29.650 a disgrace to the Justice Department and he should 00:02:29.650 --> 00:02:31.990 withdraw his nomination and resign his position. 00:02:32.210 --> 00:02:35.150 Wow. And Senator Warren reads this out loud to 00:02:35.150 --> 00:02:37.590 the chamber. Yes, and states that she intends 00:02:37.590 --> 00:02:40.189 to stand with Senator Kennedy and cast her vote 00:02:40.189 --> 00:02:43.110 against the nomination. Quoting a former senator 00:02:43.110 --> 00:02:45.889 is one thing, but she doesn't stop there. This 00:02:45.889 --> 00:02:47.530 is where the tension in the room really starts 00:02:47.530 --> 00:02:50.310 to build. It does. Senator Warren introduces 00:02:50.310 --> 00:02:53.849 a second document, a letter written by Coretta 00:02:53.849 --> 00:02:56.250 Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr. 00:02:56.650 --> 00:02:59.229 Right. And this letter was also from 1986, originally 00:02:59.229 --> 00:03:01.750 written to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Exactly. 00:03:02.090 --> 00:03:05.229 So Warren begins reading it to the chamber, specifically 00:03:05.229 --> 00:03:07.770 highlighting a section where King says that civil 00:03:07.770 --> 00:03:09.930 rights leaders fought hard for access to the 00:03:09.930 --> 00:03:13.250 ballot box. What was the specific line that caused 00:03:13.250 --> 00:03:15.939 the disruption? The line that triggered the procedural 00:03:15.939 --> 00:03:18.139 intervention was where King's letter stated, 00:03:18.379 --> 00:03:21.580 and I'm quoting here, Mr. Sessions has used the 00:03:21.580 --> 00:03:24.020 awesome power of his office to chill the free 00:03:24.020 --> 00:03:27.080 exercise of the vote by black citizens in the 00:03:27.080 --> 00:03:29.580 district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge. 00:03:29.979 --> 00:03:32.199 And while Senator Warren is reading this, the 00:03:32.199 --> 00:03:34.840 presiding Senate chair, Steve Daines of Montana, 00:03:35.159 --> 00:03:37.479 completely interrupts her. He brings up Senate 00:03:37.479 --> 00:03:40.340 Rule 19. Which is an incredibly obscure piece 00:03:40.340 --> 00:03:43.210 of parliamentary procedure. I mean, our sources 00:03:43.210 --> 00:03:45.069 note it was originally prompted by an actual 00:03:45.069 --> 00:03:47.210 physical fistfight on the Senate floor. Right. 00:03:47.289 --> 00:03:49.169 That is one of the more colorful footnotes in 00:03:49.169 --> 00:03:52.009 Senate history. Yeah. In the early 1900s, two 00:03:52.009 --> 00:03:54.330 senators got into an actual physical brawl. Just 00:03:54.330 --> 00:03:56.770 wild to picture that. Right. So to prevent the 00:03:56.770 --> 00:03:58.569 chamber from devolving into a fighting ring again, 00:03:58.750 --> 00:04:01.030 the Senate instituted Rule 19. What does the 00:04:01.030 --> 00:04:03.629 rule actually say? The rule strictly prohibits 00:04:03.629 --> 00:04:06.719 any senator from ascribing, quote, to another 00:04:06.719 --> 00:04:10.159 senator or to other senators any conduct or motive 00:04:10.159 --> 00:04:13.259 unworthy or unbecoming a senator. Which is basically 00:04:13.259 --> 00:04:16.519 a fancy parliamentary way of saying keep it civil 00:04:16.519 --> 00:04:19.180 and do not attack your colleague's personal character. 00:04:19.379 --> 00:04:22.519 Exactly. But back in 2017, Senator Warren is 00:04:22.519 --> 00:04:25.100 understandably a bit taken aback by this interruption. 00:04:25.300 --> 00:04:27.959 She stops and clarifies to the chair that she 00:04:27.959 --> 00:04:30.279 hadn't called Senator Sessions a disgrace herself. 