Constance,
Some would argue that Sharpton is the bigger racist in the equation. I would be one of them.
But this isn't about Sharpton. I used him as an example of street theater run amok. And by pegging Obama as "street theater" the McCain campaign is (again) tactically working to portray Obama as both unserious and potentially dangerous, if given the White House.
The odds are still in Obama's favor. The Republican name brand has been in the toilet for a few years now, with centrists as well as Democrats, and it's that vital centrist vote that McCain must (somehow) attract if he wants to even have a chance.
Prior to Palin, I gave McCain almost no chance to overcome. Less than 5%
With Palin, I think it's 65%-35%, for Obama.
I think when most Republicans hear the phrase "Community Organizer" or "Community Activist", they picture Al Sharpton with a bullhorn.
Incorrect as the stereotype may be, we have to partially blame the Al Sharptons of the world for perpetuating the stereotype.
Obama needs to work hard in the debates to transcend the stereotype and not let it detract from his pressence as a transcendental figure. Palin has (tactically) tapped the underlying resentment among Rightists that "community activists" are just anti-patriot grievance-peddlers. If Obama can expound successfully on his years in Chicago and how they have taught him the ins and outs of the human condition such that he can now apply those lessons on a national scale, he should do well.
If Palin or, more probably, McCain can successfully push the idea that Obama is merely a grievance-monger with atrophied love of country... Well, it's still Obama's race to lose, but it'll be a much tighter race because lots of Americans, not just Republicans, aren't keen on people who forever see the American glass as being half-empty.
cgeye,
Actually, the concept of the plugged-in House Dad sounds perfectly normal to me, because that's largely what I am. If I'm not at work or on duty with the Army, I'm home cleaning up, taking care of my daughter, doing everything that used to be "womens work" and so forth. Cooking, ironing, etc, thus my wife was able to go back to school full-time and get her Bachelors degree. She'll soon be going for her Masters. If this is a "perversion" of the family unit, according to some on the Right, I suppose we're perverts?
And when I say feminism has gone down some odd roads, I doubt it can all be blamed on corporate card tricks. Again, when you free someone from a narrow and artificially constricted life, they're bound to go places and do things you never expected.
For example. 1980's feminists hated porn because it was just more male subjugation and men getting rich off women being objectified. Then the 1990's feminists turned porn to their advantage and suddenly Feminist Porn was born. Now, as we approach 2010, some of the most monetarily successful internet porn sites are run and operated by women who are not exactly shy about telling the world how porn is their way of showing their power and using it to their advantage.
I am quite certain the 19th century and 20th century feminists never desired nor intended for their efforts to yield Danni Ashe or Tera Patrick.
But that's what happened. Among many, many other things.
I thought this link was an interesting look at the subject.
In a way, Palin is like the Porn Feminists. She's treading in "enemy territory" and making it her own. Instead of hating and seeking to destroy the Republicans, she's transforming the very idea of what it means to be Republican. Again, I doubt corporate card tricks or Rovian conspiracy. Palin's quick rocket to the top was no more planned than the pregnancy of her daughter, Bristol.
But Palin has ridden the wave, and I believe if she and McCain succeed in their bid for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, we're going to see additional fissioning within Feminism et al over what the Palin Vice Presidency might mean, why Hillary Clinton was bypassed by the nominally-feminist Obama campaign, the emergence of the post-Noonan, post-Shlafly conservative feminist phenomenon, etc.
I think a lot of old guard feminists wish Palin didn't exist, which is why she's getting attacked so much.
As someone not terribly thrilled with either Obama or McCain, prior to last Friday, I admit to enjoying the zest that has been pumped into this electoral season by the Palin pick.
She's a ditz. She's a pit bull. She's a talibangelical nut. She's a reformer. She's a token. She's the future of her party. She's a.... She's a.... Everyone has an opinion and everyone is shoutting their opinion at once.
I find it all fascinating.
Feminism, yielding unguessed-at dividends...
cgeye,
Good points. And very true. The Western womens movement has gone places and morphed into things both monstrous and absurd. Much to the chagrin of its pioneers.
But what, in your personal opinion, qualifies as "Anti-Feminist"?
In a world with polymorphic variations, how do we define "Anti-Feminist"?
Teresa,
It seems to me the biggest obstacle between "political" and "vernacular" feminists, is abortion. For better or worse, there is a significant number of women who cannot overlook abortion; either as proponents or as opponents. This issue is the calving point, and Palin, as a political piece, is specifically meant to pull as many of the pro-life women in this country as she can possibly get, over to McCain. Even if they're not firebreathers on the topic.
It's not an altogether absurd notion, given the narrow margins involved in this, yet another heated electoral season where turnout on both sides is liable to be record-level high.
Having personally witnessed how some pro-choice women treat pro-life women, I am not convinced that the RWW (Right Wing Wurlitzer) is the primary culprit. Pro-life feminists get the 'traitor' label a lot and it's weird to see pro-choice women get blisteringly upset at other women because of this single issue, which seems to have gobbled up the entirety of the known female universe like a gargantuan political singularity.
