by publius
As an Obama guy, I’m obviously disappointed. But given how insanely unpredictable things have been, I’ll pass tonight on predicting what it all means. My first thought was that it’s a body blow for Obama given that Clinton is the establishment candidate. But that’s probably premature – as several commenters in the last thread have reminded me.
Instead, I want to focus on the gender backlash theory that’s gaining traction as the explanation for Clinton’s win. The nickel version is that women went overwhelmingly (and seemingly suddenly) for Clinton in response to the excessive HRC-bashing following Iowa, and more specifically, following the tears. These specific events, in turn, took place against the larger backdrop of frustration that many women have felt about Clinton’s media treatment throughout the election. The theory may be rubbish, but I’m assuming the theory is correct for purposes of this post (and, frankly, I think it is correct).
With that disclaimer, one positive result of Clinton’s victory is that it will force the media (and me) to pay more attention to women’s grievances about the election coverage. For this very reason, I’ve been reflecting tonight on why exactly I oppose Clinton in the primary. Frankly, I wanted to make sure I opposed her for the right reasons, and that I wasn’t holding her to unfair standards. And for reasons I’ll explain, I sincerely believe that I am doing it for the right reasons.
I fully concede that sexism (perhaps subconsciously) is playing a role in her wretched media coverage. This many women this angry can’t all be wrong. There’s definitely some there there – some “there” that I wasn’t seeing (or perhaps ignoring).
But that said, I personally find that a lot of my opposition to Clinton has less to do with her than with an emotional attachment to Obama. Against my better judgment perhaps, I truly believe that Obama could be a game-changer. Ezra Klein caught some crap for it, but I understand the emotions that led him to write those words.
Coming of political age in the Gingrich/late Clinton era, I’ve never really been inspired by any politician. It’s been a mix of outrage and ironic detachment from ’94 on. So you should forgive Ezra – and our generation more generally – if we use some flowing rhetoric from time to time. It’s a newfangled thing for us – and we’re not that good at it. It’s like getting drunk for the first time. You may utter some stupid stuff, but it’s still fun, so you don’t really care.
When the primary fumes pass, we’ll all come around to Clinton, especially compared to the GOP monstrosities. But with Clinton, my perception is that none of this inspired future is possible. Hers will be a competent, moderate, K Street-friendly administration. But I want more – and I think the nation could get more. Thus, my frustration with Clinton’s victory probably has less to do with her personally, than with the fact that I see a very different sort of future slipping away if she wins (or if Edwards wins for that matter). Sure, I’m probably overestimating Obama’s potential energy, but so what. I think it’s just as possible that people are underestimating it. I’m with Andrew Sullivan on that point.
But even putting Obama aside, I want to emphasize that my opposition to Clinton herself is policy-based rather than personality-based.* The problem is that the specific types of policy disagreements I have with Clinton are ones that generate strong emotions. Thus, it’s easy to mistake emotional-yet-ultimately-policy-based critiques with unfair sexism (though I’m not denying that sexism plays a role for many opponents). Here then is a brief rundown of those policy disagreements.
First, and most fundamentally, I think her actions on the national security front disqualify her. The Dems should not reward radio silence on Iraq, torture, etc. during the years it mattered with a presidential nomination. Period. It doesn’t make her a monster, or even a bad person. But it should at least mean you don’t get to be president. If you make an insincere political gamble, you have to pay that bill if you lose. Kerry paid it, and Edwards did too.
Second, and relatedly, I have fears about her national security judgment going forward. Specifically, I fear that she’s so afraid of looking liberal that she either won’t attempt bold change (e.g., Cuba, Israel/Palestine), or will be bullied into doing something foolish (Iran). Her past positions are strong evidence of what she’ll do in the future – see, e.g., Kyl-Lieberman – and it’s not good.
Third, on domestic policy, I think she’s got all the right stuff – she’s brilliant and has great policy proposals. But the fear is that those proposals will just collect dust in the White House policy shop. I’ve seen nothing since 1994 that indicates the slightest willingness to take political risk for something she believes in. She’s too cautious and scared (just like Kerry). Turning back to Obama briefly, I’m more convinced that he’ll at least try to aim high. I also believe that an Obama victory would create more favorable underlying social and political conditions for real progressive change.
Fourth, I detest her administration-in-waiting. Well, it’s not so much I detest it (it will be better than Bush’s), but I think the country would do better with a fresh start. I’m not really talking about the Secretary of State, but the next tier down – i.e., the players who will run the executive branch on the micro-DC level. Edwards’s remark the other day was abhorrent, but he is right that a Clinton administration would be extremely K Street friendly. DC is full of exiled Clintonites. They’ve been biding their time in DC law firms and consulting shops getting wealthy. If Clinton wins, they’ll simply move their offices across town and re-assume control of the government’s purse. They’ve had a full decade to become more entwined with K Street interests, and they’ve probably gained a few pounds, both literally and figuratively in the Thomas Nast sense. For this reason, a Clinton victory won’t exactly be Andrew Jackson’s inauguration when a new social order stormed the capital. There will be a lot more “new boss/old boss” than you might imagine.
All that said, I am sympathetic to many women’s critique of Clinton’s admittedly unfair media and political treatment. I’ll tackle that in my next post.
*(I admit that I’ve said foolish things before, like voicing opposition because of frustrations with something Bill did. I’m going to work harder to stop doing that).
The sad thing is that I’ve got 20 years on you (going back to, say, the Carter administration), and I’ve seen the same number of truly inspiring politicians that you have.
I guess I worry about the theory being sexist in itself. Those polls were supposedly, I guess, talking to likely voters, but a huge number of voters were undecided. Yes, it is possible that the undecideds were most swayed by very recent events, but the media seems to be wrong all the time, so I’m not gonna bother to come up with theories that could be based on a pile of quicksand.
But why oh why should we believe this theory? I’ll tell you why people are pushing this theory. Because it is the only theory they have. Because it is the theory that accounts for a 10 point-shift in a single day. Because it gives all those pollsters something to say to rationalize what would otherwise expose the breakdown of their methodology.
And that’s what I think this is: media butt covering.
I don’t believe the theory. What’s the evidence for it? It’s just another explanation coming from people who have a hit list track record at providing good explanations.
‘hit list track record’ was meant to be ‘horrible track record’. My dictation software betrays me sometime.
“Her past positions are strong evidence of what she’ll do in the future”
Probably, but her cherry-picked contextless past positions aren’t.
BTD at TalkLeft argues that both HRC and Obama will be forced left now – also citing this.
Ara, it may not be proof, but on liberal and left-wing weblogs there is a lot of traffic from women (and men!) angry at the treatment Clinton got in the last few days. Even those who feel much more strongly about her policy defects than Publius does have been very hostile to it, with a combination of anger, disgust, and weariness that I find very familiar. (I’ve felt some of it myself.) I know two New Hampshire voters, and one of them mentioned it as a thing he thought seriously before in the end casting his vote for one of the others. So there’s at a minimum a plausible context.
(I’ll take the liberty of repeating what I said in the previous thread.)
At first I was disappointed with the result tonight. Then I tried to console myself with the thought that it was only a few percentage points.
They I thought — this is actually pretty awesome. I still think Obama can pull it out — and man am I hoping he will — but then I remembered that my nightmare scenario was Hillary coasting to the nomination and then getting annihilated in the general election, a la Kerry. And now that we might be facing a nicey-nicey evangelical nutbag again in Huckabee (Bush has convinced me that you can’t write off the fundamentalist freaks, nor the cravenness of the rest of the party in supporting them) or someone who’s not a complete windbag in McCain (not that I agree with most of his policies, but he’s not a dunce), that becomes very important. I wasn’t even that comfortable with Clinton versus The Romnoid or Giuliani The Conqueror, so the prospect of a mildly threatening candidate is even more of a concern.
But right now that worries me less than it did just two weeks ago. Kerry’s problem — and Clinton’s too, up ’til this point — was not engaging, not being human, working off polls, etc. Gore made the same mistake. Clinton finally, blessedly, got something of a clue, and that shifts the whole dynamic of the race. This is about the Presidency, after all. Clinton a month ago didn’t stand a chance in the general; Clinton in the last week could actually win the Presidency. In retrospect, I feel like her unfavorables might have been less about Hillary-hate than revulsion at the robotic brand of politics that’s typified so many ridiculous Democratic losses.
Both Obama and Clinton raised my opinion of them in the last week; since I was already gaga over Obama, now I’ve essentially devolved into worshipping him (and wow do I want him to win), but it feels so. Incredibly. Relieving. To feel so less worried about bobbling the general election by nominating a genuinely good person who for some reason acts like a robot when put in a race, like we did in ’00 and ’04. I feel that if Gore or Kerry had been given a fright like Clinton was in Iowa, they would have taken a more humanized approach to their campaigns and things would have turned out very differently.
(Gore especially — more than anything else watching that Spike Jonze video of him before the election and seeing that warmth that he didn’t display until he’d lost; what a wonderful man. It makes me sad on a personal level that he lost. He has such a good heart and he was treated so unfairly, largely because he couldn’t break out of his own shell…)
Anyway, if nothing else Obama has clearly altered the political landscape already — it seems to me that his approach has almost forced Clinton into acting the way she should have been acting all along. And he did it in a way that’s kept the discourse civil; the flip side of the robo-candidate strategy has been the ever-present circular firing squad, and Obama’s managed to raise the level of discourse beyond that somewhat, and Hillary, to her credit, stepped up to the challenge. Now that’s some hope right there.
I’m actually looking forward to the rest of the primary. On one hand, if the Clinton campaign returns to politics-as-usual, I don’t think they’ll beat Obama regardless. But if they step up to the plate, it’ll be good for the party as a whole. Either way, the Democrats win.
There’s nothing wrong with opposing Clinton for legitimate reasons — there are plenty of them, and I know more than a few women who oppose her and support Obama for the same reasons you do. But things had reached such a crescendo of misogyny in the past few days that I think women reacted sanely — they realized that the attacks weren’t on Hillary’s position on the war, her chumminess with K Street, or her Iowa tableau (the “Bridge to the 20th Century,” as more than one wag put it), but on her gender. She was too screechy. She wasn’t emotional enough. She was too emotional. She wasn’t “strong.” She wasn’t “tough.”
The final polls were pretty right on for Obama. There was a slight drop-off from the final polls for Edwards, who was stupid enough to hit Hillary with a not-so-thinly-veiled criticism.
The polls dramatically underestimated Clinton’s support.
This was, I think, women (and their allies) standing up to misogyny, saying that Hillary may deserve to lose — but not because of her genotype. And good for them — it was a line that needed to be drawn. And while I’m not a Hillary backer myself, I was glad to see her win tonight; it was a nice right cross to the media and punditocracy. Onward.
Bruce Baugh: Thanks. How recent is this chatter? The boobtube press pick it up immediately. Do you see signs of this venting before or after the media picked it up?
I saw an ABC news clip about it yesterday, which was actually entirely positive. Do we really think this swung what must’ve been 10,000 votes, even though there’s no real reason that animosity towards the press for being unfair to the candidate should translate to switching one’s vote to the candidate?
If you accept that sexism against Clinton is a legitimate reason to vote for her, don’t you then HAVE to vote for her? In theory you can admit it and then construct an argument for someone else, but every sexist has some sort of justification. Almost no one goes into a voting booth thinking “I hates me some wimmins!”
Isn’t a vote or argument for anyone else a de facto vote for patriarchy and the glass ceiling? Isn’t acknowledgment of the sexism without support for the candidate ultimately dismissal in a pretty wrapping? At what point does acknowledging the sexism become a cover for advocating and voting the sexism? I don’t have answers for these questions but I hope someone does, because if the backlash story really gets legs, they’ll be brought up a lot I think.
Well, I don’t think her victory tonight is entirely a response to the overall sexism of the campaign and the especially ridiculous coverage of her over the past few days, but it certainly helped (and a good thing too, in my opinion, though like you, I’m an Obama man).
I think we simply cannot overlook her campaign’s ground game in New Hampshire. A turnout like she got, the margins of support in certain key demographics, this isn’t coincidence this is straight up organization, preparation and tactical execution on game day. When the dust settles, I think you’ll see that the biggest key to her victory was a textbook perfect endgame in the final 48 hours.
But let’s face it, sexism does play a part and I can’t help wondering if they realizes that they could use a bit of media jujitsu to turn the media’s predictable responses into their gain.
Regarding her administration in waiting, I’d like to point out what strikes me as an upside to me, and that’s getting Wes Clark into the cabinet, hopefully as Secretary of State. I think he’s on the short-list for any Democratic President’s administration, but since he’s stumping for Clinton, he’s got the best chance there.
Like I said, I’m for Obama and I think for the same reasons you are: prior to his Keynote speech in 2004, I watched speeches he gave and suddenly realized I was jealous of the residents of Illinois that they had the opportunity to cast a vote for a candidate whose words echoed my own (less eloquent) thoughts. After Iowa and some very encouraging (but flawed) poll numbers, I finally let myself believe his path was set and I’d get to vote him into the presidency. Seeing that it would be tougher than I hoped has sort of brought me back to earth. It took a couple of hours, but I eventually remembered that though I prefer him, voting for Clinton would still be a vote for a candidate I believe in, and even that is a rare privilege these days.
Ara, the background criticism of media coverage and its sexism with regard to Clinton has been there from the beginning. But it spiked very abruptly in response to the story the other day about her “breaking down”. So yes, I do think it made the difference in pulling in several percentage points’ worth of uncommitted voters.
I actually quite liked HRC before the phoney tears stunt, which made me want to puke, it was just so Romney-esque (except this stunt actually worked). It’s rather alarming that the Democratic Party might still really blow this election yet.
While I would love to see a woman president, I never see the media pointing out that HRC is as crappy a feminist candidate as can be – her husband was the president for god’s sake. This is less Maggie Thatcher than Eva Peron.
To clarify, I don’t think that gender wasn’t part of why Clinton’s political bonafides have been sold short; while Gore’s attachment to the Clinton Administration made some logical sense (he was VP, after all), Hillary’s doesn’t. As her detractors (me among them, at times) have pointed out at length, she shouldn’t be able to take credit for Bill Clinton’s successes; but neither should she be forced to live in his shadow.
Many women are co-associated with their husband such that they aren’t seen as having an independent existence, and that’s just flatly wrong. But in this case, I’m not sure where that crosses the line into sexism from just not giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt — frankly, like Gore, I had less problem giving her the benefit of the doubt than that neither of them seemed to earn it.
Gore is a great person and politician independent of Bill Clinton, as is Hillary. But they both hid behind stale political personas — Gore finally got it, but too late. I’m hoping that Hillary got it this week. I’m much more comfortable applauding her for distinguishing herself as she did than blaming her treatment on some vague speculation about the general misogyny of the electorate.
I find this vague speculation about implicit sexism hurting Hillary just as distasteful as the equally specious hypothesizing about implicit racism hurting Obama. It’s undoubtedly true in some cases, but we’ll never know how much, and it’s demeaning to blame their failures on this putative fifth column. What’s important is that they’ve both let their personalities shine through, and how that’s made them less prone to caricature. In each case, their individuality has been the best possible response to stereotyping. They should be credited for their courage, not painted as the victims of some unidentifiable discrimination.
Fearfully Anonymous: No, sexism isn’t a trumps-all consideration. It’s important, and the kind of self-scrutiny Publius is doing is very important and worthwhile. But there are, after all, bad female candidates as well as bad male ones – there was, for instance, no feminist obligation to support Thatcher.
Ara, something I left out that may help you in evaluating where I’m coming from and whether I know anything. 🙂 Disgust with media manipulation is very close to universal among the Democrats and likely Democratic voters I know. The sense of having been yanked around too darned much is all over the place. So it doesn’t take a whole lot of specific triggering event to produce some action on it – it’s like having water at 200 degrees. Boiling it won’t be much work. I have been expecting to see moments where that disgust coalesces around some particular irritation and produces a distinctive backlash.
I understand that, and I agree with it personally. What I’m asking or trying to ask is more basic. Judging from your name, you’re male; as am I. What gives you and I, as men, the right to make the determination that it’s not a trumps-all proposition, even in regards to our own votes and support?
I ask, because I grew up around the kind of feminism where it very much was, and I’m not sure I’ve ever been able to argue myself past that proposition in a way I found satisfactory.
What gives you and I, as men, the right to make the determination that it’s not a trumps-all proposition, even in regards to our own votes and support?
I ask, because I grew up around the kind of feminism where it very much was, and I’m not sure I’ve ever been able to argue myself past that proposition in a way I found satisfactory.
The answer is that there’s no “determination” to be made — as you obliquely suggest, the problem is that the claim of implicit sexism is almost always non-falsifiable, and thus a political non-starter. Like institutional racism, it’s incredibly difficult to address in the aggregate (cf. the affirmative action debate), and a hollow criticism at best in an individual case.
In either case, since we’re talking about “implicit discrimination,” the entire point is that even if this is the problem, no one will cop to it. So not only is the accusation itself definitionally unprovable, it invites histrionics and and demagoguery that usually impede any sort of constructive action at all.
Fearfully Anonymous: I listen to women whose judgment I trust and see how they go about reconciling conflicting imperatives. Same as with anything else that I may need to act on but am not in the best position to make a well-informed assessment all by my self.
Hillary is the victim of sexism on the part of at least some individual voters, for sure.
That said, I think the charges of media sexism are overblown. Firstly, a male candidate with the same defects would be covered just as unfavorably (see, for example, Kerry, John). Secondly, a lot of voters do find her manner grating, condescending, and schoolmarmish – regardless of whether or not that response is conditioned by sexism, it’s there. It’s not a media creation. Thirdly, she brings at least some of this on herself by constantly playing the gender card. Nobody, including the media, likes to hear it intimated that they’re motivated by sexism any time they say anything mildly critical. Note that nobody’s accusing the media of veiled racism against Obama, perhaps because he has steadfastly refused to make race an issue the way Hillary has made gender an issue.
Personally, I’m offended by the intimation that I’m a sexist because I’m critical of Hillary, and it makes me much less likely to vote for her (not that I was likely to in the first place). I’m critical of Obama and Edwards as well.
Hillary is the victim of sexism on the part of at least some individual voters, for sure.
That said, I think the charges of media sexism are overblown. Firstly, a male candidate with the same defects would be covered just as unfavorably (see, for example, Kerry, John). Secondly, a lot of voters do find her manner grating, condescending, and schoolmarmish – regardless of whether or not that response is conditioned by sexism, it’s there. It’s not a media creation. Thirdly, she brings at least some of this on herself by constantly playing the gender card. Nobody, including the media, likes to hear it intimated that they’re motivated by sexism any time they say anything mildly critical. Note that nobody’s accusing the media of veiled racism against Obama, perhaps because he has steadfastly refused to make race an issue the way Hillary has made gender an issue.
Personally, I’m offended by the intimation that I’m a sexist because I’m critical of Hillary, and it makes me much less likely to vote for her (not that I was likely to in the first place). I’m critical of Obama and Edwards as well.
Iowa
Well, Hillary came in two points ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, and 22 points ahead of John Edwards. Edwards insists that he’s still in it for the remaining 48 states, but I have a hard time imagining how he will do any better in those states than he…
Mr. Baugh- thanks for that answer. The perspective I’m trying to reconcile is often one which doesn’t acknowledge conflicting imperatives in a case like this, but if they are acknowledged your answer is probably the best I’ve heard.
It’s funny- this race has on the Democratic side three contenders all more progressive than most of the serious candidates of my lifetime; and yet despite that the debate both in the MSM and elsewhere is so much less radical left than I’m used to that it’s almost disorienting to seriously follow the proceedings. It’s just a wholly different set of assumptions.
Leftists do worship their leaders, don’t they? Only pausing to occasionally falsely accuse their opponents of that thing.
Pah.
This is less Maggie Thatcher than Eva Peron.
Eva Peron was a promising young politician whose own career got put on hold when she married another politician? I didn’t know.
(Margaret Thatcher was a chemist who married an extremely wealthy businessman, who was retired by the time she became Prime Minister.)
There are substantive reasons to object to Clinton. That her husband was President before her isn’t one of them.
Xeynon: Secondly, a lot of voters do find her manner grating, condescending, and schoolmarmish – regardless of whether or not that response is conditioned by sexism, it’s there. It’s not a media creation.
Of course it is, unless these are voters who’ve personally met Clinton and talked to her. Otherwise what they’re getting is what the media says about her “manner”.
Personally, I’m offended by the intimation that I’m a sexist because I’m critical of Hillary
Not because you’re critical of Clinton. Because the reasons you’ve outlined in this comment for being critical of her are all sexist ones.