00:04:30.519 --> 00:04:32.639 Right. She was simply quoting Ted Kennedy. Yes. 00:04:32.959 --> 00:04:36.240 She then asks Chair Daines if reading a historical 00:04:36.240 --> 00:04:39.399 letter from Coretta Scott King, a letter that 00:04:39.399 --> 00:04:41.459 was already admitted into the official Senate 00:04:41.459 --> 00:04:44.480 record decades ago, was somehow a violation of 00:04:44.480 --> 00:04:46.579 the rules. How does Daines respond to that? He 00:04:46.579 --> 00:04:49.199 responds by simply quoting rule the nights at 00:04:49.199 --> 00:04:51.959 her. again. Wow. So Warren asks if she can continue 00:04:51.959 --> 00:04:53.860 reading the letter, and surprisingly at this 00:04:53.860 --> 00:04:56.019 point, Daines actually allows her to proceed. 00:04:56.300 --> 00:04:58.160 But the permission does not last long at all. 00:04:58.259 --> 00:05:00.259 No, it doesn't. As she picks up the letter and 00:05:00.259 --> 00:05:02.579 starts reading again, Senate Majority Leader 00:05:02.579 --> 00:05:05.519 Mitch McConnell of Kentucky steps in and interrupts. 00:05:05.899 --> 00:05:08.600 He formally objects. McConnell states to the 00:05:08.600 --> 00:05:11.220 chamber, the senator has impugned the motives 00:05:11.220 --> 00:05:13.779 and conduct of our colleague from Alabama as 00:05:13.779 --> 00:05:17.019 warned by the chair. So he was specifically objecting 00:05:17.019 --> 00:05:19.740 to that line from King's letter about Sessions 00:05:19.740 --> 00:05:23.540 using the power of his office to. Chill the exercise 00:05:23.540 --> 00:05:26.620 of the vote. Precisely. And Warren seems genuinely 00:05:26.620 --> 00:05:28.620 stunned by this. She says on the floor that she 00:05:28.620 --> 00:05:30.620 is surprised that the words of Coretta Scott 00:05:30.620 --> 00:05:33.420 King are not suitable for debate in the United 00:05:33.420 --> 00:05:35.839 States Senate. She asks to keep going. She does. 00:05:36.120 --> 00:05:38.920 But Daines asks if there is an objection. McConnell 00:05:38.920 --> 00:05:41.439 formally objects and Daines calls for a vote. 00:05:41.759 --> 00:05:44.680 He bluntly tells Warren the senator will take 00:05:44.680 --> 00:05:47.879 her seat. Just like that. She is prevented from 00:05:47.879 --> 00:05:50.240 continuing her speech. The Senate then holds 00:05:50.240 --> 00:05:52.819 a vote on McConnell's objection. The result falls 00:05:52.819 --> 00:05:56.220 strictly along party lines, 49 to 43, to sustain 00:05:56.220 --> 00:05:58.180 the objection. And the single vote officially 00:05:58.180 --> 00:06:00.319 silenced Senator Warren for the entire remainder 00:06:00.319 --> 00:06:02.860 of the session's confirmation hearings. Wait, 00:06:02.939 --> 00:06:05.480 strictly along party lines, not a single defection 00:06:05.480 --> 00:06:07.300 from either side. Not a single one. And what 00:06:07.300 --> 00:06:09.959 adds a deeply ironic layer to this procedural 00:06:09.959 --> 00:06:12.199 move is what happened over the next 30 hours 00:06:12.199 --> 00:06:15.189 of the hearings. Oh, this part is amazing. Following 00:06:15.189 --> 00:06:17.430 Warren's official silencing, other Democrats 00:06:17.430 --> 00:06:20.470 stepped up to the podium. Senator Jeff Merkley 00:06:20.470 --> 00:06:23.589 of Oregon actually got up and read the exact 00:06:23.589 --> 00:06:26.550 same letter from Coretta Scott King. And he did 00:06:26.550 --> 00:06:28.709 it without any objection from the floor. None 00:06:28.709 --> 00:06:31.370 at all. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey also 00:06:31.370 --> 00:06:33.490 made a point to remind the chamber that this 00:06:33.490 --> 00:06:35.250 letter had already been part of the congressional 00:06:35.250 --> 00:06:39.310 record since 1986. It is a striking visual. You 00:06:39.310 --> 00:06:42.069 have two male senators reading the same document 00:06:42.069 --> 00:06:44.750 that. a female senator was just silenced for 00:06:44.750 --> 00:06:47.569 reading. It really is. But the real climax of 00:06:47.569 --> 00:06:49.750 this origin story, the moment that essentially 00:06:49.750 --> 00:06:52.569 launched a thousand memes, happened right after 00:06:52.569 --> 00:06:55.589 