punditman says...
The Hilary Clinton camp is complaining vociferously about her being treated unfairly in the media compared to their swooning over Barak Obama (I recall no such complaints when she was ahead in the polls).
Some claim (including a friend who sent me an email), that this proves that America is not ready to elect a woman as President because of underlying sexist attitudes — and given the choice they'd sooner elect a black man. Actually my friend said they will NEVER elect a woman, but hey we're all prone to exaggerate to make our points...
The argument goes something like this:
a. Hilary Clinton is a woman.
b. Americans (very likely) will not elect Hilary Clinton.
c. Therefore, Americans are not ready to elect a woman.
In philosophy this is known as a logical fallacy, along the lines of:
a. The average family has 2.5 children.
b. The Smiths are a very average family.
c. Therefore, the Smiths must have 2 or 3 children.
Undoubtedly, there have been some very ugly, sexist attacks against Hilary Clinton. Globe and Mail columnist, Judith Timson, recently outlined some of them in a column here.
But as disgusting as some of these attacks against Hilary Clinton are, this does not prove that America is not ready for a woman President. It merely proves that sexism is alive and well, that politics is dirty and that Hilary Clinton has many enemies.
Those who claim that the reason she is losing is because of gender are giving a lot of credit to the power of the media and very little credit to voters. They are inferring that the "they" who will not elect a woman are the same "they" who are voting for Obama. After all, it is this train that has ruined what once looked like a sure bet for Hilary. But ask yourself this: Are the people who will not vote for a woman because she is a woman (and no other reason) actually voting in Democratic primaries? And just to show fairness to the Party that I really loathe — there are obviously some Republicans who vote for and elect women in the House and Senate.
I digress. Back to the unelectability of a woman President theory. Even if some Obama supporters are sexist (but not racist), how many of these oddly flawed creatures are there out there to translate into actual votes and thereby account for Hilary's disappointing showing so far?
The problem with this theory is that it presumes that the voters who are going for Obama over Hilary (including many women) are somehow so spellbound by the sexist rants of the right wing and Clinton's media critics that they just can't think for themselves. This leap of logic belittles Democrats of all stripes and both genders, making them appear not only sexist but also easily manipulated by their right wing opponents and other Clinton critics. This is disingenuous to these voters.
It's worth a glimpse inside these voters' heads.
Other than their records on the Iraq War vote, there is little perceptible difference between Obama and Clinton. But that damn Iraq war (which the Timson article completely omits), is still huge in many voter's minds because it has pretty much defined the Bush Presidency. And for Hilary to show no real deviation from this neo-con project is rather telling. But setting that aside, (which is not easy), the inference here is that when given the choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb, Democrats who vote in primaries would rather elect a black man than a woman.
Timson's article concedes that "There are certainly legitimate reasons not to like Ms. Clinton," but then does not elaborate. And yet the real question that should be asked is why are these Democrats not voting for her? Could it be that they think she has had her time in the sun and has not delivered — let's say, on health care? That she is too much of a hardened Washington insider? And — not to sound redundant — that she voted for the Iraq War while Obama did not and she refuses to admit this colossal mistake. Instead, she merely tries to rewrite history instead.
People may be naive to think that they will get radically different policies out of Obama, (I tend to think so), but they know what they will get out of Clinton: more of the same.
Or maybe the reason they are rejecting Clinton is because if you google the words "Hilary and corrupt" you can spend hours reading about dirty money, bad ethics and dishonesty.
How about the fact that she has run a lousy campaign? No, none of this matters, I am told; it is because she's a woman.
Judith Timson verges on the ridiculous when she attempts to turn a well-known feminist and other women commentators into self-hating misogynists just because they criticize the Clinton style:
"Author and commentator Barbara Ehrenreich also took a gratuitously nasty swipe in the Huffington Post at Ms. Clinton's platform style: “The frozen smile has to go, too, along with the [metronomic] nodding, which sometimes goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.” Oh, come on."
And Slate.com's female commentators merrily dissected Ms. Clinton's female factor, ostensibly unaware of the self-hatred it revealed: “One of Hillary Clinton's great weaknesses as a candidate is that – fair or not – she seems so completely familiar to us. Not just because she's been around for years, but because the characteristics for which she's inevitably criticized are themselves these centuries-old archetypes: the castrating shrew, the righteous scold, the manipulative weeper …”
Gratuitous? Self-hatred? Oh come on, Judith.
American elections are fought over style, not substance. Negative stereotypes are part of the down and dirty style of attack politics that partisan supporters use to appeal to people's lowest base instincts--as they inflict as much damage as possible on their rivals. Certainly identity politics does not fully explain why Clinton is losing. Far from it.
If you really look at issues and platforms, the one Democrat and the one Republican worth looking at, who actually had decent ideas are either now out of the race (Kucinich) or barely breathing (Ron Paul), -- thanks to both Party's establishment ideologies. As usual, the issues that people should be addressing are largely hidden. And now we are down to bickering about race and gender. This is typical of how these things go.
It may well be true that Americans are not ready to elect a woman President. But the implosion of Hilary Clinton's campaign does not prove this.