I find it slightly fascinating, in a distasteful kind of way, that the basic pattern of media attack on the three front-runners for President is sexism against Clinton, racism against Obama, and homophobia against Edwards. (Which last demonstrates neatly that you don’t even have to be gay to suffer from homophobia…)
In terms of prejudices it’s acceptable to be public about, racism is the least acceptable, homophobia is the most acceptable, and sexism falls in between: which interestingly seems to mirror the acceptability of the candidates in the media – Obama, Clinton, Edwards.
Eva Peron was a promising young politician whose own career got put on hold when she married another politician? I didn’t know.
(Margaret Thatcher was a chemist who married an extremely wealthy businessman, who was retired by the time she became Prime Minister.)
There are substantive reasons to object to Clinton. That her husband was President before her isn’t one of them.
You’re contradicting yourself. So she put her career on hold for her husband (not very emancipated), and now has rejuvenated her career by explicitly associating herself with her husband’s achievements (not very emancipated). She is, in short, a lousy feminist model. Maggie may have married well, but her political career was entirely of her own making. Not that I adore Thatcher, but still.
And even if RHC wasn’t a fatally flawed feminist role model, she also brings the baggage of dynasty with her, which in itself is probably enough to undermine whatever positive aspects she brings to American political culture.
The fact is, the sexism charge seems largely concocted to me, and even if it’s not, her campaign’s eagerness to play the gender card stands in marked and unpleasant contrast to the Obama campaign’s non-use of the race card. The Clintons are certainly canny politicians (the almost-tears has to have been Bill’s idea), but RHC victory will be a travesty IMHO.
byrningman: She is, in short, a lousy feminist model.
And if there were a woman whose career had been a great feminist model running for President, that would be relevant. There isn’t.
And even if RHC wasn’t a fatally flawed feminist role model, she also brings the baggage of dynasty with her
No, she doesn’t. Neither of her parents were President before her.
The fact is, the sexism charge seems largely concocted to me
The fact is, while there are substantive criticisms to be made against Clinton, the mainstream media criticisms are all sexist. Complaining that her manner is that of a “schoolmarm” is sexist: complaining that her husband was President so she ought not to be is sexist: complaining that she gave up her career to further her husband’s is sexist: complaining that she’s “playing the gender card” is sexist.
None of these things are relevant to how good a President she would make, and yet, they’re most of what we hear.
I’m going to go with an all politics is local. Clinton had the better, more established infrastructure than Obama did; she had the local establishment firmly behind her, which, according to NPR this morning, had spent the last week blanketing NH with leaflets discussing Hillary’s unwavering support for a Woman’s Right to Choose and painting Obama as more wavering. NPR’s commentator even noted that Hillary’s national team probably had no clue what the local group was doing, thus emphasizing the all politics is local narrative.
See Stop playing the gender card! and
Let’s See What You’ve Got, Babe.
Also, if you don’t think the fact that people don’t like hearing Hillary talk is relevant to whether she’d be a good President, well… all I can say is that I disagree completely. Charm and oratorical skill are HIGHLY relevant skills for the job of President.
Publius, I great appreciate this soul-searaching post, but I think you should consider some reading homework. I am not a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton. Until recently Edwards was my first choice. Katha Pollitt, the brilliant Nation writer, who should usurp that pathological harpy Dowd, renounced her support of Edwards this week. Both Obama and Edwards helped make up my and other feminist minds because they did not denounce the sexist attacks directed at Clinton. I am sure Michelle Obama would have been delighted to write his speech. Some of her wonderfully frank remarks about her husband compound my uneasiness. Once again a brilliant woman chooses to cut back her career to further her husband’s ambitions and take care of her children. I don’t believe that happened to Cherie Blair. Obama’s not making that speech was a huge blunder and might have cost him New Hampshire.
It seems not to have occurred to commentators that the huge turnout could have been older women rather than youthful supporters of Obama.
I would embark on a serious reading of feminist classics. That might undermine your conviction that the sexist charges were concocted. Don’t be too ready to belittle Steinem’s old-fashioned feminism, My generation of feminists must have been unsexy cylons who smashed the eternal patriarchy in 30 years. In Battlestar Galactica, virtually the entire human race had to be obliterated before a woman become president, and she was more of a hawk than a dove. She also had to be portrayed as dying from terminal cancer to undermine her authority and accentuate her vulnerability.
Obama’s use of the racial card is exquisitely subtle and understated, as it must be. Hillary’s demonstrating her feminism is not playing the gender card.
Women are tortured all over the world. I know many illegal immigrants who care for our children and tenderly help our elders, They are among the most oppressed people in America. Many have left their children in Latin America to care for American children and elders. Some are virtual slaves, enduring horrifying exploitation because they are terrified of being found out and deported. Home health agencies usually charged the patients twice as much as they pay the caregivers. Some of the dedicated women who helped cared for my mom for 5 hours a day faced three bus rides to get to my house. We wound up paying for Long Island Railroad tickets to improve their commute. Many agencies make no effort to place caregivers nearer to their homes. They don’t even bother to provide an accurate map to the client’s house. Very few of home health aides and should not be expected to work in Long Island homes inaccessible by public transportation. Banning illegal immigrants would have a devastating effect on New York’s professional class. I look forward to continuing this dialogue.
One of my daughters, who has been questioning herself just as you have, speculated that my unconscious baggage, dumped on me because of the terrible discrimination I had endured, led me to see sexism that wasn’t there. I assured her that after absurdly long years of being shrunk and several years shrinking, I doubt my baggage was unconscious. Would she speculate that about a black women who had suffered both sexism and racism all her life. The absurdity of comparing sexism and racism is that one half of people of color endure both.
Xey: Also, if you don’t think the fact that people don’t like hearing Hillary talk is relevant to whether she’d be a good President
I have no idea if people “don’t like hearing Clinton talk”. All I’ve heard is media reports claiming people don’t like hearing her talk, and reports from people (who rarely claim to have attended an event at which she spoke) who repeat what the media tells them. As 2000 and 2004 demonstrated, though, people tend to vote for the best candidate regardless of what the media is saying about them: though a concerted media campaign of negativity and lies can get a popular candidate down to the level where the Republicans can rig the election against them.
Charm and oratorical skill are HIGHLY relevant skills for the job of President.
Not, however, overriding ones.
Hmmm, previous post got eaten. Jesurgislac, I have to take issue with you saying that every criticism I made of Clinton was sexist.
First, how is pointing out that the media gave John Kerry all kinds of hell for some of the same reasons sexist?
Second, I don’t need the media to tell me about Hillary’s manner – all I need to do is watch her on tv. She talks to me like she’s lecturing me, and I don’t like being lectured or condescended to. A lot of people I know feel the same way. Note that I’m not calling her shrill, as some did in response to her supposed “meltdown” in the debate – that, I agree, is an unwarranted criticism. She was completely in bounds there. But she is a stultifying speaker, and that has nothing to do with her gender. I don’t like hearing Kerry or Gore speak either, for the same reasons. Conversely, I enjoy hearing Maggie Thatcher. It has nothing to do with Hillary’s gender and everything to do with her personality.
Third, the gender card – there is absolutely no way you can argue she hasn’t played it repeatedly, and without provocation. She never fails to mention the fact that she’s a woman running for President. I don’t like the identity politics component of this, but it would be only mildly annoying if she didn’t insist on having it both ways by appealing to women voters on the basis of her gender while insisting that we respond to her ideas, then screaming “sexism!” when some have the temerity to do so critically. The bottom line is, you wanna play with the boys, you better be ready to rumble with the boys.
As a libertarianish independent, I was unlikely to vote for Hillary to begin with based on policy grounds. But her conduct during this campaign – particularly when compared to that of Obama, who has been, contrary to her claims, all about issues – has sealed the deal. The only way I won’t abstain or vote Republican if she’s the Democratic nominee is if the Republicans find a way to clone Hitler and put him on the ballot.
And Edwards – pointing out that he’s good looking, well-coiffed, and has a great deal of personal charm is homophobic? Whuh? Now you’re really stretching.
redstocking: I don’t believe that happened to Cherie Blair.
😀 Well, actually: Both Cherie Booth and Tony Blair were involved in the Labour Party, and both were interested in a career in politics. When Tony won an election and got into the House, Cherie focussed on law: had they both been MPs, they wouldn’t have been able to have a family. Cherie Booth, as a successful lawyer, was certainly making more money than her husband was before he became Prime Minister, but once he became PM, she could not become a judge – which is the natural next step for a QC – because an apparent (or a real) conflict of interest might arise. Further, there may have been issues and conflicts with the expectation that Cherie Booth would be available to be Tony Blair’s trophy wife/First Lady – which is not a traditional role in British politics.
I highly recommend The Mermaid and the Minotour: Sexual Arrangements and Human Malaise by Dorothy Dinnerstein. It was republished in 1999, but was originally written in 1977. She argued that the patriarchy will endure until men take an equal role in raising very young children. Otherwise powerful women will usually evoke childhood resentments against mothers and fear of losing your autonomy to an overpowering harpy. Women as well as men will be affected. I worry to what extent younger women see Hillary as their hopelessly out-of-date mothers who neither understand nor support them. Feminism had devastating effects on their young lives. I have seen many marriages collapse under the strain of endless bickering about sharing house care and child care equally . Many of their mothers might have not been around as much as they needed her. Unless you are very rich and can hire a full-time nanny who becomes part of the family, I am mystified how both husband and wife can pursue the 60-hour-week that seem to have become the price for great professonal success and still care for their children.
The mommy wars drive me round the twist. Early feminist emphasis was on changing society so mothers and fathers could share equally in childcare. That goal seems to have faded into the the mists of ancient history.
Xey: I don’t need the media to tell me about Hillary’s manner – all I need to do is watch her on tv.
Er, if all you know of Clinton is what the media lets you see, you are letting the media tell you about her “manner”. Aren’t you? If you want to know what her manner is without media filtering, you need to attend an event at which she’s speaking. Have you?
Third, the gender card – there is absolutely no way you can argue she hasn’t played it repeatedly, and without provocation.
Because none of the Republican candidates have spent any time at all playing the gender card? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
She never fails to mention the fact that she’s a woman running for President.
Yes. She is. And none of the Republican candidates running for President have failed to play the gender card of making clear they’re men running for President.
while insisting that we respond to her ideas, then screaming “sexism!” when some have the temerity to do so critically.
Crap. If you were responding to her ideas, that isn’t sexism. But the mainstream media criticism has not been criticism of her ideas: it’s been sexist criticism ignoring her ideas.
And Edwards – pointing out that he’s good looking, well-coiffed, and has a great deal of personal charm is homophobic?
Yes. Criticism of Edwards has focussed on claims he’s “effeminate” – as explicitly as Ann Coulter calling him a “faggot” to laughing conservative approval, as implicitly as talking up the price of his haircuts. Homophobic.
I’m really disappointed that Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards didn’t/weren’t able to give their husbands a little more/better guidance. Does anyone have an insight why that may have happened? I know the campaign doesn’t give a lot of breathing space, but I would have thought EE might have been able to at least prevent that crap coming out of Edwards mouth.
I fail to see how byrningham’s post is sexist.
Pointing out that she shamelessly relies on her husband’s political clout is not sexist, neither is calling her teary eyed media stunt phony. Supporting her primarily because she’s a woman or because there are sexist undertones in the media coverage is sexist. If HRC cannot transcend and rise above these issues the way e.g. Angela Merkel did, then she’s the wrong candidate or maybe the US is not ready yet or both. (To me, both HRC and Edwards are already disqualified because of their Iraq vote, but unfortunately the democratic electorate seems to have all but forgotten about that.)
There are a couple reasons I’d rather have Obama or Edwards as President than I would Clinton.
First, the war. Like Publius said, she showed very poor judgment on Iraq the first time around, and hasn’t really stood up against it or any of the numerous abuses yet. Which calls into question her judgment for future similar things. That’s my biggest worry with her.
Second, the last 20 years have been Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush. Adding another 4-8 years of a Clinton is getting too close to warring families and aristocratic succession for my tastes.
Third, like Publius, I worry if she’ll actually take advantage of the opportunity we have, and show how the Movement Conservative ideology of the Republican party is morally bankrupt and has been wrong on every important issue, and make some progress toward sanity. That worries me a bit with Obama too.
The fact she’s irrationally hated by many Republicans, men and women alike isn’t really as big a deal, because no matter who the Democrats choose, the Republicans are going to break out exactly the same Mad Libs Book of Slander.
novakant: Nate’s comment, criticizing Clinton substantively: not sexist. Comments which criticize Clinton because of her gender: sexist.
Nate, Edwards showed equally bad judgment on Iraq.
novakant: Yes, he did. And that’s a count against them. However, he, unlike Clinton, has come around and said he made a mistake. Which doesn’t absolve him of that, but it does show that he has probably learned from it, and will be less likely to make the same mistake again. There’s less sign of that with Clinton.
All of that said, any of the Democratic contenders would be orders of magnitude less likely to get us involved in another war than any of the Republicans (with the possible exception of Ron Paul. He has other crazy ideas, however.)
I like Obama’s unity rhetoric, but I worry also that it makes it harder for him to investigate the numerous misdeeds of the Bush administration, or at least make Republican “hypocricial partisan” attacks, which will come anyway, more plausible.
Though none of the candidates have made much of a push to investigate the lies and torture and corruption of the Bush administration. I don’t know why. I don’t know why John Kerry didn’t in 2004, either.
Is no one going to address Publius’ four points of concern about Clinton? They are my reasons for hoping she is not the nominee. Four excellent reasons to not want her to be President, although I’m willing to believe her motives for #2 (not wanting to appear too liberal) are sincerely hawkish and not political posturing.
I’m not smart enough to grasp the linguistic constructs and meta-currents underlying the coverage of the candidates and much prefer primary sources–votes, speeches, c-span coverage, to insightful analysis–although I welcome it for perspective. My experience has been more blunt.
Yes there is sexism alive. One of my employees told me just yesterday as he was stocking beer that he joked that he was afraid the first time Hillary had PMS she’d be bombing everybody. When I replied that under that theory Bush must secretly be a woman too, because he’s been pretty liberal with the bombs, he laughed and then surprised me by pointing out how Bush had squandered the $3.1 trillion Clinton surplus.
Yes there is racism. Later on in the evening, as I watched the results, one of my customers asked me if I thought this country was ready for a black president, then went on to tell me he’d heard Obama went to a church that did not allow whites and that Obama was a muslim.
I realize these prejudices are alive and well, at least anecdotally in SW Ohio, but that doesn’t change my opinion of Clinton or lessen my caution towards Obama.
As for Edwards, my objection to him is that I feel his economic foreign policy would be as divisive and confrontational as the neo-con military posturing.
I don’t have a vote in this matter, so it’s slightly irrelevant, but can some of the pro-Hillary feminists explain: what positive reason would there be for women for voting Hillary rather than another candidate (as opposed to the negative reason that it will annoy a lot of misogynists)? What will she do for women that no-one else can? Yes, third world female immigrants (illegal or legal) are nastily exploited in the US (and the UK). But will HRC change anything about this? My impression is that she will not stand up in practice and do anything controversial.
If the argument is that you have to have a women president to prove something, prove what? If US voters can’t work out yet that women are capable of leading nations effectively (post Thatcher, Merkel etc) when will they ever be? I consider one of the signs of slight maturity about British political life that people could simultaneously a) be impressed that David Blunkett could rise so far in politics (for those unfamiliar with him, he was Home Secretary and also blind) and b) nevertheless feel that he was a complete sh**.
for the record: i think it’s really silly to try to psychoanalyze one action, taken independently, by nearly a million people.
has there been any polling done which says anything specific about NH (or Iowa) voters’ feelings about the roles of gender and race in US politics ? or are we all just projecting ?
I have a comment held as spam if the kitty has a moment…
What really, really bugs me about these intra-Dem charges of sexism, is how much it’s NOT based on what candidates actually did or said, but how the media characterizes it.
Edwards says that the POTUS needs to be strong (no disagreement, anyone that stands up to the GOP needs to be strong, and I think that Clinton is strong), and THE MEDIA spins that into a slam at Hillary, after they played ‘gotcha’ with both of them.
And all too many in left-blogistan buys into this media framing, and starts sniping at other dems.
The fact that we’re now talking about sexism and including concessions like “though I’m not denying that sexism plays a role for many opponents” is evidence that the victim card can still be played, and effectively, in America. Bill Clinton, after all, owes his post-Monica presidency to the victim card. It’s an old shtick, and it’s enormously annoying that it’s still working for them.
Whether sexism plays a role for any opponent of Clinton is irrelevant; the point, which Publius makes well, is that the Democratic party should not be eager to return to Clintocracy.
Look, I don’t see many policy differences between Clinton or Obama, and I actually expect Obama to be just as aggressive on foriegn policy as Clinton would be. (A lot of people are confusing opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to all war; Obama strikes me, much more than Clinton, as a liberal interventionist at heart.) Obama’s health care plan is, in my mind, marginally better than Clinton’s. But, otherwise, there’s not much difference. So, the question that you must ask yourself is, do you really want James Carville and Sandy Berger near the wheels of power again? Do you want to be talked down to, mislead, and abandoned where convenient?
You can dismiss all the above as the rantings of a McCain supporter — and that’s fine. I will tell you that a Clinton victory will make it very, very easy for me to vote R next round (unless Huckabee is the nominee, that is). So, perhaps, I should be rooting for her. But I’m not. I’d rather have a Democrat on the ticket that I might conceivably vote despite having policy differences with them.
Are there people who vote against Hillary because she is female? Of course.
Are there people who vote for Hillary simply because she is female? Of course.
Are both sexist? Of course.
Good comment cleek.
My own personal reflection on what happened in NH are pretty simple. A week ago, Hillary had a double digit or close to it lead in NH. After Iowa there was a dramatic shift. That shift was almost too much to be believed. It basically represented a 20 point shift in a short period of time. I think some poll respondents were caught up in the moment, so to speak.
I think both Hillary’s strong performance in the debate and the “incident” helped many people to go back to their original opinions.
In fact, if we hadn’t had the stupid polls to begin with, Obama’s performance would have been considered very strong.
Personally, I prefer Obama, then Edwards then Hillary. I make that list based upon both policy preferences and my perception of their ability to actually lead the country once elected.
And I would take any of them in a heart beat over any of the Republican candidates.
A lot of Dems fear McCain. I don’t. If I were a 527, or even running any of the dem candidates campaigns, I would just show the pictures of McCain and Bush having a birthday party while New Orleans and the Gulf coast were being drowned by Katrina.
Complaining that her manner is that of a “schoolmarm” is sexist: complaining that her husband was President so she ought not to be is sexist: complaining that she gave up her career to further her husband’s is sexist: complaining that she’s “playing the gender card” is sexist.
Actually, rather like the meta-irony of the Alanis Morisette song ‘ironic’, none of those objections are necessarily sexist, and thus your objections to those objections are reverse-sexism, and if you don’t think her campaign isn’t deliberately manipulating your instincts in that regard, you just got played.
Do you think it was fair to criticise the current the current president for being a dumb jock, for having a president as a father, for getting nominated on the basis of family connections rather than life achievements or merit or for stoking the existential fear narrative?
And then, there is always the
Bradley Effect
The term Bradley effect or Wilder effect refers to a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate.[1][2][3] Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.
I wonder if this will extend to white women in the national election?
Democrats have only been succesful with Southern White Males as their headliners…at least since LBJ.
Is Mrs. Clinton considered a Southerner?
I fail to see how byrningham’s post is sexist.
Thank you. It’s a huge triumph for her campaign that they are getting so many people to perceive any criticism of her as sexism. However, it may well backfire in the long-run. The pseudo-tears incident was an act of desperation, and pure Bill Clinton. I felt like I was watching “America’s first black president” (how neo-colonial is that bit of hokum btw?) instead of his wife there, the performance was so pitch-perfect. But they only pulled that out at the last minute to avert a catastrophic defeat in NH – they reason they did not use such tactics sooner is because there is so much longer-term risk in general election terms.
As pointed out elsewhere (and perhaps in this thread, I’ve been reading a lot…) Obama’s and Edwards’ poll numbers were pretty much spot-on with final results. Some combination of events resulted in greater-than-expected turnout for Clinton (speculation about which I find interesting).
I don’t think this is a big loss for Obama, and I just gave him money.
Crap. If you were responding to her ideas, that isn’t sexism. But the mainstream media criticism has not been criticism of her ideas: it’s been sexist criticism ignoring her ideas.
OK, so because she’s a woman, she should be the first presidential candidate ever to be judged solely on the merit of her policies, rather than shallow caricatures of her personality?
As von demonstrates, the responsible moderate vote of “mass death for fun and profit” is still strong.
People will still vote for mass death when their “tribal sense” is frightened. McCain is willing to sing songs about killing thousands of Persians and the responsible “moderates” are still scared.
Obama is not part of the “real” reasonable tribe and I doubt Mrs. Clinton will look like she is part of the tribe when killing looks to be the “responsible” option.