that 49 to 43 vote. Senator McConnell took to 00:06:55.589 --> 00:06:58.029 the Senate floor to explain the ruling to silence 00:06:58.029 --> 00:07:00.350 Warren. And you actually have to hear the exact 00:07:00.350 --> 00:07:02.889 quote McConnell gave because the specific words 00:07:02.889 --> 00:07:05.329 he chose changed everything. Right. According 00:07:05.329 --> 00:07:07.709 to the record, he said, Senator Warren was giving 00:07:07.709 --> 00:07:09.959 a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate 00:07:09.959 --> 00:07:12.939 the rule. She was warned. She's given an explanation. 00:07:13.540 --> 00:07:16.560 Nevertheless, she persisted. There it is. What's 00:07:16.560 --> 00:07:19.160 fascinating here is how a completely dry administrative 00:07:19.160 --> 00:07:23.800 explanation of parliamentary procedure inadvertently 00:07:23.800 --> 00:07:26.519 created one of the most memorable, perfectly 00:07:26.519 --> 00:07:29.220 structured rhetorical hooks of the modern era. 00:07:29.420 --> 00:07:31.480 Yeah, he was just stating facts for the record. 00:07:31.660 --> 00:07:33.980 He was simply trying to state a sequence of procedural 00:07:33.980 --> 00:07:36.939 events for the official record. Warning, explanation, 00:07:37.319 --> 00:07:40.379 persistence. But by framing it with the phrase, 00:07:40.500 --> 00:07:43.680 nevertheless, she persisted, he accidentally 00:07:43.680 --> 00:07:46.720 condensed an entire narrative of rebellion and 00:07:46.720 --> 00:07:49.399 determination into three little words. The moment 00:07:49.399 --> 00:07:51.399 he uttered that phrase, the dynamic completely 00:07:51.399 --> 00:07:54.040 shifted. I mean, if the goal of enforcing rule 00:07:54.040 --> 00:07:56.500 line X was to minimize Warren's message, our 00:07:56.500 --> 00:07:59.279 source material notes that it backfired in spectacular 00:07:59.279 --> 00:08:01.720 fashion. Oh, absolutely spectacular. The Internet 00:08:01.720 --> 00:08:03.560 grabbed hold of those three words instantly. 00:08:03.980 --> 00:08:06.439 Within hours, it was a massive digital rallying 00:08:06.439 --> 00:08:09.300 cry. Hashtags like hashtag Shep persisted and 00:08:09.300 --> 00:08:11.560 hashtag let Liz speak were trending worldwide. 00:08:11.899 --> 00:08:13.980 It is incredibly important to contextualize this 00:08:13.980 --> 00:08:16.300 reaction with the timing of the event. This happened 00:08:16.300 --> 00:08:19.629 in early February 2017. National Public Radio's 00:08:19.629 --> 00:08:22.310 Scott Detrow pointed out that nevertheless, she 00:08:22.310 --> 00:08:25.290 persisted, quickly functioned as the new nasty 00:08:25.290 --> 00:08:27.769 woman. You might remember that nasty woman was 00:08:27.769 --> 00:08:29.629 a phrase Donald Trump used to describe Hillary 00:08:29.629 --> 00:08:32.610 Clinton during a 2016 presidential debate. Exactly. 00:08:32.870 --> 00:08:35.590 And feminist groups immediately reclaimed that 00:08:35.590 --> 00:08:38.740 phrase as a badge of honor. This new phrase from 00:08:38.740 --> 00:08:41.639 McConnell functioned in the exact same way, but 00:08:41.639 --> 00:08:44.460 it had a broader, almost poetic and historical 00:08:44.460 --> 00:08:46.840 ring to it. The meme -ification was instantaneous. 00:08:47.220 --> 00:08:49.860 People didn't just share the quote. They started 00:08:49.860 --> 00:08:53.220 pairing those three words with images of historical 00:08:53.220 --> 00:08:55.820 women who had famously refused to be silenced. 00:08:55.860 --> 00:08:57.940 The Internet was suddenly flooded with it. The 00:08:57.940 --> 00:09:00.240 phrase was stamped over photos of Harriet Tubman, 00:09:00.299 --> 00:09:02.740 Malala Yousafzai, Beyonce, Gabby Giffords, Michelle 00:09:02.740 --> 00:09:04.940 Obama. Hillary Clinton herself tweeted that, 00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:07.340 quote, adding her own capstone to the sentiment. 