I won't belabor it much because turning this into a thread on abortion and its merits is not my intent.
It will be interesting to see if the Palin gambit proves effective. If a significantly large percentage of women turn out for McCain, it will be implicit support for Palin as the anti-feminist Feminist; and an indicator that female politics in 21st century America are even more complex than either Democratic or Republican strategists suspect.
Paula @ #126,
That's a good point, really. How much has Palin invested in "the next generation" so to speak, and how much of it has simply been 'about her', alone?
I personally have always thought we needed more women in government, period. That our congress and senate continues to be mostly-male seems altogether at odds with a national gender average that shows women in the majority. Clearly, our representation is incomplete.
But I would like to think qualifications come before gender.
Which is a sticky point for Palin. Who is young and fresh and without much experience.
Which is, of course, Obama's problem too.
In some ways, the identity politics that have dominated this election have reach full circle, when you have Republicans picking a woman VP candidate strictly for her identity appeal; something Obama has exploited heavily and which was liable to doom McCain without some kind of significant shake-up on McCain's part.
cgeye,
It would seem to me that any movement to emancipate any group from oppression, must realize at its outset that once said group attains sufficient liberty, that group will diversify to the point that allegiance to the original movement might be set aside or even forgotten by the beneficiaries.
Thus the advent of conservative women, conservative African Americans, etc.
In a weird sort of way, I liken it to raising kids. You can only demand so much from them, in terms of choices, before you overstep your bounds. Once emancipated, children are free to choose their own paths, and it's not really fair to demand they adhere to your way of thinking or believing simply because you raised and provided for them when they were too little and inexperienced to provide for themselves.
Sooner or later, they go their own way, whether you like it or not. And is it your place, as the parent, to declare their choices as "bad" if they contradict your own?
I think of anti-abortion feminists at a time like this. They might agree with orthodox feminism on aspects of the economy, schooling, healthcare, etc, but because of religious (usually) or moral reasons they cannot accept on-demand abortion as either a moral or ethical avenue for women to take. And thus they oppose abortion, and are largely shunned by mainstream feminism for breaking with orthodoxy on that single, very important subject.
I think Palin is a move by the GOP to tap into that excluded periphery of women who, while traditionally feminist on some issues, find themselves on the outside and looked down upon due to one or more doctrinal differences with the core beliefs of feminist academic theory.
My wife, the womens studies graduate, and I have talked about this quite a bit. She admits to being conflicted and seeing the validity in both sides of the debate. We tend to agree that the "traitor" label is actually more damaging to mainstream feminism than the various peripheral types its applied to because it smacks too much of rigidity and conformity when 21st century feminism stakes a lot on the idea of tollerance: for people, for ideas, for difference.
Anyway, they said the advent of Obama was a watershed for racial discussion.
Seems Palin might warrant a watershed on gender discussion?
One thing that's absent from the Palin debate, is a discussion over the rise of the Feminine Right.
Hate them for their politics, sure, but it's a sign of gender equity success that women are active and powerful in organizations and institutions normally regarded as, "Good Old Boy."
Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are just the most visible tip of the iceberg. And the most annoying.
Palin now presents herself as a more sensible, more effective rallying point for feminists who don't like calling themselves feminist. Women who, for whatever reasons, can't adhere to orthodox feminism on account of religious belief, upbringing, feelings about abortion, etc.
I remember when MTV VJ Kennedy outted herself as a Republican. I don't know if she stuck to the party, but it seemed remarkable to me then that younger women were gradually branching away from orthodox feminism and seeking empowerment in unconventional ways, and moving with unconventional travelers.
For some, this makes the new Women of the Right traitors. They carry water for the sexist pigs of the conservative side while walking on the backs of the womens rights crusaders who have been largely Left since at least the 1950's.
But consider a Republican party with Palin at the helm. Consider the changes that will have necessarily occurred to make it happen. I don't think Palin is a token. Even if she loses there are already people talking about picking her up in 2012 and running her with Romney or, more probably, Bobby Jindal. Is this not a sign of overall progress? That even the "enemy of progress" has itself progressed to the point that a woman VP is not only chosen, but wildly lauded by the base?
I remember a few years back, sex columnist Dan Savage swore he'd join the Republican party, if only to change it from within.
The rise of The Palin (to coin a phrase) would seem to indicate that the Republicans are not an exclusive boys club anymore; and care more about policy than they do about gender, or race. Which was sorta the whole point of feminism to begin with: to remove gender from discussion and allow women to rise (or fall) based strictly on merit; just like the boys.
Whatever the case, I always think the traitor label is somewhat obscene. Just as it was obscene for Condi Rice to be called "unauthentic" as an African American woman just because she works for a Republican boss.
Are gender and race now purely political concepts?
I think not. But a lot of the language being used against Palin seems to say, yes. They are.
Which seems preposterous to me.
I haven't commented in awhile, but....
1) I think it's incorrect to assume Republicans are throwing this election. Not with the poll numbers being so close. Democrats traditionally have a bigger margin right now than Obama has, and this should tell the Republicans they still have a shot. So no, I do not believe the Sarah Palin selection is "sacrificial". McCain and the Republicans want to win.