LJ:but I would have thought EE might have been able to at least prevent that crap coming out of Edwards mouth.
Appearantly he clarified.
I definately see a lot of sexism in the coverage of Clinton. There was plenty in Merkels campaign too IIRC – lots of remarks about how cold she was, how plain she dressed. She started with a hugh lead and in the end barely won. But in my experience a lot of men don’t recognize sexism easily. I have a quite emancipated man but I still have to point it out often and explain in depth before he realizes something is not gender-neutral.
I’m still more Edwards, but though we have to wait till February it seems to be a choice between Obama and Clinton. Clintons domestic policy seems better, Obama seems to be the best candidate for foreign policy. Clinton comes across as hard working and knowledgeable, Obama seems to be more visionairy. Both have flaws – and both are a lot better than any of the Republican candidates.
I am truelly suprised at how much of the right-wing smears about Hillary are repeated by democrats and I still have difficulty seeing how Barack can stand for radical change – but at the same time can be seen as a uniter who reaches out to the conservatives.
“There are substantive reasons to object to Clinton. That her husband was President before her isn’t one of them.”
I don’t agree. The presidency isn’t something to be passed around the family. It was *a* legitimate reason to oppose Bush II and it is *a* legitimate reason to oppose Clinton II. You can argue that it isn’t reason enough to vote against someone, but it is a legitimate reason.
“The fact she’s irrationally hated by many Republicans, men and women alike isn’t really as big a deal, because no matter who the Democrats choose, the Republicans are going to break out exactly the same Mad Libs Book of Slander.”
I don’t think this is correct. My family has four children and my 2 parents. At Christmas we talked politics with them and their spouses. Previously all 8 Republicans. My parents will almost certainly be voting Republican again, and I think your comment may be correct as to them. Of the six children+spouses five of us said we would vote for Obama if given the chance against any of the Republican possibilities though one said he would consider McCain if he were an option. None of us would vote for Hillary.
It is anecdote. But there you are. So Republicans may bring out ‘the slime’ but that doesn’t mean it is all equally effective.
And as for why we might rationally vote for Obama but not Clinton other than sexism? How about the fact that she is on a stated crusade against conservatism and feels she has been fighting against *us* for at least 15 years while Obama disagrees but doesn’t seem to hate?
byr: OK, so because she’s a woman, she should be the first presidential candidate ever to be judged solely on the merit of her policies, rather than shallow caricatures of her personality?
You admit, then, that you were judging her on a shallow, sexist caricature of her personality?
Wouldn’t it be great if the blunt sexism used to caricature Clinton actually backfired and the media realized they had to quit never judging a candidate on the merit of their policies?
It’s a huge triumph for her campaign that they are getting so many people to perceive any criticism of her as sexism.
Crap, again. “Any” criticism of Clinton is not perceived as sexism. Absorption and regurgitation of sexist comments made about her by the media is perceived as sexism – by more women than men, evidently.
If a black person told you a comment you’d made about Obama came across as racist, would you tell them to shut up, as a white person you know much better than they do what’s racist and what isn’t?
Men telling women that they’re wrong when they perceive comments as sexist comes across as exactly as stupid as that.
Didn’t read all the posts, so please excuse repetition. My beef with Ms. Clinton’s treatment has been all along less one of sexism (tho’ this definitely is in play) than the facile, puerile, self-serving acceptance of the thuglican evisceration of her character, of their unconscionable, cowardly, degraded sliming of her person (and her daughter, for that matter). Far too many ‘progressives’ and otherwise supposedly thoughtful types (like, say, Andrew “Hey, me too!” Sullivan) I know and read have adopted or coopted the stance of “HATING Hillary” as a means of showing their bonafides, as an anti-establishment stance which absolves them of the guilt of supporting a mainstream Democratic candidate, or shows their steel (see? I’m tough! look how tough I am!), or maybe lets them cathect artifacts of their mommies refusing to breast feed, or whatever. What it really shows is how truly malleable Americans (or, more precisely, humans) are in the face of unrelenting character assassination. Long story short: the thugs have, until yesterday, successfully scapegoated (in the sociological sense of the word) Hillary Clinton, and made it safe for a whole passel of weak-willed part-time and full-time sycophants to get their bile off on this country’s appointed ni**er.
From the decayed, abhorrent, seething mass that constitutes modern conservatism, I expect nothing less. It’s when supposedly thoughtful or liberal folks start spouting off on how much they “f***ing hate that bitch” that MY bile starts to rise, and I start to get very, very angry. It ain’t about sexism. Well, of course it is, but what it really is, the corrupted aspect of self that “sexism” provides convenient cover for, is that everyone – EVERYONE – who ever dipped into the corrosive sulphurous pool of thuglican manufactured Clinton hatred has to face the fact of what a tool he or she truly is, and how he or she consciously or unconsciously participated in the oldest game in the relational aggression book, the game that every “in” junior high school girl plays when she emotionally destroys the “out” girl in order to bolster her own fragile self-image.
So to all those who ever camped at the “hate Hillary” campsite, however briefly, THIS is what ya gotta answer for. Ugly, ain’t it?
Sebastian: How about the fact that she is on a stated crusade against conservatism and feels she has been fighting against *us* for at least 15 years while Obama disagrees but doesn’t seem to hate?
Now, I realize that “But they started it!” isn’t really a well-thought-out argument, but. When Bill Clinton took office, the Republican media machine had an apoplexy. The entire time the Clintons were in office, both Bill and Hillary were attacked on every level possible. They were accused of drug running, murder, corruption, and treason on a daily basis on radio, TV, forwarded emails, and newspapers. The Republican Congress spent the entire rest of the Clinton presidency digging into every “scandal”, no matter how ludicrous, unimportant, or patently false. Then they tried to impeach Bill Clinton based on a denial of sex dug up in a fishing expedition on an unrelated charge.
And the whole time, the Republican Media Machine attacked Hillary Clinton too. She was called communist, lesbian, heartless, robotic, crazy, a bitch, power-mad, etcetera. For the entire duration of Bill’s presidency. And then the same attacks were brought out when she ran for the Senate, and again when she’s running for President.
This has continued to the point where even otherwise reasonable conservative-leaning people, like my girlfriend, get into irrational anger and call her “that Clinton Bitch”, and are convinced she’s going to “declare herself President for Life” or something.
So if she says she’s been fighting against conservatism for 15 years, it’s because she HAS. She has been attacked and slandered for 15 years, constantly.
And I fully expect, no matter who gets the Democratic nod, the same kind of thing will happen to them. There’s already that “Obama is a stealth Muslim!” crap (ignoring the fact most Muslims aren’t terrorists) which is fairly prevalent, as I can report from personal experience from the single political argument I had over the holidays.
Sebastian: How about the fact that she is on a stated crusade against conservatism and feels she has been fighting against *us* for at least 15 years
I agree with Nate: the conservative crusade against the Clintons has been a consistent a factor since the Clintons took office as the conservative crusade against equality for LGBT people.
To sum up this entire thread.
1.) Sexism is bad
2.) Hillary Clinton would probably be competent as President, but nobody seems to think she’d be really great or anything, just better than any of the Republicans (which is not nothing, but), and she won New Hampshire because women were pissed off at the media and stuff
3.) John Edwards is a bad person for making sexist remarks about Hillary
4.) Barack Obama is a bad person for not coming to Hillary’s defense when she was being attacked by sexists (despite, you know, Hillary’s camp pretty blatantly suggesting he was a Muslim In Hiding, among other things)
Anything else?
Someotherdude writes:
Ah. I note in passing that I support McCain and, like Pavlov’s dog, you respond with caricatures and generalities about me and the regarding the “responsible moderate vote”. Enjoyable, but not particularly on point.
Men telling women that they’re wrong when they perceive comments as sexist comes across as exactly as stupid as that.
You didn’t address this to me, but, let me chime in: In general, I agree that women perceive certain comments as sexist that men may not perceive as sexist. (And, presumably, vise versa, but that’s neither here nor there.) How is that relevant to whether the comment is actually sexist?
Why, oh why, does anyone have to justify not liking HRC (or anyone else, for that matter) if that dislike is as much personal as it is political?
I don’t have to wait for the MSM, I can turn on CNN and simply watch her speak to find that I DO find her shrill and schoolmarm-ish… Hell, I am old enough to remember Cheech and Chong’s ‘Sister Mary Elephant’ routine, and she brings it to mind. Further, I can’t support someone who fund-raised with Rupert Murdoch.
I am also old enough to remember when hope wasn’t just a campaign buzzword OR a place in Arkansas, but a feeling one had when one heard Martin, John or Robert speak.
I hear some of that in Obama, a pinch in Edwards, NONE in Clinton. I don’t feel hopeful when I listen to HRC and that is more than enough to kill any active support for her on my part.
If you think ‘feeling good’ isn’t one of many good reasons to support a candidate, you probably haven’t felt the need to wash your hands after exiting a voting booth.
Sebastian alludes to my main reason for opposing a Hillary candidacy: it would be a huge gift to the Republican candidate. In an election in which Republican voters are disaffected and in which all of the R candidates are disliked by some portion of the Repub base, why gift them with a Dem candidate that they can rally against? Hillary hating may be based mostly on lies and bullshit, but it’s kind of a hobby for many Republican voters. I know of several Repubs in my family who will probably stay home on election day because they are unimpressed with their party and its candidates, but will go to the polls just to vote against Hillary if she’s the nominee. I don’t think this is a minor concern, especially considering the lack of any serious policy differences among the Dem candidates. Obama and Edwards just don’t have the downside she does.
I would appreciate more feedback on my post.
So if she says she’s been fighting against conservatism for 15 years, it’s because she HAS. She has been attacked and slandered for 15 years, constantly.
I don’t disagree with this, but one thing that bothers me is the thought that she has changed because of this. Her tenure in the Senate has seemed to be an exercise in fitting in with the power structure rather than fully utilizing the larger soapbox she came in with. Her hawkishness and her previous positions on Iraq seem to be part of this.
Someone earlier mentioned that Obama’s rhetoric on hope and bipartianship might curtail investigations into the Bush administration. Yet it seems to me that HRC is more constrained in that fashion because anything that she does would be spun as revenge seeking.
Also, thks to Dutchmarbel for the link.
Pub, you captured perfectly many of my own objections to Hillary, and why they are not, in most cases, about her…but what surrounds her.
I’ll add that I do NOT think she will be freed from the cautiousness she’s exhibited as a Senator once she reaches the White House. I think everything she’s done for the last ten years has been in preparation for becoming President, and the Clintons are surrounded by legions of people equally invested. None of that will change in Janary 2009 because she finally is President. They/she will still need to win a second term.
Yes, to a degree that is true of all the candidates, but she embodies it and embraces it. Seeing Terry McAulliffe’s face again this weekend for the first time since Howard Dean replaced him as DNC chair was like stepping in dog shit. That guy should have been tied to a tree and left for the wolves, but he’d be appointed Chief of Staff in a Clinton Administration. It’s the scum that will float back in in Hillary’s wake that has long been the single biggest reason I think she must be stopped. My excitement for the possibility of Obama is more recent, but Hillary’s key flaws have been around for years, and she shows NO sign of recognizing them, never mind correcting them.
There was plenty in Merkels campaign too IIRC – lots of remarks about how cold she was, how plain she dressed. She started with a hugh lead and in the end barely won.
Oh please, Merkel was taken very seriously by everybody ever since she cleaned up the whole financial mess in the CDU and dethroned Schaeuble. Her faltering during the campaign wasn’t due to sexism but to several astonishing mistakes, such as mixing up gross and net income on prime time television, letting a shadow minister propose a flat tax and plagiarizing a Reagan speech. Some people made fun of her appearance and manner, but by god that was nothing against the constant ridiculing of Kohl’s accent and pear shaped head and body.
It’s a huge triumph for [HRC’s] campaign that they are getting so many people to perceive any criticism of her as sexism.
And why any self-respecting woman would want *that* kind of triumph is beyond me.
Since I am male, and therefore unable to truly understand my own culture and my fellow female human beings, I hereby quote a comment I liked from a young woman named Grace, who left it over at MY’s place:
My rude comment in the other thread about overbearing baby boomers was from a perspective like Grace’s. I don’t discount the contributions of boomers, and I certainly don’t think they/we’ll be – or need to be – irrelevent anytime soon. But do you ever consider getting out of the way and letting other people have their moment? After all, the people who came after have to deal with your unfinished business – and there’s a LOT of that.
Win a few elections, dear. Win a few fights.
When your generation can boast the kind of accomplishments the Boomers can boast about – civil rights, environmentalism, feminism – then you can declare them irrelevant.
I’m 50 years old, dear. If your generation (and mine) is reponsible for those advances, it’s also responsible for the 25 years of extraordinary Reaction we are (I hope) at the tail end of. Of course, generational sniping is ridiculous. But it’s hard to remember that sometimes because some of you are abidingly insufferable. The weakness of left activism as a political force in the 60s and 70s had a lot to do with the activists taking themselves entirely too seriously – not a light crtiticism at all. And that phenom. seems to obtain to this day.
Boomers are not irrelevent, but your/our Big Vanguard Moment has passed, as has HRC’s. Her politics are more appropriate to the late 80s or early 90s. I kind of admired her until it was clear that she had no core rationale for running for pres. other than the fact that she’s a woman. That, and the reasons publius mentioned, particularly foreign policy. I’m revolted every day by the adolescent sexual/gender attitudes of the American press, which is nothing new, and doesn’t insult only women. I’m not going to vote for HRC because of it.
“There’s already that “Obama is a stealth Muslim!” crap”
Played by the CLINTON campaign don’t forget. Don’t try to pretend that is just a conservative ploy.
And the drug dealer one was purely her campaign too. (And surely you don’t believe that was an accident, do you?)
“Now, I realize that “But they started it!” isn’t really a well-thought-out argument, but. When Bill Clinton took office, the Republican media machine had an apoplexy.”
Even if the Clinton’s were totally innocent in all slime-doing at the beginning, I don’t see what that has to do with the fact that at this point she feels she cannot talk to/deal with/do anything other than fight with anyone who is a conservative. That includes me, so I can’t vote for her. Obama isn’t that and voting on that basis isn’t sexism.
I think that would be good. It articulates the very concern that many posters are dismissing on this thread and others.
liberal japonicus: I agree, to an extent. No matter which of the Democrats gets elected, if they do, any investigations will be spun as “revenge” until, and probably even after foul deeds are discovered. It probably will be stronger with Clinton, but a few word changes and then the same accusations could (and would) be leveled at Obama and Edwards.
Edwards seems the most likely and able to fight back against that at the moment, especially given the press’s inclinations.
But I could be wrong, and none of them have made it much of an issue, nor have the Democrats in Congress done anything either. Which is one of the ways they most disappointed me.
I think “sexism” is actually a really difficult thing to find in onesself. I appreciate that publius took the time to really think about the issues at hand and make sure that he thought what he thought for rational reasons, and not some visceral reaction to a woman leading.
To backtrack the thread a bit, I think the reason that Xeylon’s reasons for not liking Hillary Clinton can be defined as more sexist is because they are based, almost entirely, on visceral reactions. That is not to say that having any negative visceral reaction to someone is inherently sexist. But there is no way to know if those reactions actually are sexist. (I’m sorry if this doesn’t make sense.)
The fact is, that in our society, men are portrayed as leaders. It is men that we see leading our armies, our countries and mostof our corporations, and because of that a lot of Americans are unintentionally sexist. Though they don’t necessarily hate women, they have a hard time thinking of a woman as a leader, they react negatively to strong women in a visceral way. They don’t mean to, and I’m sure they don’t even realize why they are doing it. They “just don’t like her” because she is too much like a man, and that threatens their understanding of the social order and is hard for them on a visceral level. Though on an intellectual level they may not mind the idea of a woman leader, when a woman actually gets down to leading she is “nagging” and “lecturing” because the only context they have for a woman being in charge are mothers and school teachers.
I don’t think feeling that way makes someone a bad person, because our society has trained them to be that way. But I do think we all have an obligation to really examine our feelings carefully when it comes to “reactions.”
Does anyone know which (if any) of Bill Clinton’s political policies/views/approaches Hillary Clinton has repudiated or criticized?
Is it not legitimate to connect her politics to Bill’s when Hillary was clearly part of the political team during his Presidency? And since she appears to be hiring on most of the same people?
IMO Bill Clinton was horrible for the poor/middle/working class (the “good” fortune of being in office during a bubble should be discounted). Looking at the policies: “free trade,” welfare reform, etc, it seems to me an important concern.
So let me get this straight:
Hillary has better domestic policy proposals, but somehow the domestic policy calculus swings to Obama?
Hm.
Sebastian, the “stealth muslim” crap has been circulating on conservative email lists and websites and blogs for more than a year now. A search on Google for “Clinton stealth Muslim” only finds references to a Clinton volunteer forwarding the same bogus email on to some people back in December. I’ve heard references to her campaign mentioning it, but can’t find anything other than that. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak.
The only mention of drug dealers I made was to the Republican Spin Machine calling the Clintons drug dealers back in the 90s. The adviser who made insinuations about Obama being asked about drug dealing was forced to resign. As opposed to the media mouthpieces and even elected representatives who repeated all of the most slanderous lies against the Clintons in the 90s.
None of which is any particular defense of those even being issues, which is one of the reasons Clinton is my last choice for candidate.
My point is simply this. She feels like she’s had to fight conservatives for 15 years, because she’s had to. If “t this point she feels she cannot talk to/deal with/do anything other than fight with anyone who is a conservative” it’s largely because that’s all conservatives and Republicans have wanted to do to her. I don’t entirely buy that that IS all she knows how to do. And while it’s not always the most useful or tactically best way to react, pretending to be shocked, SHOCKED that Hillary Clinton feels as if she has to fight Republicans is downright ridiculous
Looking at the policies: “free trade,” welfare reform, etc, it seems to me an important concern.
Yet she captured the blue collar vote. Look, some of his policies were bad, some neutral, some good. But there were some definite strong points such as making college and grad school more affordable, EITC and improvements in health care coverage, etc.
lawyers…always parsing. eric – i don’t necessarily think her policies are BETTER, just that they’re very good, just like obama’s. from what I understand, her health care plan is a bit better. but my larger point (perhaps inartfully expressed) is that i don’t think she’ll put forth the effort to enact the bold policies she proposed. i’m basing this on her past history.
i don’t know obviously whether obama can, but i think (1) he’ll try to be bold; (2) his elections will create more favorable conditions.
let me know though if that doesn’t make sense
Why would he try to be bold, when he has explicitly promised not to be bold?
His whole formula is based on bi-partisan compromise and unity. His policy proposals are weaker tea than either HRC or Edwards. He’s been adopting the GOP talking points with respect to Social Security and Medicare.
He might have more favorable conditions, but I question what he would do with those if he found them.
He says “change” a lot, but his actual policies represent less change than Edwards and, domestically, Clinton. In terms of foreign policy, his policy proposals and votes amount to the same amount of “change” as Hillary’s (with slight variance) – and less than Edwards.
Also: her energy policy is greener.
Something mentioned on NPR or CNN this a.m. in passing: Clinton’s campaign passed out a flier mis-stating Obama’s position on abortion rights. Could that have been a factor?
I would be disappointed in Clinton if that’s true.
Otherwise, yes, she has suffered from misogynistic glee all this week from the pundits and it has been pretty nauseating.
“Yet she captured the blue collar vote.”
Eric, my impression was that the blue collar vote was going to Edwards, though Hillary appears to be having more success with the blue collar political institutions.
The coverage last night said that Hillary beat Obama badly on the blue collar vote. I don’t know what percentage Edwards got (he should have got more whatever it was since he is the strongest in this regard), but I do know that Hillary beat out Obama.
Men telling women that they’re wrong when they perceive comments as sexist comes across as exactly as stupid as that.
It’s pretty offensive to imply that I am stupid and a misogynist. As a feminist, I have to say I am dismayed that in 2008 someone would publicly insist that any woman gets to arbitrarily determine what is or is not sexist without feeling to need to explain and defend that decision in open, rational debate.
You have also implied that HRC should be judged by different criteria than her male peers, and that any women is obliged to vote early and vote often for her purely on the basis of her gender.
I hope I am not violating the posting rules by concluding from your arguments that you are a lousy feminist. That sort of thinking consigns issue groups to marginal tokenism.
“And while it’s not always the most useful or tactically best way to react, pretending to be shocked, SHOCKED that Hillary Clinton feels as if she has to fight Republicans is downright ridiculous”
Who is shocked? I’m not shocked at all. I’m stating what *is*, I’m not being surprised by it. I’m not shocked that my sexually abused friend has all sorts of problems establishing dating relationships, but I’m not trying to set him up on dates with my friends either.