00:09:07.379 --> 00:09:10.559 She wrote, so must we all. It leaped from digital 00:09:10.559 --> 00:09:13.340 spaces into physical reality incredibly fast, 00:09:13.460 --> 00:09:16.240 too. It was immediately visible on protest signs 00:09:16.240 --> 00:09:19.139 at the Women's March, printed on tote bags, hoodies, 00:09:19.279 --> 00:09:21.419 coffee mugs. Major corporate brands even got 00:09:21.419 --> 00:09:24.220 involved. Reebok actually produced a line of 00:09:24.220 --> 00:09:27.279 T -shirts with, nevertheless, she persisted, 00:09:27.299 --> 00:09:30.500 printed across the chest. And they donated the 00:09:30.500 --> 00:09:32.919 proceeds from those shirts to the Women's March. 00:09:33.470 --> 00:09:35.710 But the detail from the sources that truly shows 00:09:35.710 --> 00:09:38.750 how deep this went is the permanence of the reaction. 00:09:39.669 --> 00:09:42.309 It wasn't just temporary merchandise. Women started 00:09:42.309 --> 00:09:44.549 getting the phrase permanently tattooed on their 00:09:44.549 --> 00:09:47.029 bodies. That part is incredible. Salon reported 00:09:47.029 --> 00:09:49.789 that in Minneapolis alone, more than 100 women 00:09:49.789 --> 00:09:53.169 went out and got in both. Nevertheless, she persisted. 00:09:53.490 --> 00:09:56.570 Tattoos. That is a level of visceral cultural 00:09:56.570 --> 00:09:59.610 penetration you simply do not see every day from 00:09:59.610 --> 00:10:02.029 a Senate floor debate over parliamentary rules. 00:10:02.250 --> 00:10:04.110 No, you really don't. If we connect this to the 00:10:04.110 --> 00:10:06.250 bigger picture, we have to ask why it resonated 00:10:06.250 --> 00:10:09.230 so deeply. Why did this specific procedural moment 00:10:09.230 --> 00:10:11.950 trigger a wave of tattoos and global hashtags? 00:10:12.350 --> 00:10:14.269 Journalists at the time dug into this phenomenon. 00:10:14.350 --> 00:10:16.830 They did. Daniel Victor of The New York Times 00:10:16.830 --> 00:10:19.169 and Megan Garber of The Atlantic both highlighted 00:10:19.169 --> 00:10:22.649 a broader, unifying theme. The visual of a man 00:10:22.649 --> 00:10:25.480 in power using a formal. rule to silence a woman 00:10:25.480 --> 00:10:28.340 struck a deeply familiar chord. Garber wrote 00:10:28.340 --> 00:10:30.379 that American culture frequently tells women 00:10:30.379 --> 00:10:33.440 to be quiet, to smile a little more, or talk 00:10:33.440 --> 00:10:35.700 a little less. That gets right to the psychology 00:10:35.700 --> 00:10:38.519 of it. Garber points out that when Warren was 00:10:38.519 --> 00:10:41.220 told to take her seat, many women, completely 00:10:41.220 --> 00:10:43.879 regardless of their specific political affiliations 00:10:43.879 --> 00:10:46.639 or where they lived, felt that silencing on a 00:10:46.639 --> 00:10:48.840 personal level. Right, because it's a familiar 00:10:48.840 --> 00:10:51.840 feeling. Exactly. Because almost every woman 00:10:51.840 --> 00:10:55.039 has heard some version of, you were warned, you 00:10:55.039 --> 00:10:58.820 were given an explanation, now sit down. Whether 00:10:58.820 --> 00:11:00.659 it's in a boardroom meeting, in a university 00:11:00.659 --> 00:11:03.519 classroom, or just in their daily lives. Heidi 00:11:03.519 --> 00:11:05.820 Stevens of the Chicago Tribune called it three 00:11:05.820 --> 00:11:08.000 little words that women can draw on for decades 00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:10.179 to come whenever they find themselves being talked 00:11:10.179 --> 00:11:13.179 over or fighting to be heard. However, we have 00:11:13.179 --> 00:11:15.490 to transition here. Because whenever a political 00:11:15.490 --> 00:11:17.850 moment becomes highly commodified that fast, 00:11:18.070 --> 00:11:20.409 there's inevitably going to be intense scrutiny 00:11:20.409 --> 00:11:22.649 and pushback. We're going