2) The only real way to win is to get two candidates on the ticket who can plausibly come off as reformers. Republicans know their cred is dirt right now, and only a ticket which can paint itself as "transformational" will get enough centrist voters to seriously challenge Obama. McCain has spent half his political life pissing off members of his own party. Palin is a newbie with no federal baggage who has a regional rep as a "cleaner-upper" in a Republican state rife with scandal. Whether you personally believe Palin is clean or not, doesn't matter as much as whether this narrative can be sold to the voters.
3) Niven's Second Law states, "Never fire a laser at a mirror." Attacking Palin on her youth and inexperience will be a huge invitation to reflect every last one of those comments back at Obama. Again, you personally might believe that Obama has worlds more experience than Palin. What will matter in the debates is whether or not this can be successfully demonstrated. Too many "lasers" hitting Palin, and suddenly it's Obama getting fried. Republicans know this. And they might even be able to keep hitting Obama on his inexperience, because Palin is "just the veep" while Obama wants The Big Chair.
4) Don't disregard the female x-factor. It is not a given that centrist feminists will automatically follow Clinton's lead and rally around Obama. Had McCain picked a male, it would have made the feminist choice an easy choice. But picking a female.... The equation suddenly becomes complex. At least for the women in the middle. Dedicated Democrats will probably rally to Obama in spite of feeling like Hillary got tossed under the bus. Middle-of-the-road feminists and women who just generally would like to see a woman in high office, without being politically motivated to one pole or the other, won't necessarily feel inclined to go with Obama-Biden. If they study Palin enough, and especially if they like one or more of her "independent" qualities, they might quietly pull the lever for McCain-Palin without broadcasting their intent beforehand.
5) Don't bank on sexism. It's common trope that Republicans are sexist pigs who would sooner cut off their own penises than put a woman in (or even near) the White House. But then, how to explain Condi Rice? And how to explain the visible (positive) disturbance the Palin selection is causing in the conservative base? McCain by himself was a yawner for many. Now, not so much. Again, Republicans want to win. Sexist or no, they'd far prefer a Republican woman with a reliably conservative pedigree, than someone like Obama.
That about covers it. I strongly believe that if the Democratic Party discounts the Palin selection as a "stunt" they will be making a tactical, or even strategic, error. Again, Obama's lead is too thin. Democrats of the last few electoral cycles have usually had bigger leads in the summer before the election... And most of them lost. Bill Clinton was the only one who defied the odds, and in his first term he needed Perot to ruin it for Bush Sr. to claim the win.
Obama's final-stretch campaign needs to be brilliant against McCain-Palin. Especially in the debates. Mailing it in and/or relying on the thin lead and the Republicans' bad reputation, as a result of Bush and the war, will be an invitation for yet another narrow Republican win.
Frankly, from a detached perspective, I find McCain's decision to go with Palin to be remarkably clever.
Ursula @ #188:
I think you bring up a terrific point, about some people placing "being right" over the overall well-being of the country.
I think this is a pathological mentality shared by both the extreme Right and the Extreme left. And could probably apply to just about anyone who is strident or obsessive about a particular ideology.
If human suffering or woe helps them "prove their point", as it were, they get grins when other people are miserable, having a hard time, or even losing their lives.
Me, personally, I try to always hope for the best, even if "my" choice is not the choice of others. Ergo, even if "my" person I want elected, does not get elected, I still hope very much that the person who is elected, makes decisions that benefit the country and the citizens, regardless of which party they might belong to.
I don't like automatically assuming the worst, if I can help it. And I certainly don't take pleasure in "being proved right" if it means people are hurting as a result.
I'd rather be proved wrong, every time, in that regard.
Thanks for the (mostly) positive feedback, all.
Yes, I didn't consider that the members of this blog group probably go waaaaaaaaaay back, and have therefore argued (and re-argued) this kind of subject into the ground.
So the feeling of some might be, "Oh God, not this again!"
My apologies.
One thing....
I too was struck by Post #91, mainly because it hits upon something I have been pondering for a few years now: how we as modern humans seem pretty good at gathering huge gobs of raw knowledge and are very savvy at intellectual gain, but we seem to have lost the trick of taking both experience and intelligence, and melding them into that rarest of substances: true wisdom.
Shooting from the hip, I might blame it (in the U.S. at least) on how we no longer pay any attention to our elderly. Once you get past 65 it seems everyone assumes you are just 'in the way' and nobody seems to be doing much learning at the feet of their grandparents or great-grandparents anymore.
The U.S. is youth-obsessed to a fault and I think too many of us (myself included) assume too often that if you simply gather enough data, knowledge, intelligence, et al, that somehow this will produce good results all on its own.
Yet, as was noted, intelligence all by itself can be used in several different ways, and to different ends. And often times very, very bright people can make decisions that, in hindsight, seem awesomely dumb.
(my wife would happily corroborate the last sentence above, heh!)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 12 |
Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Sten:
Show all comments by Sten.