Are we supposed to respond to redstock’s 7:23? I really can’t because it doesn’t have much to do with why I wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Redstock seems to be saying in that comment that our society has made being a woman with a career really difficult unless you have enough money for a nanny. The Clintons of course did have that kind of money, so I’m not sure I get it.
As far as emotion-playing goes, I think you are all missing how hard Obama has to avoid every getting the ‘angry black man’ label—putting limitations on him just as difficult as those that you think Clinton has to work under. It is just that Obama negotiates those limits better than Clinton does.
As for experience, I don’t buy the “being a First Lady should count as experience” argument. It isn’t. And I’m not saying that Obama has vastly more experience than Clinton. I’m saying that her pretense of having vastly more than him as a reason to vote for her over him is more spin than substance.
Also I think playing the sexism is so much worse than racism concept is a crock. There was a female vice-presidental candidate long before the still-never-happened black one. There was a female Speaker of the House long before the still-never-happened black one. And if we expand to other Western countries, where is the racial minority analogue to Thatcher or Merkel? Again I don’t think that minority-identity politics is a great reason to vote for someone, but if you insist on playing that game I don’t see how Clinton has a better claim than Obama.
The difference between Obama and Clinton and their allegedly limiting identity groups is that Obama tries to reach past racial politics and say “I’m a good candidate [full stop]” while Clinton tries to make feminism a large and explicit part of her appeal: “I’m a good female candidate and it is about time that a female won”.
Both personally and politically I believe that the former is better than the latter.
von: You didn’t address this to me, but, let me chime in: In general, I agree that women perceive certain comments as sexist that men may not perceive as sexist. How is that relevant to whether the comment is actually sexist?
Unless you’re trying to devalue female perceptions of sexism against male perceptions of sexism, I think your question was answered in the preceding sentence.
Sebastian: Even if the Clinton’s were totally innocent in all slime-doing at the beginning, I don’t see what that has to do with the fact that at this point she feels she cannot talk to/deal with/do anything other than fight with anyone who is a conservative. That includes me, so I can’t vote for her.
If you have no problem voting for a Presidential candidate who feels that he can do no other than treat you as a second-class citizen, why do you have a a problem voting for a Presidential candidate who feels that if you treat her with hostility and aggression, she’s not going to assume you can be won round by conciliation? Y
byrn: As a feminist, I have to say I am dismayed that in 2008 someone would publicly insist that any woman gets to arbitrarily determine what is or is not sexist without feeling to need to explain and defend that decision in open, rational debate.
As a feminist, I’m wearily resigned to the fact that in 2008, men will publicly insist that women are no better at identifying sexism than they are, and will claim that women attempting to explain what they mean by sexism aren’t trying to have an “open rational debate” but are… presumably, we’re doing something odd and feminine, but obviously, since we’re women, when we state what we mean we’re not being “open and rational”, are we?
The statements that Obama’s goal is compromise and that his propsals are weaker tea than Clinton and Edwards are untrue.
I think Obama’s problem is that he is making speeches to the nation when he needs to be making speeches to Democratic primary and caucus voters. Party activists tend to be very issue oriented and a “shoppin list” kind of speech is reassuring to them. if a the candidate doesn’t stand up and say, “I did all of this and will do all of that,” the assumption becomes aht he/she has done and will do nothing.
The fact is that Obama has an excellent track record (Hilzoy posted a summary, Matt Stoller did a comparison of Hillary and Obama on net nuetrality, the Obama site ahs info) and anyone who wishes to know his past accomplishments and future plans can find out.
There is a lot of pent up anger , entirely justified, in my opinion, on our side and I think there are many who want a candidate who displays that anger. Obama doesn’t. It is unfair and incorrect to assume that just because he doesn’t act angry that he will be a collaborator as both Edwards and Clinton were during the dark days of right wing ascendency. His style is to present his ideas the way Hilzoy does and ANdrew did–respectfully, in a way that allows people who would normally disagree with him to agree or at least like him. There is nothing in his past legislative record to indicate that he will cave in or compromise, only that he will be consistantly civil and respectful. Clinton has a well documented record of caving and compromising; so does Edwards but he seems to have learned his lesson. In any case it is a mistake to jump to the conclusion that just because a person doesn’t have an angry, polaraizing style, that person will be spineless. One might as well make that argument about Hilzoy.
I get frustrated with Democratic activists who insist on viewing the candidate thruogh the narrow prism of their own desires. No one gets elected exclusively by the Democratic base. In order to get elected a candidate has to get votes outside the base. So I don’t understand how people can decide which candidate they want without factoring the candidate’s abiity to communicate with people outside the base.
I want our candidate to win. I want our candidate to bring new people to the party. I want our candidate to be able to help, and certainly not hurt, the down ticket races. Of course I want the candidate to be reasonable (as all three are) on liberal issues. I think that means Obama. It might mean Clinton, depending on how she evolves during this campaign.
But anyway the bit about OPbama being a compromiser or not standing for anything is unsupported by facts. Bottom line: he stands for communicating our values and positions respectfully to people who disagree in order to broaden our support and get agreement. That is standing for a hell of a lot.
Have I “insisted that women are no better at identifying sexism than men”? I know I have not, but feel free to read the threat to confirm. For the record, I believe the contrary to be true. I also believe (and this is where we disagree) that discriminatory behaviour or language is something that can be identified, defined and explained even to the perpetrator should he or she be willing to listen.
I’m not sure what I’ve done to merit being called stupid and misogynistic, other than disagreeing with you, and you certainly haven’t identified any objectionable or sexist language on my part.
In sum, you’re a serious liability to the cause you claim to advocate.
Xeynon: From what I remember about HRC’s public style, I remember thinking between 92-94 that she was just awesome, great to listen to. And then something happened around 94, and she started sounding like she thought she was speaking to kindergartners (overcoaching of some sort, I think). And that made this very smart person completely impossible to listen to. That went on for a few years, but she got a lot better once she won the Senate seat, and she’s been better ever since.
“I think the reason that Xeylon’s reasons for not liking Hillary Clinton can be defined as more sexist is because they are based, almost entirely, on visceral reactions. That is not to say that having any negative visceral reaction to someone is inherently sexist. But there is no way to know if those reactions actually are sexist. (I’m sorry if this doesn’t make sense.)”
Not only does it make sense, but I’d say you nailed it.
I’d go even further, recognizing that sadly (and happily, too), the cultural things you point out have an evolutionary basis (and an even more powerful one than racism).
I would appreciate feedback to *my* post! 🙂
Again I don’t think that minority-identity politics is a great reason to vote for someone, but if you insist on playing that game I don’t see how Clinton has a better claim than Obama.
Compare the percentage of minorities with the percentage of woman in other countries. Look at the percentage of women in politics. Maybe an international comparison? We are suprisingly number 4 and we still have political parties in parlement who won’t allow women in governmental positions as an official guideline (freedom of religion, they claim). The US is number 41. Why are there no women in politics?
byrn: read Shinobi at 11:35 AM.
Von & Sebastian: McCain makes me shiver. I don’t believe that people who contemplate voting McCain could vote for Obama. They differ on so many essential points.
I’d appreciate a feedbag on my hitching post.
There is nothing in his past legislative record to indicate that he will cave in or compromise, only that he will be consistantly civil and respectful. Clinton has a well documented record of caving and compromising;
His voting record in the Senate is just about identical to Clinton’s on all foreign policy votes, and almost all domestic policy votes. Yet she caves, and he doesn’t? Interesting.
For the record: he is better on net neutrality.
In any case it is a mistake to jump to the conclusion that just because a person doesn’t have an angry, polaraizing style, that person will be spineless. One might as well make that argument about Hilzoy.
A mistake indeed but, um, who made that argument? Not me.
But anyway the bit about Obama being a compromiser or not standing for anything is unsupported by facts. Bottom line: he stands for communicating our values and positions respectfully to people who disagree in order to broaden our support and get agreement. That is standing for a hell of a lot.
That is not my “bit.” My point is that Obama gets credited with being this great agent of change when, in fact, his voting record and policy proposals are almost identical to Clinton’s. She, of course, is the dread status quo establisment candidate who is too conservative.
Further, Obama’s actual policy proposals (Social Security, health care, energy policies) are further to the Right than Clinton’s. They are, indeed, weaker tea from a progressive perspective. And that is, in fact, true.
His voting record in the Senate is just about identical to Clinton’s on all foreign policy votes
Clinton (and Edwards) voted in support of the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents – Obama didn’t and, while he wasn’t in the Senate at the time, spoke out publicly against it. I know that Democrats don’t want to hear this anymore because now it’s all happy days are here again primary fun, but I’ll keep repeating it, because there has to be some accountability, even if it only means that people who have supported this blood soaked trainwreck, should not be eligible for the leadership of the free world.
byrn: read Shinobi at 11:35 AM
I’m not sure why that post is particularly relevant to me? I’d like anyone, please, to identify anything I’ve said about HRC that implies I am uncomfortable with the idea of a women president etc… etc…
The only criticism of her I’ve expressed here is that I think she is a problematic feminist candidate given that her campaign leverages her husband’s success so much. Similarly, I consider John Edwards and, even more so, Al Gore problematic class warriors given that they both hail from the political or economic elite.
As far as I can tell, this thread’s definition of a misogynist is someone who wouldn’t vote for HRC as their first choice, no matter what their reasoning. I am doubly damned, since I am not even a US citizen although, now I think about it, I did vote for a woman (who won) when given the chance in my own country’s presidential election some years back.
“If you have no problem voting for a Presidential candidate who feels that he can do no other than treat you as a second-class citizen, why do you have a a problem voting for a Presidential candidate who feels that if you treat her with hostility and aggression, she’s not going to assume you can be won round by conciliation?”
You are being a bit obscure for other readers here. Better to be explicit: I believe you are saying that because I can vote for Republicans while being gay, I should clearly be willing to vote for Democrats while being conservative.
That doesn’t really make sense even in the abstract, but in this particular case it makes even less sense. In the abstract you seem to be saying that in your opinion ‘gayness’ ought to be more important to me that ‘conservatism’. That is a value judgment that you make which rather noticeably doesn’t track with mine.
On gay issues and particular candidates I look at practical effects. Bush wasn’t going to be particularly negative or positive for gay people and neither was the Democratic candidate—(remember the Democratic President, a Clinton, had just signed the anti-gay ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ with noticeably large Democratic Party support). As such I was able to make the choice on non-gay grounds. If I had been asked to vote for Helms or some such, that would have been a different story.
Here you are asking me to choose between a woman who has promised a never ending state of war against the Axis of Evil of conservatism and libertarianism and a man who doesn’t agree with them but thinks that continuing a state of war with them isn’t the best way to move forward. He believes, if you will, that understanding their culture and reaching out to them is better even if they express initial hostility and have done nasty things in the past.
But of course, I must have come to my conclusions via sexism, because as you note, Hillary is in fact a woman.
novakant:
FWIW, I think that is a completely valid point.
Redstocking: she argued that the patriarchy will endure until men take an equal role in raising very young children. Otherwise powerful women will usually evoke childhood resentments against mothers and fear of losing your autonomy to an overpowering harpy.
As I post this, I’m watching my 2 1/2 year old boy in my office while my wife goes to work (title 1 aid). He’s in a great mood but wreaking havoc (i.e. trying to type on my computer, using my desk/chair/phone/head as a roadway for his matchbox, trying to use client files as a scribble pad, picking up my phone and talking to ?, etc.). Here, I’ll let him type:
Jake:
;;l;;;’;;;; t rtttttrtrtrrtrtrtrtrtrttttttrttttrtrtttrrrtrtrtrtsghghhhg
Since I left the Cars dvd at home, there isn’t much hope for work in the office and I’ll likely go home soon until my wife gets off of work. Funny how he has four older sisters and all he can think of is trains or cars.
Here’s my read on the sexism issue: IT’S ONLY NEW HAMPSHIRE PEOPLE!! Why are we reading so much into an open primary from a tiny state at this point? The thinking is kinda like:
A(hard to predict New Hampshire voters) + B (“crying” on camera) + C (bad media HRC coverage) / D (open primary where even Clinton hating Republicans can vote for her to spite the more likeable Obama) = X (HRC’s victory must be due to backlash at sexist treatment of HRC).
Huh?
While I don’t dispute that we live in a sexist world and that some of the objections to HRC are sexist, HRC’s candidacy should not become the cause celebre of the feminist movement because there is simply too much to not like about her that has nothing to do with her sex.
As an aside and for humorous purposes only, I address the fact that if the theory forwarded by Redstocking were true, I would think more of us would feel positively about HRC. My mother,for example (a loving but firm, kind, compassionate, stay-at-home mom) once kicked the crap out of a Husky that was attacking my 3-year-old sister (requiring a hospital visit for stitches). My brother and I were loading a snowmachine in the back of our Suburban when it happened and were somewhat trapped. Our little sister loved animals (and actually so did my Mom) and had gone over to the Husky who appeared friendly until it had her by the forearm and was tossing her around like a rag doll. It is family lore how Mom did a 4.4 40 yard dash in her post-five kids form and made the Husky to to the OTHER end of the leash and start to wimper.
So when I think of how my Mom would be as president . . .
Sebastian, how am I supposed to keep up my irrational dislike of all things conservative if you keep being reasonable in the comments?
This is why I want to vote *for* Obama- I want a president who may be liberal but understands he’s president of an entire country, not just the 27% (or whatever it works out to) that voted for him. That includes lucid conservatives. I don’t think Clinton will ever really feel that way.
Jesurgislac, your comments in this thread have been somewhat astounding.
According to you, if a black person finds a white person’s comments racist, and the white person disagrees, that’s it. The white person is wrong.
According to you, if a woman finds a man’s comments sexist and the man disagrees, that’s it, it’s sexist. It’s stupid and misogynistic for a man to try and tell a woman why he disagrees.
How about we actually use reason and discuss why the remark is or isn’t racist, or sexist, rather than blindly deciding that automatically the “victim” has final says. Really, that you are saying something like this is astonishing to me.
Can you please actually give some reasons for why it is sexist to be critical of her character, or to be unhappy with the fact that she is surrounding herself with her husband and his associates?
It’s A factor. I don’t think it’s THE factor.
I think it’s myopic either to over-emphasize it or to under-emphasize it. But the contribution can change on a dynamic basis. And that’s where passing events can temporarily magnify it.
Although if folks keep picking at it (or ignoring it), sexism WILL become a major issue—and in a way opposite to their intention.
RE: Eric Martin…
His voting record in the Senate is just about identical to Clinton’s on all foreign policy votes, and almost all domestic policy votes. Yet she caves, and he doesn’t? Interesting.
And how many votes is that? That’s his whole record? Perhaps the Senate has had some other votes as well? And you do realize, that unlike hillary, Obama had a legislative record before becoming Senator?
Sebastian:
“How about the fact that she (Clinton) is on a stated case against conservatism and feels that she has been fighting against “us” for at least 15 years, while Obama disagrees but doesn’t seem to hate.”
Well, at this point in the Iliad of the past 37 years of “us” (not you) fulminating against the entire edifice of liberalism and pledging far and wide to vanguish every bit of it back to 1932, and then making Bill and Hillary the personal embodiment of all that is horrible about liberalism, the baby boom generation, government, cultural and social change, etc …… that (to use another one of my tortured, but obscure, analogies) Achilles (Hillary) might want to not only slay Hector, but drag him around the battlefield by his ankles for a good long while.
She’s a hard-bitten warrior, which is both admirable and her Achilles heel.
That said, ending that crap is why Obama is so attractive and seemingly shorn of the past enmities.
That also said, if he wins the nomination and the Presidency, it may be that he is merely unbaptized in battle (Redstate has already stated, as has Mr. Thompson, that Obama will ruin the country).
Obama might be like my father-in-law in WWII, who had to have a hot hunk of shrapnel whiz past his crotch and his face on his third mission over Europe before it came to him, as he put it, that “those SOBs are trying to kill me!”
Which is why, when Obama wins the nomination, he will make a phone call to Hillary and ask to borrow her brass balls, because Hector ain’t dead yet.
femdem said it first and shorter and better.
And how many votes is that? That’s his whole record? Perhaps the Senate has had some other votes as well? And you do realize, that unlike hillary, Obama had a legislative record before becoming Senator?
Not sure exactly what you’re getting at here Mr. F.
Obama votes like Hillary in the Senate. His votes (and rhetoric) as a state senator and US senatorial candidate were more progressive than his record as a US Senator. That is good and bad, but doesn’t help the contention that he doesn’t cave.
Obama proposes policies that are like Hillary’s during this campaign – only his domestic agenda is to the right of hers.
My point about the above is that it’s curious to me that Clinton gets the rap as a conservative, status quo type while Obama is lauded as a progressive agent of change. Given their respective records and policy prescriptions, there seems to be a disconnect.
Unless you’re trying to devalue female perceptions of sexism against male perceptions of sexism, I think your question was answered in the preceding sentence.
Nope, doesn’t quite answer it: It’s not that I am trying to devalue female perceptions of sexism against male perceptions of sexism. I’m trying to figure out why either sex’s “perceptions” are worth much of anything. They are, by definition, perceptions.
I would also point you to byrningman‘s comment, above.
SH: “Even if the Clinton’s were totally innocent in all slime-doing at the beginning, I don’t see what that has to do with the fact that at this point she feels she cannot talk to/deal with/do anything other than fight with anyone who is a conservative. That includes me, so I can’t vote for her. Obama isn’t that and voting on that basis isn’t sexism.”
Clinton has run on the her record in NY of reaching out to all voters. She has a long track record in the Senate of working with Republicans, including conservative ones. She’s deep into some rather alarming-to-this-secularist religious/cultish breakfast thing with a bunch of hard-right people. It’s a big reason I’d rather vote for someone else.
novakant: “even if it only means that people who have supported this blood soaked trainwreck”
As I’ve said here a zillion times, HRC voted for the AUMF for liberal-interventionist reasons/consistency with her arguments against the conservatives who attacked Bill/political expediency (that is, looking to minimize the damage to the D brand which the post-invasion discovery of a few chemical warheads would have done) while saying invading would be a bad idea, and said after the invasion it had set a bad precedent, so “support” is plain wrong, esp. since it was going to happen however she voted.
Maybe it is nice to link to a new post by John Cole:
I think Sebastian has a right to fear Clinton. If she wins, with control of Congress, she will kick the asses of right-wingers and their pet theories.
I think Clinton can play hard-ball like no one else.
I had a longer comment this morning that typepad decided was spam, but the gist of it was: Why go looking for an “…ism” here? I’ll see if I can sneak by a comment with just one link…
All the way back in mid November (seems like an eternity in this race) polls showed Iowa very tight, with Obama having the advantage if the youth/uncommitted vote turned out while HRC had NH locked up. (PDF)
This poll had HRC taking NH with 37%. Her actual was 39%. Not too shabby… (It did not have McCain as the winner though he was tied for second. But the R side has never had two clear front runners, even to this point.)
Among NH Democrats, 53% of Clinton supporters had their minds made up back in November, before most of the stuff being talked about here occurred. 62% of Clinton supporters strongly favored their candidate. “Nearly eight in 10 say she has prepared herself well enough to handle the job of president, as opposed to less than half who feel that way about Obama and Edwards.”
Among HRC supporters, only 7% said the reason was because she was a woman. Among likely voters, 68% thought HRC had the best chance of winning vs. 14% for Obama.
Again, this was in November – before any of these recent events that are being used to justify anti-sexism backlash as the reason for her win.
Jes,
Er, if all you know of Clinton is what the media lets you see, you are letting the media tell you about her “manner”. Aren’t you? If you want to know what her manner is without media filtering, you need to attend an event at which she’s speaking. Have you?
Surely you’re aware that you can watch entire speeches on various channels or on youtube.
Besides which, this is a bizarre criteria. I don’t know that I’ve ever watched an entire GWB speech (and certainly never in person), but I feel comfortable with my opinions about his oratory & what it says about him.
btw, do *you* have an opinion about GWB or Mike Huckabee? Ever heard either of them speak in person?
Yes. She is. And none of the Republican candidates running for President have failed to play the gender card of making clear they’re men running for President.
And yet, she’s not running against them yet, except in the minds of her supporters. Obama has managed to avoid talking up his race, yet several GOP candidates have played on the Fear of the Brown Menace. In this area, Obama has seriously outclassed Hillary. Comparing her to the GOP is disingenuous, a tacit admission of her failure.
If a black person told you a comment you’d made about Obama came across as racist, would you tell them to shut up, as a white person you know much better than they do what’s racist and what isn’t?
Men telling women that they’re wrong when they perceive comments as sexist comes across as exactly as stupid as that.
but later As a feminist, I’m wearily resigned to the fact that in 2008, men will publicly insist that women are no better at identifying sexism than they are, and will claim that women attempting to explain what they mean by sexism aren’t trying to have an “open rational debate” but are… presumably, we’re doing something odd and feminine, but obviously, since we’re women, when we state what we mean we’re not being “open and rational”, are we?
