Monday, November 19, 2012

Elizabeth Warren's Strangely Familiar Use of Body Language

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

The wolves are lining up behind Elizabeth Warren to be a member of the Senate Banking Committee. So naturally, we're graced with article after article from the opinion molders.

Just about every time that I see a picture of this women, she's using the following body language:

What's going on here?

There may be a few of you that are reading this, who may think "That looks strangely familiar".

It does.

You've surely seen this popular depiction of The Prince of Peace:

Now, I'm not an expert on public speaking and body language, but I can tell you this much: Elizabeth Warren did not become a Senator to promote peace. Government is the polar opposite of peace.

My research on the meaning of this gesture found that it means to "come together" or "come this way"...(If there are public speaking aficionados out there, please leave a comment if you can add to this meaning).

If this is, in fact, what Warren is trying to convey, what's her goal?

Elizabeth Warren, hater of free markets...during the peak of the financial crisis, wanted to nationalize the entire banking system (as if it isn't nationalized enough).
The fact of the matter is that Warren is a tool of the unions and a bank-hater that has no clue as to what the problem is with the banking system.

In the Senate, she will rail against banks, but rather than calling for an end to the Fed, or anything close to it, she will call for more intervention in the sector that will result in a more dysfunctional banking sector, resulting in more central banking from D.C., and more corruption.

Warren is clueless about banks, but very savvy about posing as a servant of the people, when in fact she serves special interests, such as the unions. But she will go beyond bank intervention. This woman has never understood the word, stop. She most certainly will be advocating many crazed interventionist schemes, beyond the banking sector. You see, she knows what is best for us always and everywhere.
Danger ahead.


  1. She is vile but I think the body language thing is a stretch.

  2. It's an embracing gesture. It says you're included. It's also sacrificial as Rossini points out with the message that she is somehow sacrificing on behalf of the poor, while securing lucrative arrangements with the government-connected 1%. She's already branded herself as the secular saint of the poor. The outspread arms and open hand is the image of transparency and conveys the feeling of trust. Arms outstretched with hands turned down is condescending. Think of adults patting the tops of the heads of children, dictators riding in open cars, arm outstretched directly in front of them with flat open hand turned down. It says stay away. It says "I dominate you." It's all so deceptively condescending and controlling. It's arte politics.

  3. Well, I think the open arms positioned slightly forward with open hand seems to be all up in your face and discourage her audience from open, friendly dialogue. Think of one-to-one talk with a raconteur who is all up in your face when telling you a story. It forces you to listen, let their demonstrative histrionics tell part of the tale and not interrupt. It's a dominant, aggressive gesture.

  4. thats one thing that really annoys me about politican as well as TV talking heads is how much they wave their bloody hands round like that is meant to show how serious they are about the subject however its more like magician seeking to distract attention from what they really want.

  5. "Honest, it's this long!"