Okay, let's unpack this. Welcome back to another
custom -tailored deep dive built specifically
for you. Thanks for having me. We really have
a fascinating one to get into today. We do. Today
we are looking at something that perfectly illustrates
just how unpredictable modern communication can
be. Right. Our mission for this deep dive is
to explore how a few off -the -cuff, highly procedural,
word -spoken, in a very formal setting, managed
to escape that room and take on a massive life
of their own. It's honestly wild how fast it
happened. It really is. We are going to be diving
into a comprehensive Wikipedia article that details
the origin, the viral explosion, and the intense
political debate surrounding the phrase, nevertheless,
she persisted. We're going to track how a dry
administrative Senate ruling morphed into a global
meme and a rallying cry almost overnight. And
before we jump into the timeline of how this
all unfolded, it is worth setting the stage for
you regarding how we are going to approach this
material. because this event became such a massive
politically charged cultural touchstone our source
material covers some incredibly passionate reactions
from both left -wing and right -wing perspectives
yeah people felt very strongly about this exactly
so just to be clear right from the start our
goal today isn't to take sides or endorse any
of these specific viewpoints we are simply here
to act as your tour guides we'll be exploring
the history the timeline, and the arguments exactly
as they're documented in our original source
material. We are just here to map out the anatomy
of a cultural phenomenon for you. To really understand
how this happened, we need to transport you back
to February 7, 2017. Picture the United States
Senate chamber. Right. The senators are in the
middle of debating the confirmation of Senator
Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who had been nominated
to become the new U .S. Attorney General. And
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has
the floor. She is speaking against his confirmation,
specifically focusing her criticism on his historical
record regarding civil rights. She decides to
build her case by bringing historical documents
into the congressional record. Right. She doesn't
just give her own opinion. She starts by quoting.
including a statement made all the way back in
1986 by former Senator Ted Kennedy. OK, what
did Kennedy say? At that time, Kennedy was speaking
about a period when Sessions had been nominated
to be a federal court judge. Kennedy's statement
was quite sharp. Yeah. He stated he is, I believe,
a disgrace to the Justice Department and he should
withdraw his nomination and resign his position.
Wow. And Senator Warren reads this out loud to
the chamber. Yes, and states that she intends
to stand with Senator Kennedy and cast her vote
against the nomination. Quoting a former senator
is one thing, but she doesn't stop there. This
is where the tension in the room really starts
to build. It does. Senator Warren introduces
a second document, a letter written by Coretta
Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.
Right. And this letter was also from 1986, originally
written to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Exactly.
So Warren begins reading it to the chamber, specifically
highlighting a section where King says that civil
rights leaders fought hard for access to the
ballot box. What was the specific line that caused
the disruption? The line that triggered the procedural
intervention was where King's letter stated,
and I'm quoting here, Mr. Sessions has used the
awesome power of his office to chill the free
exercise of the vote by black citizens in the
district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge.
And while Senator Warren is reading this, the
presiding Senate chair, Steve Daines of Montana,
completely interrupts her. He brings up Senate
Rule 19. Which is an incredibly obscure piece
of parliamentary procedure. I mean, our sources
note it was originally prompted by an actual
physical fistfight on the Senate floor. Right.
That is one of the more colorful footnotes in
Senate history. Yeah. In the early 1900s, two
senators got into an actual physical brawl. Just
wild to picture that. Right. So to prevent the
chamber from devolving into a fighting ring again,
the Senate instituted Rule 19. What does the
rule actually say? The rule strictly prohibits
any senator from ascribing, quote, to another
senator or to other senators any conduct or motive
unworthy or unbecoming a senator. Which is basically
a fancy parliamentary way of saying keep it civil
and do not attack your colleague's personal character.
Exactly. But back in 2017, Senator Warren is
understandably a bit taken aback by this interruption.
She stops and clarifies to the chair that she
hadn't called Senator Sessions a disgrace herself.
Right. She was simply quoting Ted Kennedy. Yes.
She then asks Chair Daines if reading a historical
letter from Coretta Scott King, a letter that
was already admitted into the official Senate
record decades ago, was somehow a violation of
the rules. How does Daines respond to that? He
responds by simply quoting rule the nights at
her. again. Wow. So Warren asks if she can continue
reading the letter, and surprisingly at this
point, Daines actually allows her to proceed.
But the permission does not last long at all.
No, it doesn't. As she picks up the letter and
starts reading again, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky steps in and interrupts.