So, you want to have a rational debate, but if I tell you that I disagree, that’s me being “stupid”. You can claim to always be right by virtue of your chromosomes, and you can claim to want rational discussion- but please limit yourself to one of those.
Jegurgislac, Shinobi-
Some of my antipathy to Hillary is based on a visceral, gut-level reaction, yes. I find her arrogant, condescending, phony, manipulative. Note that I said that I have the same gut level reaction to male politicians of both parties (Gore, Kerry, Romney). Note that I have criticized what were, in my view, sexist criticisms of her (raising her voice at the debate = shrill). Let me be crystal clear in stating my abhorrence for people who refer to her as a b*tch, harpy, etc. But let me also state that the existence of such people does not automatically mean ANY criticism of her personality is invalid. Note also that I respect her accomplishments and have never criticized her for them. I don’t see any sexism here, and if you provide an explanation as to what I’m missing, I’d like to hear it. I don’t think Hillary would make a good President, partially because of her personality, and I won’t vote for her, partially because of her personality. It IS possible to viscerally dislike a woman for reasons other than that she’s a woman. Again, I don’t see the sexism.
Criticizing her for appealing to feminist identity politics isn’t sexist any more than criticizing Huckabee for appealing to Christian identity politics betrays anti-Christian bigotry – both are inappropriate and irresponsible politicking in my view and both should be called out.
But if you feel nominating Hillary for President will vindicate 60’s feminism, by all means, go ahead. Moderates, conservatives, and independents who would vote for Obama but won’t vote for her are obviously pretty numerous, judging from data and anecdotal evidence alike, so don’t be surprised if she doesn’t win.
Eric,
He says “change” a lot, but his actual policies represent less change than Edwards and, domestically, Clinton.
My perception of Clinton is that she moves with political circumstances. Voting for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman as examples. Whereas Obama has struck me as someone who is more principled.
Also, Obama is a better speaker- and therefore I expect he’ll be able to make his case to the public and therefore maintain the necessary public opinion to get policies enacted.
Yes, he will be slimed by the GOP machine. But it won’t be two decades worth of sliming compressed into 12 months. And (opinion again) he seems to be a principled-enough person that sliming might not be as effective. This isn’t Hillary’s fault, but it does suggest that she’d be less effective.
Maybe Im wrong about Obama- but a big part of the calculation for me is that the worst-case scenario for him is IMO about where Hillary is now (ie someone who talks a good game but practices political expediency).
As wonkie said: I think Obama’s problem is that he is making speeches to the nation when he needs to be making speeches to Democratic primary and caucus voters.
That is, Obama is maybe telling us what he really plans to do rather than what he thinks we want to hear. A feature, not a bug.
Obama votes like Hillary in the Senate.
Obviously, they don’t vote identically (eg Kyl-Lieberman). You appear to be minimizing this difference over and over again. Kyl-Lieberman was *really bad* IMO. She gave GWB the keys once, and he wrecked the car. It took her years to express halfhearted remorse, and then she goes and does it again…
Pretending that their voting records are functionally identical suggests that you don’t want to have that debate. I can’t say that I blame you.
FWIW, I think that is a completely valid point.
great, sorry if it sounded as if was trying to pin you down on this matter
so “support” is plain wrong, esp. since it was going to happen however she voted
you have a strange view of democracy and accountability: if I’m against invasion, I don’t vote for the authorization of military force; if I vote for it, I have supported it with my vote and am accountable for that vote, no matter what kind of misgivings or tactical considerations I have or might have had – talk is cheap
I think Clinton can play hard-ball like no one else.
on what do you base this?
has she played even a single inning of hard-ball her entire time in the Senate ? has she fought for anything important or controversial ? has she championed any cause through to the end ? are there any instances of her kicking ass and/or taking names ? where has she shown that she can out-maneuver her political opponents ?
Eric, when I compare the respective voting records of the three candidates I include the records of Edward and Clinton prior to the time Obama got into the Senate. Clinton and Edwards both became better liberals when it became easier for them to be. When the going was tough, not so much.
I also don’t think the specifics of thier policy proposals matter now. Congress wirites laws anyway. No candidaate is going to be able to deliver exactly what they are proposing now.
I think it is much more important, given the similarities of the candidates at this point in time, to discuss electability, effect on down ticket races, appeal to independents, and ability to draw young and new voters in.
We need to distinguish between sexism and misogyny. Sexism affects men, often more severely. And women are rvery emiss in not acknowedging that. In my Manhattan circle of parents in the 1970s, all of us were struggling earnestly to implement nonsexist childrearing. It was significantly easier for parents of girls. After all, when girls strive to emulate formerly “masculine” behavior, they are merely seen as upwardly mobile. Giving boys more freedom to explore conventionally “feminine” behavior was seen as raising them to be gay. Parents of boys were castigated in elevators, on buses, and in the street if their sons’ hair was too long, if their color preference were suspect, if they carried baby dolls. God help them if they polished their nails or dressed up in their moms far more attractive clothes. By 2, “big boys don’t cry.”
Men have every right to be pissed at women for a double standard.
To be more pithy, women are often guilty of being sexist pigs toward men, but men rarely make that accusation because such a complaint might be seen as girly.
I think it is much more important, given the similarities of the candidates at this point in time, to discuss electability, effect on down ticket races, appeal to independents, and ability to draw young and new voters in.
exactly.
with Obama, you get independents and soft-GOPers voting for him, which can’t hurt down-ticket races. he inspires even those who don’t agree with his policies. the press loves him.
with Hillary, you get someone who the press hates, who offers a chance for us to relive the political scandals of 1998, who will drive away soft-GOPers (esp. if the alternative is McCain), who even makes many liberals cringe.
i’ll be very disappointed if the Dems throw away this chance.
Shinobi,
That is not to say that having any negative visceral reaction to someone is inherently sexist. But there is no way to know if those reactions actually are sexist.
I think we can know, or at least know more. I know that I’ve enthusiastically supported & volunteered for hispanic and black candidates in the past; if I don’t like a particular minority candidate, I think I can be pretty sure (based on that and on internal reflection) that it isn’t based on racism.
To further Xenyon’s point- it is not de facto sexist to say that a woman politician lacks toughness. It is sexist to claim that a woman politician lacks toughness if she displays the same amount of toughness as male politicians who don’t receive this label. Obviously, that can never be as clean-cut and easy a distinction to see as merely labeling all criticism on these lines out-of-bounds, but otherwise we’re restricted in the discussions we can have about certain categories of candidates.
It’s clear that there is plenty of criticism of Hillary that is based on sexism, and even more that relies on sexist categorization. In fact, Id say that she’s suffering from this a great deal more than Obama is suffering from racism and racist categorization. Id go so far as to say that, despite the fact that she’s used identity politics more than Obama has, she would’ve been the victim of more *ism-based criticism anyway. Racism is just too obvious and ugly to be blatantly used by mainstream sources except in the most oblique way, but sexism can still play in Peoria.
But Hillary supporters shouldn’t hide behind that in their efforts to tout their preferred candidate. I am allowed to not like Hillary, and that doesn’t necessarily mean Im a sexist jerk.
bc-, Jake sounds like a great kid and you like a great father. I take care of my 8-month-old grandson three days a week. It is the best job I have ever dad. One of my daughters pointed out this is the first time I know what I am doing and don’t have several other children preventing me from doing what I know.
“It is the best job I have ever had, not I have ever dad.” Is that a Freudian slip?
We need to distinguish between sexism and misogyny. Sexism affects men, often more severely.
First, I don’t see how someone could reasonably claim that women find it easy to appropriate men’s roles in society. I certainly wouldn’t base a conclusion like this solely on a single example of infant play-patterns.
Yes, women can wear pants & skirts to the office, where men only get to wear pants. But that’s such a trivial example compared to the real-world consequences of sexism that it’s almost embarrassing to bring it up. A boy with a Barbie might get more flack than a girl with a toy hammer, but please don’t try to extend that to claiming that women on construction crews therefore have it easier than male dancers.
She gave GWB the keys once, and he wrecked the car. It took her years to express halfhearted remorse, and then she goes and does it again.
Well, I didn’t like her vote on back then, or on this. But I did not read it with the same degree of war-like inevitability as others. First of all, it wasn’t exactly handing the keys over. There was a reason to enact this legislation – having to do with facilitating certain sanctions by gaining the terrorist designation.
I would also note that if she really did hand over the keys, George has been oddly hesitant about turning the ignition.
But then, I don’t see military conflict with Iran happening during the remaining days of Bush’s presidency, and have been saying so for years. I could be wrong, though. Unfortunately.
Clinton and Edwards both became better liberals when it became easier for them to be. When the going was tough, not so much.
But Obama too. Some of his earlier votes were pretty bad along the liberal spectrum.
I can understand the electability, down-ticket arguments mentioned above. I can understand the argument about her vote on the Iraq war.
But what I don’t understand are the arguments that Obama is more progressive than Clinton, that he is more consistent, or that he is going to represent some great “change” from the status quo.
I’d be ecstatic if he were elected, but then, I would be equally so if she got the nod. Just the thought of someone as intelligent and in command of the issues as her in the oval office would put a smile on my face for many months. As would an Obama win for similar reasons – but I give her a slight preference along these lines. And that’s mostly why I prefer her – but with excitement for both.
Edwards too for the record.
von, just out of curiosity, can you explain your first two choices being Obama and McCain? There’s very little similarity between them. Especially given McCain’s behavior the past few years.
Never liked Hillary but I did feel that she got savaged in the last few days and, as a woman, I felt empathetic towards her, particularly over the tears episode. One of the few times I thought she was genuinely herself and didn’t think she should take any flak for that.
But, while I felt her pain and exhaustion were real, I also will never forget that she has done nothing to stop the war in Iraq, stop torture, stop the wanted war with Iran. Obama has done a bit better — not a lot, but some. And he seems more able to get people to go along with him, and he’s willing to talk to Iran. In a race between the two of them, he’s my candidate hands down.
Hillary doesn’t seem as insane as GWB, but other than sanity, what real differences are there between them?
Svensker: In terms of policy, of course, not nearly enough separates Clinton from the movement conservative machine. But then policy isn’t the only consideration. Keeping in mind that virtually everything the machine says about the rest of the world is projection, the ongoing obsession with the need to humiliate defeated enemies suggests that they will themselves need to be humiliated as well as simply removed from leadership. This is a very advantage Clinton has: no other candidate’s victory would strike the enemies of competence, law, and prosperity so deeply personally. I don’t think that all by itself that’s a sufficient reason to support her – the rest of the country really deserves better policy – but I don’t discount that humiliation factor as something we ought to take seriously.
To save a few rounds of forestallable posting: yes, I actually do mean this. When I read posts like Von’s, Sebastian’s, and Xeynon’s about this woman, who with her husband has been the target of abuse I think unrivalled in national discourse since the end of the J. Edgar Hoover days, and how she’s just a big ol’ meanie that doesn’t like people like them, I do think that humiliation is an appropriate response. The machine that orchestrated the attacks on her and all the allegedly intelligent decent people who went along with them are really bad for America, and that sort of garbage needs to be crushed and driven out of civil society as a disgusting embarrassment. If Clinton’s presence in office would be a perpetual humiliation to her enemies, then it might be worth it even though her policies are far from ideal, because we won’t have a working social order so long as that kind of thing still flourishes.
So yes, I am saying that some of the regulars have made themselves part of the probem when it comes to any possibility of a decent, healthy American polity, and yes, I am wishing for them along with millions of like-minded others to experience shame as well as political defeat, and I would hate to be misunderstood about any of that.
von, just out of curiosity, can you explain your first two choices being Obama and McCain? There’s very little similarity between them. Especially given McCain’s behavior the past few years.
Obama and McCain are not my first two choices; rather, of the available alternatives, they are the most attractive candidates on the D and R sides of the field. Indeed, I don’t really have first or second choices in politics; all of my decisions are relative, based on who is running against whom.
OTOH, the most significant apparent differences between McCain and Obama is on foreign policy, and I’m not at all convinced that they are as different as some perceive them. The Iraq war is, for all intents and purposes, over as a political issue: any president entering in 1/09 is going to pursue a similar strategy there.
Sanity is a BIG plus in my book.
I would also note that if she really did hand over the keys, George has been oddly hesitant about turning the ignition.
Fortunately, events turned against him. Thing is, we *know* that various people in the administration would orgasm over an attack on Iran- giving him bipartisan cover was IMO a huge mistake, although maybe one that won’t result in actual harm.
And I didn’t see any upside for the country at all. I saw upside for Hillary, in burnishing her hawk credentials for the general. So it’s not even just that I disagreed with her vote- I couldn’t see her vote as anything but pandering, and with the highest of stakes.
But then, I don’t see military conflict with Iran happening during the remaining days of Bush’s presidency, and have been saying so for years. I could be wrong, though.
One cannot go wrong underestimating the wisdom of George Walker Bush. That’s my takeaway point for the decade. 🙂 If I had a dollar for every time I thought “even George Bush isn’t stupid enough to do X” right before he did, in fact, do X, Id buy you a nice steak. His latest winner: trying to use a ‘pocket veto’ when Congress was still in session.
But what I don’t understand are the arguments that Obama is more progressive than Clinton, that he is more consistent, or that he is going to represent some great “change” from the status quo.
Here’s how I see Obama as more progressive, results-wise: we’re not going to get to 60 votes in the Senate, so any big new program (healthcare reform, etc) is going to need a few GOP votes to get past the ineivtable filibuster.
The question isn’t who has the most progressive policy IMO. It’s ‘who will produce the most progressive law in cooperation with a few GOP senators’.
My semse is that this is Obama, for a few reasons: 1-his positions appear to be more honestly taken (ie less expedient) 2-he’s an excellent speaker with high favorables 3-he has the potential to take the uniter-not-divider role, whereas Hillary is (unfairly!) already cast as the Democratic Harpy.
I wouldn’t actually argue that he’s more progressive though; I agree, his policy positions are moderate. I do think that he could revitalize politics, but not from a policy standpoint- in terms of his potentially Kennedy-esque charisma and leadership, and bc he’s (anecdotally) appealing to a lot of moderate GOPers turned off by how insane their party has become. Obama could maybe be big enough to force the GOP into one of those lost-in-the-wilderness periods, maybe embracing some ecomonic populism or finally abandoning the repulsive Southern Strategy for good.
[Another anecdote for the pile- I don’t know that my mother has voted for a Democratic candidate for any office since a couple of Blue Dogs in the 80s, but she seemed genuinely interested in- even excited- about Obama, and compared him favorably to every single GOP candidate.]
Carleton, I didn’t make myself clear. I was principally talking about toddlers and preschoolers in that particular post. Girls also have a much easier time of it in school, increasingly even in college. Boys get psychiatric diagnosis and are on medication far more often than girls. Many more boys are autistic than girls.
Sanity is a good thing, but it’s even better when it comes with respect for the rule of law, a willingness to oppose war on specious grounds and immoral and illegal methods, accountability for the incompetent, and so on. Our poor country is in a terrible way, with fundamentals like those so disconnected from each other.
I’m being facetious, of course. Clinton has considerable flaws that are pretty evident in the record.
But compared to the last eight years (and to the clowns the Republicans are putting up), sanity is a big relief (and possibly accountability for the incompetent).
But I certainly don’t have problems with folks who want to strive for more….
If you accept that sexism against Clinton is a legitimate reason to vote for her, don’t you then HAVE to vote for her?
I can note, and deplore, the sexism against Clinton without it turning into a reason to vote for her. In fact, it would be a deporable reason to vote for her, in my opinion: “Yeah, I hate her ambience on Iraq and the environment and bancruptcy, but the poor women was picked on, so I must vote for her.” That’s pretty sexist to me.
What gives you and I, as men, the right to make the determination that it’s not a trumps-all proposition, even in regards to our own votes and support?
Because, as voters, we should vote for the best candidate, not the one slandered the most (Lyndon LaRoush?), nor the one of specific gender or race.
In other words, take gender and race out of it — assume that Clinton or Obama were being treated the way Gore was. He got some pretty nasty things about him, but there wasn’t a feeling that “I’m going to vote for him because he’s being picked on”.
================================
Leftists do worship their leaders, don’t they?
After 7 years of worshipping the Worst President Ever, and in a thread where each of the candidtes is being given a thorough assessment, you ask this? Paging Bizzaro-Land, one of your population has escaped!
==============================
And if there were a woman whose career had been a great feminist model running for President, that would be relevant. There isn’t.
Not currently, but Shirley Chisholm is certainly a better example than HRC.
================================
I fail to see how byrningham’s post is sexist.
The reasoning, as I see it, seems to be: We live in a patriarchy (true, although not near so bad as others in different times and lands have). Women suffer disproportionately (also true). Therefore, if you don’t vote for a woman that you’ve heard speak for extended periods on live debates, about all sorts of issues, it’s because you’re only getting her filtered voice and because you’re unconsciously sexist.
If you admire someone who has been belitted for his name and his color and has answered back and moved on, with no “poor little me, I’m so repressed”, it because you’re unconsciously sexist.
============================
Adding another 4-8 years of a Clinton is getting too close to warring families and aristocratic succession for my tastes.
True. Dynasties are not always handed down strictly from parent to child, but are extened through the family at large.
=========================
“Any” criticism of Clinton is not perceived as sexism.
Sure it is. publius among others have posted substantive problems with Clinton’s policies and have been blown off as sexist.
If a black person told you a comment you’d made about Obama came across as racist, would you tell them to shut up, as a white person you know much better than they do what’s racist and what isn’t?
Depends on the comment, the black person and the objection. If someone said “I don’t think Obama’s health care policies go far enough” and some black blow-hard (yes, there are some, believe it or not) called that racist, I’d laugh in his face. Because it’s not, no matter how qualified he is or pretends to be (just because he’s black? How racist is that!).
==================================
I’m not sure what I’ve done to merit being called stupid and misogynistic, other than disagreeing with you
byrningman, meet Jesu!
I wonder what grounds which war might be waged that would be more than “specious” to those who think that war, itself, is immoral. I wonder what methods of waging war would satisfy those critics of war as legal or moral. I also wonder what they would consider competence for those leaders who take us to war – and what type of accountability that they would have in place to punish what they perceive to be incompetence.
As for me, I just don’t know. I don’t know what would justify going into way if I ran the show. Obama, for instance, said something along the line of chasing terrorists into Pakistan with our military if he knew they were there. This is someone though who is far, far from a GWB…and I don’t know what his left-leaning consituents would think if he really did throw bombs or soldiers into foreign lands to chase the bad guys.
von: The Iraq war is, for all intents and purposes, over as a political issue: any president entering in 1/09 is going to pursue a similar strategy there.
They are? John “One Hundred Years in Iraq” McCain will chart the same kind of course as Obama, or any of the Democrats?
What any president will do is going to be limited by the strains our military is already under, and the complete clusterf*** the Bush Administration has made of Iraq, but even so, I would think there’s going to be tactical differences that flow from that kind of strategic difference.
“But compared to the last eight years (and to the clowns the Republicans are putting up), sanity is a big relief (and possibly accountability for the incompetent).”
But you say this in the context where we are talking about a choice between Hillary and Obama. So I don’t understand why this comes into the calculation.
So, Bruce, it’s ok, even desirable, for Hillary to be head bashingly, grindingly partisan, but Bush/Rove/etc. doing so is beyond the pale? I don’t like GWB and I think his policies have been disastrous, but there is no arguing the fact that he has been the target of just as much ad hominem partisan vitriol from the left as the Clintons were from the right – and no, not all of it was well-founded. See, for example, the meme that he’s an illiterate, uncritical cowboy chimp. At least some of the things for which the “right wing noise machine” criticised the Clintons absolutely deserved to be criticized (for example, taking campaign contributions from unsavory influences foreign and domestic, allowing the Chinese to gain access to state secrets).
The other thing to note is that this “liberal revenge” scenario you fantasize about is unlikely to come to fruition as the result of a Hillary nomination. Firstly, she’s likely to get beaten by somebody like McCain. Secondly, even if she does win, the Republicans will fight any initiative she tries to enact to the death, just because she’s Hillary.
The country, by and large, is not hungering for a liberal answer to Bush. If the Democrats decide to go in that direction and seek a partisan bloodbath, they’re going to get the same results that the Republicans did.
I think Obama’s ‘uniting’ rhetoric and the lower likelihood of him just charging on in the face of massive opposition is EXACTLY what makes him more likely to bring about a major change.
Take a long-term perspective. Candidates tend to move toward the center once the general election comes up or once they’re in office. Thus, the best way to bring about change is to shift the center. Reagan was very successful at doing this for the Republicans, which was why the only Democrat that could win in the ’90s was a very centrist Democrat who essentially resembled an Eisenhower Republican. Reagan did this by being appealing and charismatic to a lot of people, and pulling those in the center towards the right.