to look at the other 00:11:22.649 --> 00:11:25.370 side of the coin now. Right. For many political 00:11:25.370 --> 00:11:27.850 observers, the immediate merchandising and the 00:11:27.850 --> 00:11:31.090 grand historical comparisons felt entirely out 00:11:31.090 --> 00:11:33.269 of proportion to what had actually occurred in 00:11:33.269 --> 00:11:35.710 the Senate chamber. When a phrase blows up into 00:11:35.710 --> 00:11:38.250 a global hashtag and gets printed on Reebok t 00:11:38.250 --> 00:11:40.769 -shirts within days, you are guaranteed to see 00:11:40.769 --> 00:11:44.080 a whiplash effect. How did critics respond to 00:11:44.080 --> 00:11:47.259 this massive wave of enthusiasm? The pushback 00:11:47.259 --> 00:11:49.799 was fierce and it primarily fell into a few distinct 00:11:49.799 --> 00:11:51.840 critiques. Let's look at the marketing angle 00:11:51.840 --> 00:11:54.159 first. Okay. Charlotte Allen, writing for the 00:11:54.159 --> 00:11:57.419 Weekly Standard, viewed the entire hashtag explosion 00:11:57.419 --> 00:12:00.919 with a heavy dose of skepticism. She suggested 00:12:00.919 --> 00:12:03.279 this was essentially a highly calculated marketing 00:12:03.279 --> 00:12:05.679 tactic designed to position Elizabeth Warren 00:12:05.679 --> 00:12:07.980 for a potential presidential run. Interesting. 00:12:08.360 --> 00:12:10.480 Allen pointed out how quickly entrepreneurs were 00:12:10.480 --> 00:12:12.740 grinding out T -shirts in every size and color, 00:12:12.919 --> 00:12:15.360 arguing it was just red meat for Warren's political 00:12:15.360 --> 00:12:18.740 base. In Allen's view, Warren supporters promptly 00:12:18.740 --> 00:12:21.720 cried sexism and began comparing her to historical 00:12:21.720 --> 00:12:24.980 titans like Marie Curie over a routine procedural 00:12:24.980 --> 00:12:27.820 ruling. So basically calling it a cynical merchandise 00:12:27.820 --> 00:12:30.519 grab masquerading as a civil rights moment. Did 00:12:30.519 --> 00:12:32.679 other critics echo that sentiment? They did. 00:12:33.710 --> 00:12:36.490 David Harsanyi over at the National Review offered 00:12:36.490 --> 00:12:40.049 a critique centered on identity politics. Interestingly, 00:12:40.289 --> 00:12:43.169 he actually agreed that Senate Rule 90X was an 00:12:43.169 --> 00:12:45.629 arbitrary speech -inhibiting rule that probably 00:12:45.629 --> 00:12:47.830 shouldn't be utilized. Oh, he agreed on the rule 00:12:47.830 --> 00:12:51.039 itself? Yeah. But he argued that if it weren't 00:12:51.039 --> 00:12:53.940 for this procedural kerfuffle, no persuadable 00:12:53.940 --> 00:12:56.059 voter would have even paid attention to Warren's 00:12:56.059 --> 00:12:58.299 speech in the first place. Right. He saw the 00:12:58.299 --> 00:13:01.240 resulting fuss, the hashtags and the outcries 00:13:01.240 --> 00:13:03.879 as evidence of the Democratic Party relying heavily 00:13:03.879 --> 00:13:06.340 on failed identity politics rather than engaging 00:13:06.340 --> 00:13:08.799 in substantive policy debate. What about the 00:13:08.799 --> 00:13:10.419 historical comparisons? You mentioned people 00:13:10.419 --> 00:13:13.100 pairing the quote with Harriet Tubman and Malala 00:13:13.100 --> 00:13:15.740 Yousafzai. That had to ruffle some feathers among 00:13:15.740 --> 00:13:18.889 historians and critics. That brings us to perhaps 00:13:18.889 --> 00:13:20.789 the most blistering critique outlined in our 00:13:20.789 --> 00:13:22.529 sources, which came from Alexandra DeSantis, 00:13:22.669 --> 00:13:24.610 also writing in the National Review. What was 00:13:24.610 --> 00:13:27.090 her take? She took direct aim at that mimification 00:13:27.090 --> 00:13:30.269 practice. She argued that these historical comparisons 00:13:30.269 --> 00:13:33.149 were not just inappropriate, but deeply offensive 00:13:33.149 --> 00:13:36.250 to the actual struggles of those historical women. 