He formally objects. McConnell states to the
chamber, the senator has impugned the motives
and conduct of our colleague from Alabama as
warned by the chair. So he was specifically objecting
to that line from King's letter about Sessions
using the power of his office to. Chill the exercise
of the vote. Precisely. And Warren seems genuinely
stunned by this. She says on the floor that she
is surprised that the words of Coretta Scott
King are not suitable for debate in the United
States Senate. She asks to keep going. She does.
But Daines asks if there is an objection. McConnell
formally objects and Daines calls for a vote.
He bluntly tells Warren the senator will take
her seat. Just like that. She is prevented from
continuing her speech. The Senate then holds
a vote on McConnell's objection. The result falls
strictly along party lines, 49 to 43, to sustain
the objection. And the single vote officially
silenced Senator Warren for the entire remainder
of the session's confirmation hearings. Wait,
strictly along party lines, not a single defection
from either side. Not a single one. And what
adds a deeply ironic layer to this procedural
move is what happened over the next 30 hours
of the hearings. Oh, this part is amazing. Following
Warren's official silencing, other Democrats
stepped up to the podium. Senator Jeff Merkley
of Oregon actually got up and read the exact
same letter from Coretta Scott King. And he did
it without any objection from the floor. None
at all. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey also
made a point to remind the chamber that this
letter had already been part of the congressional
record since 1986. It is a striking visual. You
have two male senators reading the same document
that. a female senator was just silenced for
reading. It really is. But the real climax of
this origin story, the moment that essentially
launched a thousand memes, happened right after
that 49 to 43 vote. Senator McConnell took to
the Senate floor to explain the ruling to silence
Warren. And you actually have to hear the exact
quote McConnell gave because the specific words
he chose changed everything. Right. According
to the record, he said, Senator Warren was giving
a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate
the rule. She was warned. She's given an explanation.
Nevertheless, she persisted. There it is. What's
fascinating here is how a completely dry administrative
explanation of parliamentary procedure inadvertently
created one of the most memorable, perfectly
structured rhetorical hooks of the modern era.
Yeah, he was just stating facts for the record.
He was simply trying to state a sequence of procedural
events for the official record. Warning, explanation,
persistence. But by framing it with the phrase,
nevertheless, she persisted, he accidentally
condensed an entire narrative of rebellion and
determination into three little words. The moment
he uttered that phrase, the dynamic completely
shifted. I mean, if the goal of enforcing rule
line X was to minimize Warren's message, our
source material notes that it backfired in spectacular
fashion. Oh, absolutely spectacular. The Internet
grabbed hold of those three words instantly.
Within hours, it was a massive digital rallying
cry. Hashtags like hashtag Shep persisted and
hashtag let Liz speak were trending worldwide.
It is incredibly important to contextualize this
reaction with the timing of the event. This happened
in early February 2017. National Public Radio's
Scott Detrow pointed out that nevertheless, she
persisted, quickly functioned as the new nasty
woman. You might remember that nasty woman was
a phrase Donald Trump used to describe Hillary
Clinton during a 2016 presidential debate. Exactly.
And feminist groups immediately reclaimed that
phrase as a badge of honor. This new phrase from
McConnell functioned in the exact same way, but
it had a broader, almost poetic and historical
ring to it. The meme -ification was instantaneous.
People didn't just share the quote. They started
pairing those three words with images of historical
women who had famously refused to be silenced.
The Internet was suddenly flooded with it. The
phrase was stamped over photos of Harriet Tubman,
Malala Yousafzai, Beyonce, Gabby Giffords, Michelle
Obama. Hillary Clinton herself tweeted that,
quote, adding her own capstone to the sentiment.
She wrote, so must we all. It leaped from digital
spaces into physical reality incredibly fast,
too. It was immediately visible on protest signs
at the Women's March, printed on tote bags, hoodies,
coffee mugs. Major corporate brands even got
involved. Reebok actually produced a line of
T -shirts with, nevertheless, she persisted,
printed across the chest. And they donated the
proceeds from those shirts to the Women's March.
But the detail from the sources that truly shows
how deep this went is the permanence of the reaction.
It wasn't just temporary merchandise. Women started
getting the phrase permanently tattooed on their
bodies. That part is incredible. Salon reported
that in Minneapolis alone, more than 100 women
went out and got in both. Nevertheless, she persisted.
Tattoos. That is a level of visceral cultural
penetration you simply do not see every day from
a Senate floor debate over parliamentary rules.
No, you really don't. If we connect this to the
bigger picture, we have to ask why it resonated
so deeply. Why did this specific procedural moment
trigger a wave of tattoos and global hashtags?
Journalists at the time dug into this phenomenon.
