Skip to main content

We may never escape identity politics....

.... because apparently we don't want to.

It has been a constant undertone of the current presidential campaign: voting for or against a woman, an African-American man, or a white man is a specific political statement in and of itself, regardless of all other issues.

Here's Pop Trash Tart from about six weeks ago:

i wasn’t going to write anything more about the misogyny and sexism directed at hillary clinton. we all know that it’s stupid that she gets judged based on her pantsuits and her wrinkles. but godddamnit, i just have to after reading this story about two lame-ass guys who shouted at Senator Clinton to iron their shirts.

first of all, anybody who claims that clinton’s gender has nothing to do with their view of her (regardless of how they feel) is lying, or in denial. she’s the first viable woman candidate in the history of the united states. whether or not you recognize it, her being a woman is playing a role in your view of her. i’ll say it again: i don’t care how badly you hate her policy- her gender plays into it. Gender roles are so incredibly polarized in this country (especially compared to other democracies) that it is inconceivable that somebody can subconsciously ignore the fact that hillary is not a man. those people who claim to not notice her gender are idiots- it’s kind of like those people who say “i’m not racist, i could care less about a person’s race,” whenever somebody calls them out on their racism....

And not only does everyone have an opinion of Clinton, many people’s opinions are on much more levels than her political savvy. Her fashion choices, her make-up, her saggy eyes, her family life are all deemed acceptable fodder for judgement. Has there ever been a Times article on how tired Fred Thompson looks, or a national outrage that Guiliani has been married 12,000 times? Hell, if Hillary had divorced Bill, she’d be hearing it from the other end on how liberals don’t have family values and how it was her duty as a wife to tough it out. All of the candidates are “hated” by at least some demographics, but nobody is as intensely hated on such a personal level as Hillary Clinton. It’s sexist, and it’s unfair.

Nevermind that before Hillary brought it to the table, healthcare wasn’t even on the radar in this country, much less the forefront. Forget that she’s already been in the White House for 8 years and knows how it works. We should be worried, because once a month she will turn into a red-eyed monster and eat her Secretary of Defense or something.


OK, aside from the fact that Hillary herself drops the gender card herself whenever it seems like it might help her, do you see what kind of position this puts you in? Hillary has been an intensely political animal for 35 years, and a polarizing force on the nation scene for 2 decades. She's been an autonomous actor, not a victim, even though she's played one on TV. (Remember her first run for Senate when she accused Rick Lasio of attempting physical intimidation for walking across the stage to hand her a copy of petition he wanted her to sign? Remember her crying jag in New Hampshire?)

And please spare me the crap argument of a double standard. How many, "Is Barack black enough?" articles did we have to put up with last year? How about those "Fred Thompson trophy wife" pieces? Moreover, if you think Rudi Giuliani got a pass on 12 million marriages, you never listen to right-wing talk radio (which is not, of course, a bad thing in itself).

Of course the politics of becoming president is unfair. Everybody has baggage, and society has its hang-ups. Barack is uppity. Hillary is a bitch. Huckabee is a crazed evangelical. John McCain is rich fat-cat white guy (hell, his biggest problem is that he doesn't have any controversial ethnic identity).

The painful truth: Hillary is losing ground rapidly because her brand of politics and her political baggage. That she happens to be female at this point is neither helping nor costing her.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...