00:13:36.529 --> 00:13:38.850 Walk us through her specific argument. I mean, 00:13:38.850 --> 00:13:41.690 how did she contrast those experiences? DeSantis 00:13:41.690 --> 00:13:43.909 pointed out that Harriet Tubman and Sojourner 00:13:43.909 --> 00:13:46.909 Truth were literally enslaved. They were beaten 00:13:46.909 --> 00:13:50.370 and they risked their lives for freedom. Susan 00:13:50.370 --> 00:13:53.169 B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were systematically 00:13:53.169 --> 00:13:56.610 denied the fundamental right to vote. Rosa Parks 00:13:56.610 --> 00:14:00.070 was thrown into a jail cell. Malala Yousafzai 00:14:00.070 --> 00:14:03.450 was shot in the brain by the Taliban simply for 00:14:03.450 --> 00:14:06.740 wanting an education. So DeSantis contrasted 00:14:06.740 --> 00:14:09.200 all of that brutal, life -threatening sacrifice 00:14:09.200 --> 00:14:12.299 with what actually happened to Elizabeth Warren. 00:14:12.440 --> 00:14:14.740 Exactly. Which was that she stood in a comfortable, 00:14:14.899 --> 00:14:17.320 climate -controlled U .S. Senate chamber, made 00:14:17.320 --> 00:14:19.779 a speech about a political nominee, and was told 00:14:19.779 --> 00:14:22.399 to sit down. Exactly the point DeSantis was making. 00:14:22.519 --> 00:14:25.200 She argued that claiming Warren had done anything 00:14:25.200 --> 00:14:27.840 even remotely comparable to those women was... 00:14:28.299 --> 00:14:30.639 Ludicrous at best. Wow, that's a strong phrase. 00:14:30.840 --> 00:14:33.080 In her view, trying to equate a parliamentary 00:14:33.080 --> 00:14:35.940 procedure with surviving chattel slavery or an 00:14:35.940 --> 00:14:39.159 assassination attempt trivializes the true courage 00:14:39.159 --> 00:14:41.519 of those historical figures. She felt it made 00:14:41.519 --> 00:14:44.220 a mockery of their actual bleeding contributions 00:14:44.220 --> 00:14:47.860 to democracy. That is a remarkably stark contrast 00:14:47.860 --> 00:14:50.779 to draw. It really highlights how differently 00:14:50.779 --> 00:14:55.269 two people can view the exact same event. Did 00:14:55.269 --> 00:14:57.429 any of the criticism focus on the state of the 00:14:57.429 --> 00:15:00.409 Senate itself? Yes. There was also a purely political 00:15:00.409 --> 00:15:02.490 angle focused on the health of the institution. 00:15:03.070 --> 00:15:05.330 Gretel Kaufman of the Christian Science Monitor 00:15:05.330 --> 00:15:08.029 highlighted concerns that the entire incident 00:15:08.029 --> 00:15:10.549 was just a glaring symptom of a broken legislative 00:15:10.549 --> 00:15:13.950 system. How so? She quoted Republican Senator 00:15:13.950 --> 00:15:16.470 Orrin Hatch of Utah, who essentially said the 00:15:16.470 --> 00:15:18.750 whole spectacle was a prime example of extreme 00:15:18.750 --> 00:15:20.990 partisanship getting in the way of productive 00:15:20.990 --> 00:15:24.210 debate. He suggested that both sides needed to 00:15:24.210 --> 00:15:26.049 start thinking about how to bring people together 00:15:26.049 --> 00:15:28.850 instead of constantly finding new viral ways 00:15:28.850 --> 00:15:31.769 to divide them. When you synthesize all of this 00:15:31.769 --> 00:15:34.309 information, you see how a single three -word 00:15:34.309 --> 00:15:36.970 phrase became a perfect Rorschach test for the 00:15:36.970 --> 00:15:39.029 American political divide. That is the perfect 00:15:39.029 --> 00:15:41.570 way to describe it. If you viewed the world through 00:15:41.570 --> 00:15:44.850 the lens of systemic gender inequality. Nevertheless, 00:15:45.090 --> 00:15:48.529 she persisted was a profound, empowering recognition 00:15:48.529 --> 00:15:51.830 of the universal female experience of being silenced. 