They did. Daniel Victor of The New York Times
and Megan Garber of The Atlantic both highlighted
a broader, unifying theme. The visual of a man
in power using a formal. rule to silence a woman
struck a deeply familiar chord. Garber wrote
that American culture frequently tells women
to be quiet, to smile a little more, or talk
a little less. That gets right to the psychology
of it. Garber points out that when Warren was
told to take her seat, many women, completely
regardless of their specific political affiliations
or where they lived, felt that silencing on a
personal level. Right, because it's a familiar
feeling. Exactly. Because almost every woman
has heard some version of, you were warned, you
were given an explanation, now sit down. Whether
it's in a boardroom meeting, in a university
classroom, or just in their daily lives. Heidi
Stevens of the Chicago Tribune called it three
little words that women can draw on for decades
to come whenever they find themselves being talked
over or fighting to be heard. However, we have
to transition here. Because whenever a political
moment becomes highly commodified that fast,
there's inevitably going to be intense scrutiny
and pushback. We're going to look at the other
side of the coin now. Right. For many political
observers, the immediate merchandising and the
grand historical comparisons felt entirely out
of proportion to what had actually occurred in
the Senate chamber. When a phrase blows up into
a global hashtag and gets printed on Reebok t
-shirts within days, you are guaranteed to see
a whiplash effect. How did critics respond to
this massive wave of enthusiasm? The pushback
was fierce and it primarily fell into a few distinct
critiques. Let's look at the marketing angle
first. Okay. Charlotte Allen, writing for the
Weekly Standard, viewed the entire hashtag explosion
with a heavy dose of skepticism. She suggested
this was essentially a highly calculated marketing
tactic designed to position Elizabeth Warren
for a potential presidential run. Interesting.
Allen pointed out how quickly entrepreneurs were
grinding out T -shirts in every size and color,
arguing it was just red meat for Warren's political
base. In Allen's view, Warren supporters promptly
cried sexism and began comparing her to historical
titans like Marie Curie over a routine procedural
ruling. So basically calling it a cynical merchandise
grab masquerading as a civil rights moment. Did
other critics echo that sentiment? They did.
David Harsanyi over at the National Review offered
a critique centered on identity politics. Interestingly,
he actually agreed that Senate Rule 90X was an
arbitrary speech -inhibiting rule that probably
shouldn't be utilized. Oh, he agreed on the rule
itself? Yeah. But he argued that if it weren't
for this procedural kerfuffle, no persuadable
voter would have even paid attention to Warren's
speech in the first place. Right. He saw the
resulting fuss, the hashtags and the outcries
as evidence of the Democratic Party relying heavily
on failed identity politics rather than engaging
in substantive policy debate. What about the
historical comparisons? You mentioned people
pairing the quote with Harriet Tubman and Malala
Yousafzai. That had to ruffle some feathers among
historians and critics. That brings us to perhaps
the most blistering critique outlined in our
sources, which came from Alexandra DeSantis,
also writing in the National Review. What was
her take? She took direct aim at that mimification
practice. She argued that these historical comparisons
were not just inappropriate, but deeply offensive
to the actual struggles of those historical women.
Walk us through her specific argument. I mean,
how did she contrast those experiences? DeSantis
pointed out that Harriet Tubman and Sojourner
Truth were literally enslaved. They were beaten
and they risked their lives for freedom. Susan
B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were systematically
denied the fundamental right to vote. Rosa Parks
was thrown into a jail cell. Malala Yousafzai
was shot in the brain by the Taliban simply for
wanting an education. So DeSantis contrasted
all of that brutal, life -threatening sacrifice
with what actually happened to Elizabeth Warren.
Exactly. Which was that she stood in a comfortable,
climate -controlled U .S. Senate chamber, made
a speech about a political nominee, and was told
to sit down. Exactly the point DeSantis was making.
She argued that claiming Warren had done anything
even remotely comparable to those women was...
Ludicrous at best. Wow, that's a strong phrase.
In her view, trying to equate a parliamentary
procedure with surviving chattel slavery or an
assassination attempt trivializes the true courage
of those historical figures. She felt it made
a mockery of their actual bleeding contributions
to democracy. That is a remarkably stark contrast
to draw. It really highlights how differently
two people can view the exact same event. Did
any of the criticism focus on the state of the
Senate itself? Yes. There was also a purely political
angle focused on the health of the institution.