In contrast, despite his original election rhetoric, GWB never tried to create any compromise. He smashed his way through any opposition, and rarely tried to actually justify his policies. Anyone who got in the way was just knocked aside. End result? Backlash, and a likely Democratic victory in 2008 as the center moves left. Moreover, this style led to initiatives and programs that were disasters even within their own ideological framework.
Now, to put my cards on the table, I’m an Eisenhower Republican/Clinton Democrat (pretty much the same thing), so more moderate candidates, less divisive candidates are going to appeal to me more. But even from a hard-left, progressive viewpoint, I think Obama will do much better in the long run than Edwards. Clinton would be somewhere in between.
A secondary point that one of the previous commentators made also deserves to be brought up again. Edwards’ trade and economic policy would be another huge hit to our foreign policy image and ability to work with other countries. If you want to repair US relations with the world, losses from his foreign-economic policies are going to offset gains from his foreign-military policies.
Two comments. First, while I quite liked Hilary’s political positions back in 1992 and even through the early-to-mid 90s, I’ve found her willingness to triangulate increasingly unpalatable since then. This may or may not represent a genuine attempt at centrism on her part — that’s a debate for another time, I think — but it’s past the point where I can vote for her (in the primaries) in good conscience.
Clearly, this is because I am sexist.
Second:
von: The Iraq war is, for all intents and purposes, over as a political issue
I beg you, please explain WTF you mean by this because… my god, I don’t even know where to begin.
Only to the extent of electability and overall acceptability as a candidate. Also to the extent that I want to consider this outside of factionalism or “my guy or nothing at all” impulses. (Which may be indiosyncratic to me; I save that kind of emotion for very rare occasions).
They are? John “One Hundred Years in Iraq” McCain will chart the same kind of course as Obama, or any of the Democrats?
What any president will do is going to be limited by the strains our military is already under, and the complete clusterf*** the Bush Administration has made of Iraq, but even so, I would think there’s going to be tactical differences that flow from that kind of strategic difference.
Both Obama and Clinton have refused to commit to removing U.S. troops by 2012 (the end of the next Presidential term) for good reason: It’s not going to happen. Regardless of how or why we got in, and regardless of how or why the troops are there, there are sound geopolitical and strategic reasons to have at least 30,000 troops in Iraq ad infinitim. And both Obama and Clinton have publicly stated that they would maintain troops in Iraq specifically to chase al Queda and protect American interests.
McCain is likely to do much the same; there may be marginally more troops, but logistics will limit the number. The difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton is that McCain is publicly stating what Obama/Clinton are implying, namely, that US troops will remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future — indeed, for 100 years, if US interests require it.
Edwards, on the other hand, purports to commit to an abrupt withdrawal. He’s either an idiot or a liar for doing so and, in either case, unfit to be in the Senate, much less Commander in Chief.
I beg you, please explain WTF you mean by this because… my god, I don’t even know where to begin.
The surge will run its course and we’ll see marginal improvement in Iraq, but, likely, no long term solution. US interests, however, will dictate a troop presence in Iraq. Thus, troop presence we shall have. No credible, non-stupid candidate will commit to the alternative — effectively taking the issue off the table. Moreover, if McCain’s the nominee, even the issue of the original war is reduced — and issue that, by the way, is irrelevant to swing voters, most of whom have themselves swung back and forth in the issue — because McCain can say, credibly, that he repeatedly differed with Bush on strategy and tactics.
Really: The Iraq war may have set up us Republicans for a fall. I suppose I should encourage you to continue believing that it knocked us down as well.
Exactly what strategic goals and “American Interests” require us to have 30,000 troops in Iraq ad infinitum?
Stabilizing Iraq? We couldn’t do it with 150,000 troops, how are 30,000 troops supposed to? “Chasing Al Queda”? How much of “Al Queda” is there really in Iraq? Last I heard, Osama was in Pakistan, and the rest of Al Queda is made up of decentralized “franchise” cells distributed wherever they can find a receptive audience. Which consists of Iraq, yes, because we’ve completely failed at stabilizing it and creating any kind of political progress, and done just about everything else wrong there. Protecting oil? 30,000 troops won’t be able to do that. All 30,000 troops will be able to do is hide in our “not permanent, really” gigantic fortresses and hope we don’t piss everyone over there off enough they all unite against our residual force.
We may not get out of Iraq by 2012, due to logistics and other reasons, but what justification do we have for planting 30,000 troops in Iraq forever? And what good would it do us if we did, seriously?
“We may not get out of Iraq by 2012, due to logistics and other reasons”
Logistics might stop us from getting out by March 1 2008, but not 2012.
In other news, can we leave South Korea yet? It is rather unlikely that China or Russia would help North Korea invade at this point, which means that South Korea could fight the North off just fine on its own, so why not just leave?
I don’t know if Sebastian is being sarcastic, but the answer to his question (why not just leave South Korea?) forms part of the answer to Nate’s (what is the purpose of 30,000 troops in Iraq — aside, of course, from protecting the central government): both are tripwires.
Xeynon, I think that the ultra-partisanship you find in Clinton is a delusion. Her actual record is one of the most cooperative with Republicans among Democratic congresspeople. I think that people like you hate and fear her for almost entirely imaginary reasons, and then project the emotions you’ve scared yourself into onto her.
The Gender Vote
My good friend Esq picks up positively Gloria Steinem’s much discussed column on how gender should play into our decision to vote for Hillary Clinton. Both are in favor of letting Cliton’s gender act as a fairly strong argument in her favor as Presid…
The major differences between South Korea and Iraq are simple. South Korea was attacked by a hostile neighbor whom the UN, with a major role being played by the US, opposed. The South Korean people retained their own government, and for some time now (I understand, but don’t claim anything like significant detailed knowledge, which means I’m open to correction) the South Korean people have wished for us to scale back or eliminate our presence there. In Iraq, on the other hand, the hostile invading power is us, and the primary function of our further presence there is to foil any effort at an allegedly representative government of the Iraqi people except one that’ll suit our policy preferences.
We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. We shouldn’t be occupying it. Withdrawing from it as promptly as possible would be an important step toward giving up our status as the world’s most dangerous outlaw nation.
I don’t honestly expect any major candidate to say that in so many words, but Edwards’ call for a timely withdrawal is the best approximation available to basic Constitutional governance and a respect for our various commitments in law and treaty. The other candidates are all gussying up an immoral, illegal, and altogether unwise and dangerous campaign of oppressive subjugation in their various ways, and it’s a major blot on America’s legacy. We’ll be the rest of my life and then some repairing the damage done by people who wrap robes of reason and calm around what is nonetheless aggression of the most unjustified sort. We have become the thing we used to fight; I hope someday that’ll stop being true.
I wonder what grounds which war might be waged that would be more than “specious” to those who think that war, itself, is immoral…
Perhaps you’d like to find some leftists who think all war is inherently immoral. I wonder if you’re trying to smear the entire Democratic Party with your inane “I wonder” shtick.
…I don’t know what his left-leaning consituents would think if he really did throw bombs or soldiers into foreign lands to chase the bad guys.
If you actually wanted to know how the Democratic Party might react to a (non-deranged) military action under a Democratic President, you might try looking at recent history (eg the Balkans). If you want to see how the GOP might respond to these sorts of reasonable military engagements, you might examine their response to the Clinton attacks on Al Qaeda (‘shooting a camel in the butt’, ‘wag the dog’, etc).
It’s no wonder if you’d prefer to make vague, unsubstantiated allegations, I don’t wonder.
US interests, however, will dictate a troop presence in Iraq.
This statement, all by its lonesome, represents about 75% of everything that’s gone wrong with America in about the last century. Imagine how resentful we’ll all feel when the tide turns and, say, China decides that its interests dictate a troop presence here.
Sebastian: “In other news, can we leave South Korea yet? It is rather unlikely that China or Russia would help North Korea invade at this point, which means that South Korea could fight the North off just fine on its own, so why not just leave?”
U.S. State Department, September, 2007:
FYI.
As background:
Of course, if there had been significant active fighting, involving constant and ongoing U.S. casualties, continuing since uly 27, 1953, I suggest that our troop deployment in South Korea, and in support of it, would have been quite different over the past 54+ years.
It doesn’t seem to be a terribly relevant parallel, until such time as an armistice, such as there could be, became effective in Iraq, and U.S. casualties of violence in Iraq dropped to one every decade or so.
When that occurs, I suggest bringing up South Korea and the U.S. military deployment there (and in the region, which was always also a key part of supporting the mission there) again as a relevant parallel.
Perhaps, however, not before.
“US interests, however, will dictate a troop presence in Iraq. Thus, troop presence we shall have. No credible, non-stupid candidate will commit to the alternative — effectively taking the issue off the table.”
What you’re doing here, Von, is defining the borders of acceptable opinion: anything outside the borders you map are, in your words, not “credible,” as well as making someone “either an idiot or a liar for doing so and, in either case, unfit to be in the Senate, much less Commander in Chief.”
This is a useful technique when you get people to believe you, and it’s one you seem to be fond of (“class warfare rhetoric has got to go!” is another of your favorite attempts to define the borders of acceptable political debate in America to, by coincidence, your personal opinions), but it’s possible there are other acceptable views of these issues than yours, whether you think they’re reasonable, or not.
In the case of Edwards, I’d note that we’re talking about him hypothetically being elected President.
Last I looked, the President, along with Congress, makes the policy of the government, even when there are institutional pressures having been pushing policy in another direction.
It’s certainly true both that the bureaucracy can be resistent, and that the President isn’t all powerful.
But, generally speaking, a President, if too many in Congress don’t object, tends to get their way.
It’s clearly your belief that, for reasons you pretty much leave unstated, the institutional pressures for the government to regard a continued large military deployment in Iraq for many years to come as “dictat[ing] a troop presence in Iraq” into the future. What’s not clear to me is why you believe that those pressures will be absolutely so strong, and so correct, that a President, absent strong resistance from Congress, wouldn’t be able to overcome them.
It’s certainly true that you may have a very good case that this is so. I wouldn’t claim you have no case at all.
What I’d claim is that so far you’ve made pretty much no case at all, beyond assertion.
Perhaps, if you’d like to convince others, you’d like to try making that case. Or maybe you’d find that too much trouble, which wouldn’t be unreasonable.
But I wouldn’t count on a lot of agreement, just because you made the assertion, until you make the case, and make it as more than that it’s your opinion, and you’re a serious grown-up, unlike people who disagree with you.
“When that occurs, I suggest bringing up South Korea and the U.S. military deployment there (and in the region, which was always also a key part of supporting the mission there) again as a relevant parallel.”
Since I was absolutely serious about thinking we should be 100% out of South Korea I think you drew the wrong conclusion about my comment…
Way to attribute sentiments to someone you barely know and have hardly heard from there, Bruce. For the record, I don’t “hate” or “fear” Clinton – I think she’s a committed public servant, and I respect her work for the people of New York as their Senator. I am well aware that she is not the far-left hippie virago that people like Rush Limbaugh make her out to be.
That said, I dislike her as a politician, for reasons already enumerated, and I also think she’d be a disaster as President, and particularly as a commander-in-chief. Maybe not as big a disaster as Edwards, but a disaster nonetheless. Why? On foreign policy, she’s too hawkish/too much like a neocon on exactly the issues where she shouldn’t be (Iran) and too restrictionist on trade (though not as bad as Edwards). On domestic policy, she’s again too much like Bush on some issues (governmental transparency), while at the same time being too beholden to liberal orthodoxy on entitlements, immigration, the economy, and healthcare reform. Incidentally, Obama is marginally (and correctly, from my point of view) to the right of her on all these issues. She’s the candidate of old school Great Society liberals who think that nothing FDR built might ever require refurbishing. That is increasingly untenable sentiment from the point of view of my generation, which will actually be alive and working and have to deal with it when the costs of Social Security, Medicare, etc. go kaboom (I’m 28). No thanks.
Add in personality factors and the fact that she is, whether rationally or no, widely and intensely disliked by those who disagree with her (and that the feeling is mutual), and thus that is likely she will provoke intense obstructionism from Congressional Republicans, and I think I’ve laid out perfectly clearly and logically why her candidacy is a nonstarter for me.
But if you’d rather just chalk it all up to me being an irrational far right wingnut, be my guest. Since I’m a Pennsylvania swing voter (i.e., exactly the kind of person the Democrats need to win the election) you’ll only be hurting your chances by doing so.
Sebastian, for the record, we are on the way out in South Korea, or at least, dialing down our presence there. I used to live in Seoul,, and one of the largest U.S. bases in the country is scheduled to be closed in 2012, with the troops largely to be withdrawn from the country.
Seb, I realized you were serious, and actually, I agree. In fact, our presence there is not really sufficient enough to be a deterent anyways, IMO.
Responding to von, in what way is Iraq a tripwire?
What immediate or even non-immediate threat is there to Iraq from the surrounding countries? I realize Turkey is a possibility, but then do you really think we would attack Turkish forces pursuing terrorists in Iraq? And do you really think Turkey would try to topple the government of Iraq?
I really don’t understand what the vital interests are. Please explain, because I am willing to listen (or read).
“Since I was absolutely serious about thinking we should be 100% out of South Korea I think you drew the wrong conclusion about my comment…”
The only conclusion I drew about your comment was the one I wrote: that the U.S. experience in Korea is not a useful parallel to Iraq.
Your opinion of what U.S. Korean policy should be is, however interesting, not relevant to that. That would be inherent to the point.
“On foreign policy, she’s too hawkish/too much like a neocon on exactly the issues where she shouldn’t be (Iran)”
Check out the Webb amendment.
Check out Wesley Clark.
“On domestic policy, she’s again too much like Bush on some issues (governmental transparency)”
Evidence?
“The only conclusion I drew about your comment was the one I wrote: that the U.S. experience in Korea is not a useful parallel to Iraq.”
What parallel did I draw? I’m not good at subtle so I usually try not to be.
😉
I was principally talking about toddlers and preschoolers in that particular post.
That was my point, I think- generalizing from one specific set of parent-toddler behavior to a grand ‘men have it harder than women’ is unjustified. I don’t even know where you’re going with stuff such as [m]any more boys are autistic than girls. Are you blaming society for that?
rilkefan,
Clarke has become a Clinton sycophant. That Huffington post article does nothing to remove that distinction.
Moreover, the Webb amendment you cite was filibustered. One could interpret the passing of events as Clinton signing on to a politically convenient amendment that she knew wouldn’t pass in order to try and deflect some of the well deserved criticism thrown her way for the Kyl/Lieberman vote.
“What parallel did I draw? I’m not good at subtle so I usually try not to be.”
I see no need for me to attempt to restate your comment, Sebastian, since we can all read it. If it’s your contention that you brought up South Korea as a complete non-sequitur and irrelevancy to Iraq, fine.
It’ll take me the rest of the night to digest all of the different points of view in this thread. The one thing I can take away at this point, however, is this:
There is nothing that Hillary Rodham Clinton can say, do, wear, read, or eat that won’t be analyzed and offered as proof of some kind of calculated, malign intent by a significant portion of the population.
She’s not my favorite among the candidates, but I’m at a loss to explain the amazing animus she inspires, and not just among conservatives. Although, among conservatives, it really does approach clinical derangement.
Shirley Chisholm ran for President in 1972, and she was a woman AND black, and I don’t think she put up with anything approaching the level of suspicion and enmity that Clinton endures on a daily basis, and has done for years.
It’s really, really weird. It goes far beyond her gender.
I’m not a supporter, but I give her respect just for getting out of bed and putting up with it all, day after day. I’d have told the world where to get off long, long ago.
Thanks –
Hmmm, usually I interpret “in other news” as a sign that I am going off topic, but YMMV.
Sorry if my mind does free association sometimes.
Whatever. The media treated Hilary unfairly. The voters may have treated Obama unfairly.
Gary: “If it’s your contention that you brought up South Korea as a complete non-sequitur and irrelevancy to Iraq, fine.”
This came across as more snippy than you may have intended. Note “In other news”, not “In related news”.
You know, this sexism backlash theory doesn’t explain how it is that HRCs internal exit polls showed a loss. If you still believe it, you’ve got a something left to explain.
This stuff about the Bradley effect does.
I doubt 10% of Democrats in NH are racists at that level – esp. compared to Iowa.
See also update 1 at John Cole’s blog.
Responding to von, in what way is Iraq a tripwire?
Not “Iraq is a tripwire.” — US troops in Iraq is a tripwire (as they are in NK, and as they were in West Germany). The mere presence of US troops discourages shenanigans from state actors in the region.
“Shirley Chisholm ran for President in 1972, and she was a woman AND black, and I don’t think she put up with anything approaching the level of suspicion and enmity that Clinton endures on a daily basis, and has done for years.”
russell, I think the fact that her candidacy was symbolic, and stood not the faintest chance of getting her anywhere near the presidency, is relevant and makes the differences unsurprising.
US troops in Iraq is a tripwire ==> US troops in Iraq are a tripwire.
Rilkefan-
During the Clinton Presidency, Hillary was among the most intractable stonewallers in TravelGate and the like. One of the reasons her health care plan failed so spectactularly was her refusal to be forthright about it. She has been similarly stubborn about releasing the records from her tenure as First Lady. You can argue that she had a right to be secretive (though I’d disagree), but it seems to me there’s ample historical evidence to doubt that hers would be a particularly transparent administration.
von, fine. But what are they really preventing? What shenanigans by what state actors? Do you actually consider Iraq likely to be invaded by one of its neighbors? If so, who and why.
Actually, this doesn’t belong on this thread.
Gary, I’ll quote you at length. Please continue to the end; there is a point.
You have written a veritable opus in response to a single paragraph from me, all contending that my point is (1) unsupported and (2) made in a way that is offensive and/or improper. And perhaps both points are true.
What you haven’t actually managed to do, however, is to provide an argument against my point. You’ve confined yourself to the meta, the peanut gallery, the box seats. And that’s fine. But you haven’t actually refuted anything; nor have you made an affirmative case for anything — no, not even my own vapidity. (That would require refuting my assumption, which you do not even attempt to do.)
Indeed, the irony here is that your complaint — that my single paragraph lacks substance — is followed by paragraph after paragaph of substance-free writing by you.
Ahh, well. We all become what we hate, I suppose, even if we don’t recognize it.
von, fine. But what are they really preventing? What shenanigans by what state actors? Do you actually consider Iraq likely to be invaded by one of its neighbors? If so, who and why.
Actually, this doesn’t belong on this thread.
Agreed to the last thought — this argument doesn’t belong here. Still, in brief answer: although the chief concern is clearly Iran, Russia is not too far away and I don’t believe that the Saudis, Syria or Turkey would benefit from an abrupt withdrawal. We did create a power vacuum in the region that most would prefer to be filled by us (no, that’s not their first preference, but it beats the available alternatives).
Von, it’s not Gary’s job to disprove your assertion that no decent American or competent would-be leader could favor a withdrawal from Iraq. It’s your job to explain what the American interests are that depend on continuing the occupation – as Gary asked, just who is it that would get up to more mischief if we weren’t there? (And how does this compare to the mischief unleashed because of what we’ve done there so far?) And like that. It may be self-evidently true to you, but it’s not to a bunch of the rest of us, and I don’t see why I must surrender my judgment of American interests and desirable conduct just because you want me and people like me to do so.
Von: “What you haven’t actually managed to do, however, is to provide an argument against my point.”
Correct; I invited you to provide an argument making your point.
Perhaps asking you if you’d like to make that argument, and pointing out the virtues of making an argument, in terms of convincing anyone of your assertions, is “substance-free”; it’s not for me to say. I’m sorry that for you it was substance-free, but oh well.
Bruce: “as Gary asked, just who is it that would get up to more mischief if we weren’t there?”
No need to respond to this, but that was actually someone else’s point.
russell, I think the fact that her candidacy was symbolic, and stood not the faintest chance of getting her anywhere near the presidency, is relevant and makes the differences unsurprising.
Quite right. I just couldn’t think of a better example, because so few women have run for President.
A personal favorite, of course, is Gracie Allen running as the “Suprise Party” in 1940. But, I digress.
I really do find the personal animus toward Clinton kind of weird. She just seems to rub people the wrong way, to a degree that seems incredibly out of proportion to anything she has ever actually done or said.
At least, it seems that way to me.
Can anyone explain this? Am I missing something?
Thanks –
“A personal favorite, of course, is Gracie Allen running as the ‘Suprise Party’ in 1940.”