00:15:51.970 --> 00:15:54.389 But if you viewed the world through the lens 00:15:54.389 --> 00:15:57.509 of political skepticism, it looked like an exercise 00:15:57.509 --> 00:16:01.070 in partisan grandstanding that cynically hijacked 00:16:01.070 --> 00:16:04.389 the legacy of actual civil rights martyrs just 00:16:04.389 --> 00:16:07.529 to sell T -shirts and win political points. Here's 00:16:07.529 --> 00:16:09.549 where it gets really interesting, though. The 00:16:09.549 --> 00:16:11.929 phrase didn't just remain a political Rorschach 00:16:11.929 --> 00:16:16.259 test debated in magazines. It entirely saturated 00:16:16.259 --> 00:16:19.539 pop culture. Completely. It detached itself from 00:16:19.539 --> 00:16:22.120 Elizabeth Warren, Mitch McConnell, and Senate 00:16:22.120 --> 00:16:25.240 Rule 9x entirely. It evolved into a standalone 00:16:25.240 --> 00:16:27.740 cultural property. It really did permeate almost 00:16:27.740 --> 00:16:30.379 every artistic medium you can think of. Let's 00:16:30.379 --> 00:16:31.779 run through some of the examples because they 00:16:31.779 --> 00:16:34.539 are just wild. Sure. For example, in the publishing 00:16:34.539 --> 00:16:37.399 world, Chelsea Clinton announced in March 2017 00:16:37.399 --> 00:16:39.580 that she had written a children's picture book 00:16:39.580 --> 00:16:43.049 about 13 inspirational American women. She titled 00:16:43.049 --> 00:16:45.570 it She Persisted. And that book didn't just sit 00:16:45.570 --> 00:16:48.070 on shelves. It was actually adapted into a children's 00:16:48.070 --> 00:16:50.570 musical that premiered at the Bay Area Children's 00:16:50.570 --> 00:16:52.789 Theater and eventually made its way to an off 00:16:52.789 --> 00:16:54.450 -Broadway production. That's right. Just think 00:16:54.450 --> 00:16:57.110 about the trajectory of that for a second. A 00:16:57.110 --> 00:16:59.750 warning about parliamentary procedure in a legislative 00:16:59.750 --> 00:17:03.570 chamber turns into a song and dance routine for 00:17:03.570 --> 00:17:06.069 children in New York. It's hard to believe. And 00:17:06.069 --> 00:17:08.170 it didn't stop there. It showed up in mainstream 00:17:08.170 --> 00:17:11.680 television scripts, too. In the Marvel show Agents 00:17:11.680 --> 00:17:15.180 of SHIELD, there is a dark alter ego character 00:17:15.180 --> 00:17:18.140 named The Doctor. Oh, I remember this. Yeah, 00:17:18.180 --> 00:17:20.960 in one episode, he's reporting on a female prisoner 00:17:20.960 --> 00:17:24.039 who is being brutally tortured but refused to 00:17:24.039 --> 00:17:27.099 break. He describes her by saying she was beaten 00:17:27.099 --> 00:17:29.640 within an inch of her life. Nevertheless, she 00:17:29.640 --> 00:17:32.549 persisted. Incredible. The writers of Supergirl 00:17:32.549 --> 00:17:34.849 also adopted it. They used Nevertheless, She 00:17:34.849 --> 00:17:37.390 Persisted as the actual title for their season 00:17:37.390 --> 00:17:39.569 two finale episode. It reached into the fine 00:17:39.569 --> 00:17:42.670 arts as well. It did. In 2019, the English National 00:17:42.670 --> 00:17:45.230 Ballet in London premiered a brand new program 00:17:45.230 --> 00:17:47.710 consisting entirely of works created by female 00:17:47.710 --> 00:17:50.329 choreographers, and they titled the entire program 00:17:50.329 --> 00:17:53.150 She Persisted. The theater world loved it too. 00:17:53.529 --> 00:17:55.930 Applause Theatre Books published anthologies 00:17:55.930 --> 00:17:58.910 featuring writings by Honor Roll, which is an 00:17:58.910 --> 00:18:01.349 advocacy group for women playwrights over 40. 