Gretel Kaufman of the Christian Science Monitor
highlighted concerns that the entire incident
was just a glaring symptom of a broken legislative
system. How so? She quoted Republican Senator
Orrin Hatch of Utah, who essentially said the
whole spectacle was a prime example of extreme
partisanship getting in the way of productive
debate. He suggested that both sides needed to
start thinking about how to bring people together
instead of constantly finding new viral ways
to divide them. When you synthesize all of this
information, you see how a single three -word
phrase became a perfect Rorschach test for the
American political divide. That is the perfect
way to describe it. If you viewed the world through
the lens of systemic gender inequality. Nevertheless,
she persisted was a profound, empowering recognition
of the universal female experience of being silenced.
But if you viewed the world through the lens
of political skepticism, it looked like an exercise
in partisan grandstanding that cynically hijacked
the legacy of actual civil rights martyrs just
to sell T -shirts and win political points. Here's
where it gets really interesting, though. The
phrase didn't just remain a political Rorschach
test debated in magazines. It entirely saturated
pop culture. Completely. It detached itself from
Elizabeth Warren, Mitch McConnell, and Senate
Rule 9x entirely. It evolved into a standalone
cultural property. It really did permeate almost
every artistic medium you can think of. Let's
run through some of the examples because they
are just wild. Sure. For example, in the publishing
world, Chelsea Clinton announced in March 2017
that she had written a children's picture book
about 13 inspirational American women. She titled
it She Persisted. And that book didn't just sit
on shelves. It was actually adapted into a children's
musical that premiered at the Bay Area Children's
Theater and eventually made its way to an off
-Broadway production. That's right. Just think
about the trajectory of that for a second. A
warning about parliamentary procedure in a legislative
chamber turns into a song and dance routine for
children in New York. It's hard to believe. And
it didn't stop there. It showed up in mainstream
television scripts, too. In the Marvel show Agents
of SHIELD, there is a dark alter ego character
named The Doctor. Oh, I remember this. Yeah,
in one episode, he's reporting on a female prisoner
who is being brutally tortured but refused to
break. He describes her by saying she was beaten
within an inch of her life. Nevertheless, she
persisted. Incredible. The writers of Supergirl
also adopted it. They used Nevertheless, She
Persisted as the actual title for their season
two finale episode. It reached into the fine
arts as well. It did. In 2019, the English National
Ballet in London premiered a brand new program
consisting entirely of works created by female
choreographers, and they titled the entire program
She Persisted. The theater world loved it too.
Applause Theatre Books published anthologies
featuring writings by Honor Roll, which is an
advocacy group for women playwrights over 40.
They released books titled She Persisted, 30
10 -minute plays by women over 40, and a companion
book of monologues. Even in contemporary fiction,
the author Laura Hankin published a novel about
an exclusive, mysterious, women -only social
club. She named the club Nevertheless. It is
a remarkable journey for a phrase to go from
a dry administrative explanation into global
hashtags, tattoos, ballets and Marvel television
shows. It proves that people are constantly searching
for language to articulate their internal experiences.
So what does this all mean for you listening
right now? I think the biggest takeaway here
is the absolute unpredictability of language
in the public domain. Absolutely. Once words
leave your mouth, especially in the digital age,
you lose all ownership of them. Mitch McConnell
thought he was reading a procedural justification
into the congressional record. He had no idea
he was writing the title of a children's book
or scripting the dialogue for a comic book villain.
Not at all. It is a powerful reminder to all
of us about the power of context. Your words
or the words spoken about you can be completely
reframed, remixed and repurposed by whoever is
listening. When a phrase accidentally captures
a feeling that millions of people share. in this
case the visceral feeling of being dismissed
or told to be quiet, the original context ceases
to matter. The phrase becomes a vessel for whatever
the culture needs it to mean in that moment.
Which brings us to a final lingering thought
for you to mull over today. We found this fascinating
little detail buried in the source material.
Yeah, this really stood out. In July 2017, an
independent researcher named Carrie Ellard published
a blog article about Mary Todd Lincoln, the wife
of Abraham Lincoln, and her historical fight
to secure her pension after his death. Ellard
titled the introduction to this historical essay,
Nevertheless, She Persisted. And that raises
a really profound question about how we view
history. It does. When we take modern, heavily
loaded political catchphrases and we retroactively
apply them to historical figures from centuries
past, does it actually help us better understand
their unique historical struggles? Right. Or
does it risk rewriting history through the lens
of our own modern biases, flattening their incredibly
complex lives into today's neat political talking
points? It is something to think about the next
time you see a modern hashtag applied to a black
and white photograph. It really is. Thank you
so much for joining us on this deep dive, for
letting us unpack this history with you, and
we will catch you on the next one.