Indeed.
cleek,
I think the support for Obama is shallow and fake. The Bradley Effect is going to haunt Obama where ever he runs. All those right-wingers claiming to “like” him will abandon him as soon as they enter the voting booth. The Republican Party knows its tribal politics in spades; I think the Clintons and Edwards know tribal politics as well. In other words Hillary Clinton knows white men better than Obama could ever know white men, which is going to be key with the mess she’s going to end up with.
sorry it took me soon long to respond.
someotherdude, sentiments like that are exactly why I could never call myself a Democrat. The GOP has been appointing blacks to high positions in government (Powell, Rice) and running black candidates in statewide races, (Keyes, Steele) for awhile now. Note that Steele was running in a border state with a historically high incidence of racism (Maryland) for a seat which the GOP thought they had a chance to win. If they really made their bones via tribal politics, wouldn’t they have chosen some George Allen-esque cracker politician to run for that seat instead?
I’ll at least listen to the argument that Republican policies are more harmful to minorities than Democratic ones. But arguing that GOP politicking depends on racism is absurd, particularly from a party in which the Presidential frontrunner’s campaign tried to smear their opponent by intimating he was a teenage drug dealer because he is black.
Another reason I can’t wait for the current generation of politicians to cede the field is that it will help us get past the outdated Civil Rights era schemas that have dominated our racial politics for the past generation.
“During the Clinton Presidency, Hillary was among the most intractable stonewallers in TravelGate and the like.”
That would be in sub-trivial scandals where the admin was transparent but the conspiracy-minded refused to accept the evidence.
“One of the reasons her health care plan failed so spectactularly was her refusal to be forthright about it.”
They came up with a plan then published it, right? Sounds pretty transparent to me, unless you insist the admin conduct all of its business (including political calculations) on television.
“She has been similarly stubborn about releasing the records from her tenure as First Lady.”
That’s simply false. As I understand it, in fact a falsehood piled on other falsehoods.
Her latest comments on the issue.
I think you have nothing here – but more importantly, you’re comparing her to the Bush admin, so that requires something along the lines of her covering up a murder or alien invasion.
Note that Obama’s better on these issues by being exceptionally good.
Another reason I can’t wait for the current generation of politicians to cede the field is that it will help us get past the outdated Civil Rights era schemas that have dominated our racial politics for the past generation.
And, from another thread…
As to the intergenerational crap raising its ugly head, I’ve seen all this before. I was guaranteed by someone older than me about five minutes ago (in baby boomer time) that I (we) would f##k things up just about as well as they did.
That guarantee is fully transferable to the next generation, and you can have it.
You know, if the advances made in the Civil Rights era have, somehow, become so ingrained as to be seen as “outdated”, all I can say is hallelujah. Sadly, however, I suspect that we’re not yet in the promised land.
I’m not sure what you have in mind when you say “get past”, but I will confess I don’t like the sound of it. Get past, to what? What does a “post civil rights era” world look like?
I hate to sound like an old coot, but compared to what came before, the racial politics of the past generation have been a tea dance. I’d tell you to sit up straight, comb your hair, and quit your griping, except I’ll sound like my own old man, and I’m afraid I won’t be able to do it with a straight face.
But, you know what? Sit up straight, comb your hair, and quit your griping. As it turns out, my face is damned straight.
People paid with their lives for what we have now. That is, straight up and no bullshit, God’s honest truth. You damned well ought to respect it, because it didn’t cost you a damned thing. It came to you as a gift.
If you have a beef, that’s great, we’re all ears. But whatever you have in mind had damned well better be an improvement.
Thanks –
Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported of a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discusses politics in the South:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”.[11]
Then there is this:
Then in 1988, when we won with the Bush senior campaign and carried the highest total of evangelical votes ever in American history, we lost as we always do — the Republicans — we lost the Jewish vote and the Hispanic vote and all those votes. We lost the Catholic vote. We were the first modern presidency to win an election and it was a landslide and not win the Catholic vote. It was barely, but we lost the Catholic vote.
How did we do it? We carried 82 percent or 83 percent of the evangelical vote. I remember when it was all over– this was one of the reasons I got a job in the White House — but I remember when it was all over, there was great shock from me and others saying, “Whoa, this is unhealthy.” We immediately began going after the Catholic vote.
While at the same time, we were frightened by the fact that we lost all these votes and still won the White House. The message did come home. My God, you can win the White House with nothing but evangelicals if you can get enough of them, if you get them all, and they’re a huge number. …
from:
The Jesus Factor
Getting appointed and having a base are two totally different things. Most people of color still do not trust white right-wingers. That’s not news. Maybe their all being irrational and reverse racists, however the perception is there. It’s still scarey when White Right-Winging Men (and the “moderates” who love them) claim to be protecting the “national interests.”
It sounds different coming out of Clinton.
I suspect, when folks talk about “evangelicals” they are not referring to the group’s theological stance on evangelism and proselytizing. Instead, evangelical is the PC term for white right-wing Protestant and/or White Fundamentalists.
Russell-
Don’t get wrong. I’m not some snotty young whippersnapper who’s ignorant and unappreciative of the efforts of my forebears. The baby boomers (if one can generalize about an entire generation) have their faults, but you have every right to be proud of the changes you’ve brought to American cultural and political life on matters of race and gender. I fully acknowledge that we wouldn’t be where we are today without the blood, sweat, and tears of your generation (and those before it).
That said, progress marches on. My generation (if I again may generalize), having been raised in the post Civil Rights era, I suspect has a different attitude about these things. “Black” and “white” are not the same determinative categories for me as they are for my parents, and that is true of a lot of my friends as well. In my view the post Civil Rights era, when it comes, will mean an end to definining people by racial pigeonholing – e.g., someone won’t be a black politician (with the built-in expectations, ideological commitments, and constituencies the term connotes), he’ll be a politician who happens to be black. I think Barack Obama is the prototype of this type of post-racial politician. A new era is coming. I hope that baby boomers can accept that gracefully.
That said, I didn’t mean to imply that your generation no longer matters. The term “cede the field” was perhaps a bit too strong if it did so. I’m not saying that the boomers should just yield completely to a younger generation. What I do mean is that we are coming of age as a generation, and we expect our place at the table, and our crack at bettering American society, just as you had yours. Of course, we will screw some things up, and no doubt thirty years down the road this dynamic will be reversed and I’ll be the old fogey complaining about young upstarts with no respect for their elders when someone yet to be born is criticizing my generation for its failings. But right now, I want my voice to be heard.
Rilkefan-
Perhaps the triviality of scandals involving Hillary is a reflection solely of the triviality of her role in the Clinton White House?
Note that it was other Democrats, such as Bill Bradley, who first criticized her for being secretive about the details of her healthcare plan. Not me.
I suspect that it’s partisan blinders that prevent you from seeing that Hillary has demonstrated a strong streak of paranoia and secrecy. Not being a Democrat, I don’t need to rationalize her behavior.
-someotherdude,
You’re right. It is true that people of color don’t entirely trust the Republicans. There is ample evidence for that (and good historical reason, given that Nixon was the one who devised the “southern strategy”.) But that is not remotely the same as saying today’s Republican party is fundamentally racist or relies on race-baiting political strategies. I don’t see any evidence of that, frankly, and I think the insinuation is insulting. As the Jim Crow era and the racial ugliness that followed it become events more and more of the distant past, and as African-Americans continue to filter upward into the middle and upper classes – there are far more middle class black Americans today than there were in, say, 1970 – you will start to see race become less of a predictor of political affiliation. Could it be that old school Democrats such as the Clintons only continue to accuse Republicans of institutional racism because they’re fearful of losing their hold on one of their largest and most loyal voting blocs? Naaah….
Well, if Republicans would do some SIMPLE things like talk to black organizations or even show up to events (instead of relying on isolated individuals), Dems might have to work harder. Too, trying to implement alternatives to traditional tactics such as affirmative action without the cooperation of African American groups isn’t a swift idea, either…
gwangung, I agree completely. I think that the more visionary among the Republican leadership realize that there’s no stone-graven law that African-Americans will always vote Democratic and are advocating just such steps. I suspect resistance to them derives largely from the fact that much of the party leadership came of age at a time when the party either genuinely did rely on the support of the racist vote and couldn’t afford to piss off its bigot contingent, or shortly afterward when the wounds were still so fresh that reaching out to the African-American community would have been futile, and thus views them as a waste of time.
It seems to me that the party’s intolerance even of racial insensitivity much less overt bigotry among its members (see Trent Lott, George Allen, and perhaps now Ron Paul) and its efforts to recruit minority candidates and appoint minorities to key positions indicate that their thinking on this is changing, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see the next generation of Republican leaders reaching out to black voters in precisely the ways you suggest.
I think we can all agree that it’s a great development for America that open racism is no longer acceptable in any mainstream political ideology.
von: I know you vaguely addressed this above — and you and john miller might both be right that this is suitable for another thread — but… a tripwire? What on earth for? Are you seriously expecting a conventional nation-state invasion of the Region Formerly Known As Iraq that our presence will somehow deter?
[In fact, wouldn’t it make more sense for us to encourage our “enemies” to invade Iraq so we can fob the clusterf*** off on them, analogous to the Russians in Afghanistan?]
Likewise: US interests, however, will dictate a troop presence in Iraq.
Which interests, and why? Cause I’m certainly not seeing any interests that are being advanced by our presence there, unless you count grinding degradation of our armed forces and international prestige an interest. I completely agree, fwiw, that if we were to pull out tomorrow the region would collapse; I’ve seen no evidence, however, to indicate that our presence there is doing aught other than prolonging the slow fall, which is what I assuming you’re driving at.
back on topic:
Women’s Support for Clinton Rises in Wake of Perceived Sexism
I don’t think this dynamic is very healthy politically.
Agreed, it’s not healthy at all. Having ovaries is not any more qualification for office than having testicles is.
The fact that Hillary is perfectly willing not only to exploit such a dynamic but actually encourage it pretty much encapsulates my character-based reasons for having decided against ever voting for her.
Agreed, it’s not healthy at all. Having ovaries is not any more qualification for office than having testicles is.
The fact that Hillary is perfectly willing not only to exploit such a dynamic but actually encourage it pretty much encapsulates my character-based reasons for having decided against ever voting for her.
The fact that Hillary is perfectly willing not only to exploit such a dynamic but actually encourage it pretty much encapsulates my character-based reasons for having decided against ever voting for her.
So it’s OK for male politicians to exploit the gender card, but when a female politician joins the game, that by itself is enough to say no one should vote for her? Are people still trying to argue that there isn’t a sexist backlash against Clinton?
Reminds me of a bunch of boys in high school, who took offense because I – the only girl who rode a bike to school – would park my bike in the bikeshed, which had been boy’s-only territory up to then.
(Eventually, the staff registered that I was habitually leaving the school grounds pushing my bike, because one thing or another had been done to it so that I couldn’t ride it, and I was allowed to park my bike in a storeroom inside the school – which two or three boys then complained was a “special privilege” I was getting as a girl, and it wasn’t fair.)
It was an early and instructive lesson on the hatred that men (or boys) are willing to express towards a woman who is trespassing on territory that has, up to now, been successfully exploited only by the male gender.
I think we can all agree that it’s a great development for America that open racism is no longer acceptable in any mainstream political ideology.
Given the Guilani ad that ran just before the primaries and the Bill Richardson/Lou Dobbs axis on immigration, I think this deserves a great big O RLY?
Gary, I think I can help you out, here. The proper refutation of von’s “point,” stated as “The continued presence ~30,000 of US troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future is such a vital interest that no credible, non-stupid person can possibly hold a contrary position,” is, in short, “No it isn’t.”
It has the dual virtues of both brevity and an equal amount of logical thought behind it as von’s original “point.”
What von advocates is simply imperialism, on the classic 19th-century (and up to 1945, at least) British model. [NB: this included “indirect” imperialism as well as the establishment of overt colonies.]
Its necessity seemed self-evident to Victorian expansionists, too, but it was morally bankrupt and ultimately self-defeating.
By the second half of the 20th century most people of conscience (and intelligence) had abandoned this as a national goal.
It seems a shame to have it revived – regurgitated? – in the 21st century.
(But Phil is, of course, more succinct and to the point.)
So it’s OK for male politicians to exploit the gender card (…)
No, and nobody said so.
jesurgliac – I never said it was okay for male politicians to play the gender card. I think, for example, that some of the things Sarkozy and his supporters said about Segolene Royal in the French election were inexcusable. I don’t like identity politics. Period. I think they’re dangerous, divisive, irresponsible, and distract from the issues. I see no reason to deviate from that stance because in this case it’s a woman engaging in gender based identity politics.
Phil – I said OPEN racism. Ads about immigrants taking American jobs or burdening the social welfare system aren’t ipso facto racist, despite what liberals want to believe. Racism is sentiment of the “keep those dirty wetbacks out” variety. That’s out there, but it’s not mainstream. The fact is, immigrants do compete with Americans for low income jobs, and allowing in too many without incorporating them into the tax structure will burden the social welfare system. I’m strongly pro-immigration myself, but even I’ll admit that there are reasons one might oppose it without it making one a flaming racist.
Reminds me of a bunch of boys in high school, who took offense because I – the only girl who rode a bike to school – would park my bike in the bikeshed, which had been boy’s-only territory up to then.
Well that’s a sad tale, but if you get over your high school traumas some day, you might notice that this blog, like much of the rest of the grown-up world, operates on different principles.
Anytime you decide to apologise for your offensive comments btw, I’ll graciously accept.
jesurgliac – I never said it was okay for male politicians to play the gender card. I think, for example, that some of the things Sarkozy and his supporters said about Segolene Royal in the French election were inexcusable. I don’t like identity politics. Period. I think they’re dangerous, divisive, irresponsible, and distract from the issues. I see no reason to deviate from that stance because in this case it’s a woman engaging in gender based identity politics.
Phil – I said OPEN racism. Ads about immigrants taking American jobs or burdening the social welfare system aren’t ipso facto racist, despite what liberals want to believe. Racism is sentiment of the “keep those dirty wetbacks out” variety. That’s out there, but it’s not mainstream. The fact is, immigrants do compete with Americans for low income jobs, and allowing in too many without incorporating them into the tax structure will burden the social welfare system. I’m strongly pro-immigration myself, but even I’ll admit that there are reasons one might oppose it without it making one a flaming racist.
In what significant ways are the advocation of a giant wall across our southern border, and openly consorting with members of groups like the Minutemen and Vdare, not precisely equal to “keep the dirty wetbacks out?” And what did the Giuliani ad have to do with immigration? It was openly xenophobic if not outright racist.
Oh for goodness sake jesu. For goodness sake. Have you even taken the time to read some of the replies people have put up to respond to you? Indeed your high school story is sad, and I’m sorry that it has clearly affected you to this day, but it is a complete non sequitur. I agree with byrningman, I think you owe some people an apology.
That’s nice, DL. I’m sure some people are glad to know that.
I think you owe some people an apology.
I fear it will never come, she’s trapped in the deep dark bikeshed of the mind.
I’m also a little perplexed by the idea that sub rosa racism is somehow better than open racism. All the former does is give its perpetrators plausible deniability and put its victims ok the defensive.
I don’t see any evidence of that, frankly, and I think the insinuation is insulting.
Hey man, two words: voter ID.
Not a conservative racist thing? Talk to our good buddy Erick over at Redstate about it.
Race relations have changed, quite often for the better, in the last generation or two. It’s great — really, really great — that Obama is running and the fact that he is black more or less merits a yawn.
But there is way more than “no evidence” that conservative Republicans continue to work the racism angle when it’s to their advantage.
I doubt many of them are, personally, all that racist, but IMO there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between being a racist and playing one for the crowd.
Just an aside on the “baby boomer” thing:
I was born late in 1956. I am, allegedly, smack in the middle of the “boomer” bulge.
I have no idea where I was when JFK was shot. I was probably at recess playing marbles. It was a non-event for me.
During the “summer of love” I was 10. When Woodstock happened I was 12. It was just a lot of hairy people on TV to me.
By the time I was old enough to serve in the military, Vietnam and the draft were over. I came up way more punk than hippie.
The boomer thing is a pop sociology category that has, as far as I can tell, no meaningful application to the entire cohort of folks born between 1946 and 1964.
1945 to maybe 1952, you could make a case. But not really much beyond that. The formative experiences of the folks involved were really just not the same.
I’m not sure what significance that has for “generational politics”, but whenever folks start droning on about “the boomers” I, as someone who allegedly is one, just don’t know what they’re talking about.
Thanks –
What russell said.
Technically I’m a boomer. My formative years were the 70’s. I don’t identify with the boomers any more than I do with the GenX’ers.
Watergate and Apollo, Nixon and Carter and Brezhnev, SNL and MASH, Bell Bottoms and stoner hats, Afros and Mullets – I like classic rock and punk and grunge.
Trying to pigeonhole someone based on the year they were born isn’t really any more productive than asking them what their sign is.
I agree Russell, you’re too young to be a boomer. I think one of the best depictions of the boomers and the generational gap with the so called Generation X is The Ice Storm by Rick Moody/Ang Lee.
I’m also a little perplexed by the idea that sub rosa racism is somehow better than open racism.
I’m guessing here, but I would presume there are two things involved. The first is that the most virulent of racists would no longer have access to the kind of support that would let them influence more widely. The second would be that driving it underground would make it so that people who might be unthinking racists would find the weight of social approbation on them and so reduce that incidence. Tolerating sub rosa racism might be said to be trying to create a cordon sanitaire around the racism, like you deal a disease vector.
I’d suggest that American society has largely adopted this approach because ‘liberalism’ as the notion of tolerating a wide variety of opinions says that you don’t stamp out those opinions. We generally think that a person’s mind is a private preserve where they can do what they want. On the one hand, it has helped us move on, but at the cost of forgetting how we as a people were.
I’m 37, and I think Obama’s support remind’s me of running for president in the 6th Grade.
I wish it was Obama’s time, but it ain’t going to happen. The Republican’s will cream him. I have always been an Edward’s supporter, however most folks in the Party are moving towrad Clinton. I support platform’s over personalities. I’m not crazy about Clinton, but all the stuff right-wingers hate about her, I happen to respect. I’m not looking for a drinking partner or a lover in my politicos. She’s tough, cold, hard, married to a dick, and seems to keep it together.
Xeynon: the post Civil Rights era
This phrase chills me to the bone. It’s clear from your comments that you mean: after the era where civil rights concerns were focused mostly on black people. I don’t have a problem with that concept. But coming towards the end of a Presidency where the civil rights of all Americans have been under attack — and by the party you seem to support (I am not blaming you personally for this, but I do blame the Republican party and its leaders) — well, like I say, the phrase itself chills me to the bone.
It’s not progress if we win the battle for black civil rights, but lose the war for everyone’s civil rights.
And your spirited defense of Republican racial neutrality, while welcome, has yet to deal with their effort to use bogus voter fraud charges to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, which is anything but racially neutral.
On preview: I was born in early 1952 and I agree with russell that there was a cultural sea change between people my age and people his age, and that the “boomer” idea is meaningless.
Now I’m not saying those attributes are definitive, I’m sure she knows when and where to show different aspects of her personality.
I don’t know if the unprofessional nature of the coverage of Hillary is due to sexism or not. In a way it doesn’t matter because the behavior of most pundits and talking heads is unprofessional across the board, whether the target is female or not. We have a lousy press corpse.
I totally buy the idea that Democratic women who had previously been uncommitted or mildly committed stomped off to vote for Hillary just to give a big FU to the wankers who had been going on and on and on about her “anger” or her “crying”. Sexist or not, our pundit class is a bunch of overpaid undereducated cocktail party twits, incapable of innsight annd dedicated to the conventional wisdoms of decades past. Sheesh, what has Ed Meese got to do with annything? We are cursed with pundidts who have no comprehension at all of how peple in thhe real world think NOW. If I lived in NH I, a committed Obamiac, would hhave been severely temptedto vote for Clinton.
Here’s a little story: I went out to a bar one eveninng with a bunch of people and got into a conversation with thhe male friennd of a friennd ( call him Jim). The conversation, as is the wonnt of beer-influenced chat, became impassioned, but, I thought , in an enjoyable way. I don’t remember what we werre discussing, but it wasnn’t personal. No “Youu jerk!”, for example. Anyway I waved my hand arouund while talkinng annd suddenly Jim innterrupted me, using thhe tone a dog trainner uses for a dog, annd said, “Don’t you wave your hand at me. I won’t put up with it.”
It was like getting slapped inn the face. It was also compltely annachronistic–I thought the days of men telling women what emotions we werre allowed to feel and how we were allowed to expres them was way back in the early fifties. I was stunned to encounter a man so insecure that he couldn’t handle a conversation with a woman who waves her arms arouund while talking. And it was only one arm and barely waving. See how I get defensive? Like it’s my fault thhat I don’t express myself according to his standards for women.
So I think the press coverage of Clinton is old fashioned, predicated on the assumption that men get so say how women should act and women will be rejected if thhey don’t act according to those stanndards. And, on this, as on so many issues, our pundits are wrong.