00:18:01.490 --> 00:18:05.670 They released books titled She Persisted, 30 00:18:05.670 --> 00:18:08.950 10 -minute plays by women over 40, and a companion 00:18:08.950 --> 00:18:11.809 book of monologues. Even in contemporary fiction, 00:18:12.109 --> 00:18:15.089 the author Laura Hankin published a novel about 00:18:15.089 --> 00:18:18.089 an exclusive, mysterious, women -only social 00:18:18.089 --> 00:18:21.710 club. She named the club Nevertheless. It is 00:18:21.710 --> 00:18:24.670 a remarkable journey for a phrase to go from 00:18:24.670 --> 00:18:28.130 a dry administrative explanation into global 00:18:28.130 --> 00:18:31.289 hashtags, tattoos, ballets and Marvel television 00:18:31.289 --> 00:18:33.990 shows. It proves that people are constantly searching 00:18:33.990 --> 00:18:36.849 for language to articulate their internal experiences. 00:18:37.349 --> 00:18:39.410 So what does this all mean for you listening 00:18:39.410 --> 00:18:41.470 right now? I think the biggest takeaway here 00:18:41.470 --> 00:18:43.990 is the absolute unpredictability of language 00:18:43.990 --> 00:18:46.250 in the public domain. Absolutely. Once words 00:18:46.250 --> 00:18:48.349 leave your mouth, especially in the digital age, 00:18:48.509 --> 00:18:51.079 you lose all ownership of them. Mitch McConnell 00:18:51.079 --> 00:18:53.019 thought he was reading a procedural justification 00:18:53.019 --> 00:18:55.380 into the congressional record. He had no idea 00:18:55.380 --> 00:18:57.039 he was writing the title of a children's book 00:18:57.039 --> 00:18:59.240 or scripting the dialogue for a comic book villain. 00:18:59.400 --> 00:19:02.259 Not at all. It is a powerful reminder to all 00:19:02.259 --> 00:19:05.779 of us about the power of context. Your words 00:19:05.779 --> 00:19:08.440 or the words spoken about you can be completely 00:19:08.440 --> 00:19:12.240 reframed, remixed and repurposed by whoever is 00:19:12.240 --> 00:19:14.859 listening. When a phrase accidentally captures 00:19:14.859 --> 00:19:17.430 a feeling that millions of people share. in this 00:19:17.430 --> 00:19:19.450 case the visceral feeling of being dismissed 00:19:19.450 --> 00:19:22.809 or told to be quiet, the original context ceases 00:19:22.809 --> 00:19:25.970 to matter. The phrase becomes a vessel for whatever 00:19:25.970 --> 00:19:27.849 the culture needs it to mean in that moment. 00:19:28.329 --> 00:19:30.309 Which brings us to a final lingering thought 00:19:30.309 --> 00:19:32.990 for you to mull over today. We found this fascinating 00:19:32.990 --> 00:19:35.130 little detail buried in the source material. 00:19:35.410 --> 00:19:38.009 Yeah, this really stood out. In July 2017, an 00:19:38.009 --> 00:19:40.230 independent researcher named Carrie Ellard published 00:19:40.230 --> 00:19:42.869 a blog article about Mary Todd Lincoln, the wife 00:19:42.869 --> 00:19:45.009 of Abraham Lincoln, and her historical fight 00:19:45.009 --> 00:19:48.130 to secure her pension after his death. Ellard 00:19:48.130 --> 00:19:50.309 titled the introduction to this historical essay, 00:19:50.529 --> 00:19:53.849 Nevertheless, She Persisted. And that raises 00:19:53.849 --> 00:19:55.990 a really profound question about how we view 00:19:55.990 --> 00:20:00.059 history. It does. When we take modern, heavily 00:20:00.059 --> 00:20:03.440 loaded political catchphrases and we retroactively 00:20:03.440 --> 00:20:06.019 apply them to historical figures from centuries 00:20:06.019 --> 00:20:08.799 past, does it actually help us better understand 00:20:08.799 --> 00:20:11.960 their unique historical struggles? Right. Or 00:20:11.960 --> 00:20:14.940 does it risk rewriting history through the lens 00:20:14.940 --> 00:20:18.299 of our own modern biases, flattening their incredibly 00:20:18.299 --> 00:20:21.559 complex lives into today's neat political talking 00:20:21.559 --> 00:20:23.579 points? It is something to think about the next 00:20:23.579 --> 00:20:26.099 time you see a modern hashtag applied to a black 00:20:26.099 --> 00:20:27.940 and white photograph. It really is. Thank you 00:20:27.940 --> 00:20:29.819 so much for joining us on this deep dive, for 00:20:29.819 --> 00:20:31.920 letting us unpack this history with you, and 00:20:31.920 --> 00:20:33.000 we will catch you on the next one.