Of course, if the voting in the New Hampshire primary was rigged against Obama, a lot of the analysis above is superfluous:
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
oh god. please don’t start the “rigged voting” bullsh!t already. if it looks like i’m gonna have to put up with eleven months of this nonsense, i’m going to shove a voting machine straight up some conspiracy-theorists ass.
AS for the sixth grade nature of the support for Obama–there does seem to be a lot of support that isn’t linnked to issues. But that’s good.
Neither party can winn an elelction bexclusivley by getting the votes of people who support their issues. MAny many Americanns donn’t vote on thhe issuues. Issue-oriented Democrats unappreciate this point. Many voters don’t vote on issues, annd as stupid as you may think that is the fact remains tht you can’t win without the votes og the “6 th graders”.
The Republicans will beat up on all of our candidates. The questtion is which one will it be easiest to beat up on and which one the hardest? Beating up on Clintois reflexive withh thhe press all though thhere might be a learning curve after the resonse from NH. Beating up on Obama is hhard for the righht and for the press–it makes them look racist. That doesn’t mean they won’t do it, just thhat thhere is a built inn down side.
So don’t put down the cannddate that gets the nonissue boters. We need those voters and the ability to attract them is a valuable asset.
Although I think the Bradley effect played a more important role than most seem to suspect, …I am more impressed by Clintons performance, if indeed she thought her performance would galvanize pissed women. Someone who can motivate women like that, show’s she can platy HARDBALL with the white boys.
Rilkefan: Her latest comments on the issue.
The link didn’t seem to relate to your point. Maybe I missed it. It was about transparency but not specifically in response to allegations that she was refusing to release records from her tenure as First Lady.
I think concerns about secrecy and HRC not releasing records come from events such as the Rose Law Firm billing records with her fingerprints on them
mysteriously reappearing in the White House months after being the subject of a subpoena.
Phil: In what significant ways are the advocation of a giant wall across our southern border, and openly consorting with members of groups like the Minutemen and Vdare, not precisely equal to “keep the dirty wetbacks out?”
Controlled borders and immigration do not have to be mutually exclusive. I acknowledge that a lot of support for a wall is driven by racism. I am in favor of immigration in general and immigration from Latin America. I am also in favor of controlled immigration.
I don’t have a problem with a wall to deal with border security/drug issues. The real question is the number of visas or work permits we are willing to give to Latin Americans. Query: If someone is in favor of the wall but simultaneously in favor of a guest worker program and increasing visas to Latin American countries, how is that the equivalent of “keep the dirty wetbacks out?”
I wish more immigration debates recognized that.
From family history, I know a majority of the anti-immigration forces were fueled by racism. And some of the same arguments, down to the exact wording, are being recycled today.
That engenders a fair amount of skepticism that a lot of people don’t seem to recognize.
I call shenanigans on “the Bradley effect.” It ignores the fact that Obama’s returns, as well as those of Edwards and Richardson, were in line with the polls. What seems likely to me: undecideds and Dodd/Biden voters broke heavily for Clinton.
“Guest Worker” programs would do the exact opposite of what anti-immigration folks say they want to do. It’d create a permanent underclass of foreign workers. And every few years, as the guest workers started getting proficient in English and becoming more assimilated to our society, it would kick them back out and replace them with a completely new cohort of workers who hadn’t assimilated at all. And it would give the guest working immigrants no reason to invest in our society, so they’d have even less reason to assimilate.
And it wouldn’t do a damn thing about pressure on low-wage jobs. It wouldn’t do anything about enforcement problems or the rest. It’d just provide a cheap pool of practically disposable labor. Which is why the big business leaders are for it.
If you want to slow illegal immigration, the best way to do it is to crack down on the DEMAND for illegal immigrant labor. Which means the businesses that hire them. It’s a lot easier and more effective and less stupid than trying to build a fence along thousands of miles of desert and river and mountain.
“From family history, I know a majority of the anti-immigration forces were fueled by racism.”
I wonder if this storyline is going to persist as the Democratic Party anti-immigration forces grow stronger. A natural outgrowth of Edwards’ trade outlook is the idea that immigrants are ‘hurting’ the American worker. Is this really fueled by racism?
gwangung: That engenders a fair amount of skepticism that a lot of people don’t seem to recognize.
I tried that out on a Jewish friend who was infuriated by the racism of the anti-immigration arguments used in the 1920s and 1930s: pointing out that the same anti-immigration arguments were being used today, just against different groups. (Friend is firmly anti-immigration as far as Muslims are concerned.)
His response? “Those arguments were wrong then. But they’re right now.”
Nate: If you want to slow illegal immigration, the best way to do it is to crack down on the DEMAND for illegal immigrant labor. Which means the businesses that hire them.
And to increase legal immigration. If people want to enter the country enough that they’re prepared to risk death to do it, then you might just as well make it so that they won’t be available as cheap labour to drive down wages: let them come in as legal immigrants with the right to unionize, protest unfair treatment, leave a bad job or a bad employer, and demand decent wages.
Anybody who knows anything will. It’s not unknown to me how racist unions were from the 19th Century through the 1970s.
That’s the point of bringing out that story—to try to prevent people from going that that xenophobic path.
I don’t have a problem with a wall to deal with border security/drug issues.
The border between the US and Mexico is not quite 2,000 miles long. Much of it is river that is relatively easy to cross. Most of the rest is mountain or desert.
The more populated parts of the border include several large metropolitan areas that span the border itself — San Diego / Tijuana, El Paso / Juarez, Brownsville / Matamoros.
250,000 legal crossings are made each year.
Leaving aside the underlying policy issues, I don’t see how you could possibly build an effective physical barrier between the two countries. I just don’t.
Any policy that requires a wall is going to fail.
Thanks –
“If people want to enter the country enough that they’re prepared to risk death to do it, then you might just as well make it so that they won’t be available as cheap labour to drive down wages: let them come in as legal immigrants with the right to unionize, protest unfair treatment, leave a bad job or a bad employer, and demand decent wages.”
I’m going to take this opportunity to almost completely agree with Jesurgislac. If people are willing to take crazy risks to become Americans, I’m willing to say that I’m ok with them becoming Americans.
Interesting. I was born on November 5th, 1958, and I remember it happening — that is, I remember my memories of my memories of my memories — perfectly clearly, albeit my memories are centered around the television, and how it was nothing, of course, but all-JFK for days, and how, at age 5, I actually understood that the President had been killed, and that it was terrible, and that everyone was very sad.
And I accepted that it was reasonable for there to be nothing but coverage of the death and events for the first three days.
And then on the fourth day, I finally started to get really annoyed that they hadn’t brought back any cartoons, or anything, and felt this seemed like it was going on too long.
Then finally things returned to normal on tv within another couple of days, and life went on.
But it was absolutely the first public event I clearly remember. I couldn’t swear I have any such clear recall of a public event until Gemini III, and that’s much vaguer in my memory, as are all other public events, until June, 1967, which was when I turned from a growing interest in the newspaper into an obsessed daily reader of multiple newspapers, and a follower of the tv news, as well as any and all magazines at the library, all as part of a general obsession with reading, of course. But while I avidly followed the space missions between 1965 and 1967, my memories of those launches is entirely vague.
Naturally, that I recall JFK’s death, russell, means that I’m a superior human being to you.
😉
On the boom, there are plenty of variant theories for one to cherry-pick from; see here, for instance.
Any of this preferable?
And so; apologies that I’ve feeling like lazy, and not reproducing all the italics.
“Query: If someone is in favor of the wall but simultaneously in favor of a guest worker program”
If you are suggesting that a “guest worker” program is somehow a pro-immigration device, you are badly misinformed.
The entire point of a “guest worker” program is that it doesn’t allow people to become citizens, and thus prevents them from legally immigrating. People who are pro-immigration oppose this, as we’re for legal immigration.
If people are willing to take crazy risks to become Americans, I’m willing to say that I’m ok with them becoming Americans.
New shows for fall 2011:
Fear Factor: INS Edition
Green Card Jackass
If people are willing to take crazy risks to become Americans, I’m willing to say that I’m ok with them becoming Americans.
I’m with Seb and Jes. With bells on. Y’all come.
Plus, somebody needs to soak up all of that surplus housing stock. 🙁
Naturally, that I recall JFK’s death, russell, means that I’m a superior human being to you.
This comes as no news to me. 🙂
followed by a 1954-1965 Generation Jones
I knew it! Finally, an identity to call my own.
With an extremely hip name, no less!
Generation Jones, baby!
Thanks –
People keep citing the Bradley effect. But the polls pretty accurately predicted Obama’s support; the polls failed by underpredicting Clinton’s support. This suggests that the Bradley effect wasn’t the main factor.
Well, I just wanted to let Russell know that the quote of mine (second one in his comment) he used in his 12:20am was a bit of pontificating from the boomer end of the demographic python.
It may have been unclear who I was defending, the mature or the immature. Somehow I manage to be immature and senile at the same time.
I was merely pointing out that hubris is a non-depleting resource passed on from one generation to the next in pristine amounts. It reached peak status in the beginning and then plateaued.
I’ll also point out that the unfortunate coincidence of George W. residing in the same generation as I do is no evidence for generalized boomer malpractice. After all, he reached down one and maybe two generations to find equally silly idiots to staff the Green Zone in Baghdad and most Federal agencies. The only generational difference is that the younger idiots don’t even have the good grace to smirk (at least Bush has an inkling he is full of crap) while they are wrecking everything they touch.
I might point out too that insurance companies charge higher car insurance premiums to the generations coming up even though I still drive faster than they do.
Tell me again who is stupid? I may leave my turn signal on at all times, but what do you (whoever feels like being insulted) care, since you can’t catch me anyway? Besides, leaving the turn signal on is an efficiency move — it leaves one hand free to flip off the unwittingly hubristic.
It occurs to me, too, with all due respect, that governments know better than to ask anyone over 40 to go into battle (we’re a little suspicious, not to mention better-looking), considering the vast reservoir of younger gullible innocents who are willing to bend over and get their butts shot off because they mistake blood for special effects or video game pixels.
Fair warning, too: If you can get me into the nursing home (you and what army?), no, I’m not going to turn the stereo down.
What?
Well, for more in this clotted vein, pop over to Balloon Juice and follow the link in the Jimmy Carter post to the Onion satire, which has the advantage of being true.
xeynon
I never said it was okay for male politicians to play the gender card. I think, for example, that some of the things Sarkozy and his supporters said about Segolene Royal in the French election were inexcusable.
Good (I’m sure you do think that). But ‘playing the gender card’ and ‘making sexist comments’ are not identical, men can (jes has I think been saying) ‘play the gender card’ almost imperceptibly.
I don’t like identity politics. Period. I think they’re dangerous, divisive, irresponsible, and distract from the issues.
I am not happy with identity politics either (I tend to think, I certainly tend to say) but it behoves us to remember that ‘identity politics’ — in quotation marks — is the politics of those who are not middle class non-sectarian white males. As for ‘the issues’, well, candidates can themselves be issues and quite legitimately so.
Was Clinton playing the gender card? Perhaps. Is it legitimate to point out that it is on the whole harder for women to run as candidates? Yes. Is it legitimate for a woman who is definitely a weaker candidate to ask for votes on a compensatory basis? No. But is it legitimate for a woman who is an equal candidate to ‘play the gender card’? Hell yes.
jdkbrown: Yes, but not entirely. One of the other manifestations of the Bradley effect (why do we call it this? What an awful euphemism? let’s just call it: racism in American politics) is that a lot more people report themselves as undecided when they really are not.
Well, I just wanted to let Russell know that the quote of mine (second one in his comment) he used in his 12:20am was a bit of pontificating from the boomer end of the demographic python.
Hey John, no worries. I have no problem, whatsoever, with actual boomers. Among other things, I’m married to one. She didn’t make Woodstock, but she was actually at Kent State on the infamous day. Her boomer cred is pretty solid.
I’ve just never recognized myself in any of the descriptions of the boomer gestalt. Now that I know I’m a member of Generation Jones, I’m a much happier guy.
I’m currently on a “drive slow” kick because of the very nice state police officer who kindly requested that I “stop driving like a knucklehead” last week. What can you say in a situation like that except “Yes sir”? Give me another week or two, though, I’ll be right back up there with you in the fast lane.
In any case, boomer shmoomer. We’re all old gits now. It’s all hearing aids, reading glasses, and colonscopies from here on out.
Just don’t let the kids know, it gives them ideas.
Later –
As for immigration, we have a “Statute of Limitations” for other crimes, why not for illegal immigration? If you can show that you’ve lived here for, say, five years, have a public official interact with ICE to decalre the case dead (or however a crime like shoplifting is closed). It’s no more “amnesty” than the SoL is for any other crime.
Barney Frank on Obama, boomers, partisanship, etc.
Via John Cole.
People have already said a lot of what I would have in reply, but just a few comments:
1.)I’m not a Republican. I think Bush is likely the worst President since Harding and I’m deeply skeptical of both parties. Obama’s message appeals to me and I would certainly vote for him despite disagreeing with him on a number of issues. Hillary’s does not. I was only defending Republicans because I think that some Democrats reflexively accuse them of racism because of partisan self-interest and refuse to acknowledge that the charge holds less and less truth (Bush’s administration is the most racially diverse in history – a veritable rainbow coalition of incompetence). The Republicans deserve credit for moving away from a shamefully racist past. If you want to argue that they’re still subtly racist in some ways, fine, but that is just as true of the Democrats – need I remind you that it was Hillary’s surrogate, not the Republicans, who put the “Barack was a teenage crack dealer” meme out there? Or that there is a large segment of the Democratic electorate (namely blue collar whites) that are quite amenable to veiled racism in the form of Lou Dobbsian “they take our jobs!” restrictionism?
2.)Re: Hillary and sexism/qualifications for office. I think that personality and character are important considerations in choosing a President, and hence, raising those issues about Hillary is not necessarily sexist. With Royal, people accused her of being naive and underqualified despite 20+ years of legislative service and the fact that she had held several high government offices. It was even openly said that French women ought to be off baking brioche somewhere rather than running for President. THAT is sexism. Nobody has said that Hillary’s years in the Senate don’t count because she’s a woman. In fact, the media has generally repeated her “35 years of service” line uncritically despite the fact that the majority of that time she wasn’t in public service, and the fact that Obama has held elective office longer than she has. What Hillary has had to go through is at worst mild sexism, compared to what we saw in France. It certainly doesn’t warrant making “vote for me because I am woman” appeals a regular part of her campaign.
3.)Guest-worker programs – Nate, your points are fairly taken. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that a world in which any immigrant who wanted to could come into the U.S., get a job, and be put on the fast track to citizenship with no consequences for our economy or welfare apparatus wouldn’t be a better one. But realistically, the pie is of a finite size, and we just can’t afford to be that generous. Allowing middle-aged people to immigrate, work for 15 years, and then collect full social security and Medicare benefits when they retire is a recipe for government insolvency. Given these realities, a guest worker program is far less racist than the alternative, unrestricted illegal immigration. It would give migrant workers some kind of legal status (and hence standing against exploitative employers), and would bring them into the tax structure so that they could help to pay for the government benefits they and their children receive. Many of these workers don’t come here to stay, anyway – they return to Mexico when they’re not following the harvest – but the program could be structured with a path to citizenship for those who did decide they wanted to stay. Those who go home would do so wealthier and more worldly and, if they did learn English during their time in the U.S., better educated, which would improve the quality of life in Mexico. Full amnesty might seem the least racist option to you, but the issue is that it will do nothing to solve the problem – it will only encourage more illegal immigration. A guest worker program, as a compromise between economic and humanitarian concerns, might.
4.)On boomer bashing – I’m not trying to start a generational war. Just sayin’, us young’uns have a voice too, and we want the same chance to shape society as we see fit that other generations have had. The concerns of the “boomer generation” (whatever that term denotes) are not the only ones that matter.
One problem I see with that, Jeff, is that living here is part of the crime. It’s not just crossing the border. So no matter how long you’ve been here, the crime is recent even if it began some time ago. Don’t take that to mean that I’m some kind of immigration hard-ass, because I’m not. I say open it up and get rid of the underground, but I think the analogy you’re using isn’t such a good one.
Or accused Obama of “shucking and jiving.” Foot in mouth disease is, unfortunately, not confined to one side of the political spectrum.
On the other hand, even mild examples of racism and sexism in campaigning should be reproved. Not treated with a scorched earthy policy, mind you…but a few words to the wise would not be out of place….
One problem I see with that, Jeff, is that living here is part of the crime.
I see that. But it’s mostly that we define it that way. If we separate the need to live “under the radar” from the initial “crime”, applying a sufficiently long SoL provides a path to citizenship that has nothing to do with the dread “amnesty”.
Jeff: If we separate the need to live “under the radar” from the initial “crime”, applying a sufficiently long SoL provides a path to citizenship that has nothing to do with the dread “amnesty”.
So to be fair, I’m sure you would not want to penalize all those waiting in line to come in legally. I just looked at the Visa bulletin the other day. They are currently processing applications from 1992 for some family-based visa categories. So you would have to at least put the SoL of over 16 years, say 20 years. Somehow this doesn’t seem like much of a solution. 🙂
And I think it there is a fundamental difference between a citizen or PR committing a crime and a non-citizen entering illegally. Statues of Limitations exist for many reasons, one of which is the problem of PROOF where there is a constitutionally-mandated high standard. That concern does not exist in the immigration situation. Whether a person has valid legal status is very easy to verify even many years down the road. The burden on the INS is not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Nor should it be. So the SoL analogy is inapt. Except that an illegal entrant is often SOL.
Not meaning to put the fox back in the chicken coop, but this post from Washington Monthly (but not from Kevin Drum) is rather interesting. To look at it from both sides, on the one hand, you could say that HRC is playing the gender card, with all that entails, while on the other hand, you could say that this shows she is going to be able to play hardball, or at least do some big time ju-jitsu with the inevitable attacks.
Whether a person has valid legal status is very easy to verify even many years down the road.
Yes, apparently so.
A handful of facts and figures. Please forgive me if they’re not completely accurate, I’m trying to pull them together from a handful of sources which aren’t completely consistent with each other.
The US population is about 300 million.
The undocumented population is about 12 million.
So, undocumented folks are about 4% of the total population.
Current legal immigrants to the US, from all countries, is about 37.5 million.
That’s about 12.5% percent of the US total.
That is a bit below the historical high point of about 16% of the total population being born outside the US.
About 700K to 850K illegal emigrants are expected to enter the US per year.
That’s about 0.25% of the US population, per year.
As I understand it, our current policy allows for about 675,000 people to emigrate to the US legally each year.
Another source puts the legal immigration total in 2006 at about 1.2 million.
So, our policy is that the US population may grow through legal immigration by between 0.225% and 0.4% per year.
What I take away from all of this is the following:
There are a bit more legal immigrants to this country than illegal immigrants.
Illegal plus legal emigrants per year come to about 2/3 of one percent of the total US population.
There are way more legal foreign residents in this country than illegal.
Illegal plus legal residents together come to about 16% of the total population, which is about our historical high, but not beyond it.
These numbers just doesn’t freak me out. Let them in. Amnesty for the folks who are already here, and an expanded cap for emigrants from Mexico and Central and South America going forward.
If we need to publish official documents in both English and Spanish, so be it. Or, just require folks to learn English. Everybody else who comes here does, more or less, they will too.
Really, what is the god-damned issue?
They’re coming anyway, and you are just not going to stop them. Might as well make Americans out of them. If that’s what they want to be, y’all come.
If folks who have been waiting patiently in line to get their legal paperwork processed are put out by this in any way, just let them in too. They’ll get over it. If not, they’ll just have to go pout in the corner. But, somehow, I think they just won’t mind as long as they get theirs.
What is the freaking problem here?
Thanks –
I was born the day after Trinity, the first atomic bomb test. My first specific political memory centered around the duck-and -cover, hide-under-our-desks, exercises that were a regular feature of my early school life from age 5 on. I knew enough about nuclear war to be terrified. We lived one mile away from an air force base, and I used to go out to the backyard, look up at the planes, and try to determine if they were American or Russian. I remember getting a book out of the library on aircraft identification. When I heard Joseph Stalin died, I remember asking if that meant no one would drop atom bombs on us.
In 1954 I had a severe case of the measles and my grandmother came to help nurse me. She was listening to the Joseph McCarthy army hearings. Hatred of McCarthy’s voice might have shaped my entire political development. In 1956, just turning eleven, I fell madly in love with Jack Kennedy as he made an unsuccessful bid for the vice presidential nomination. A good catholic school girl, I was initially attracted by his Catholicism; ten minutes later I was smitten by his intelligence, wit, and charm. Loving Jack Kennedy was good for me. I read about politics and history. From 1956 to 1963, I read everything I could about Kennedy, politics, American History. When I was 15 I did volunteer work for his presidential campaign and spoke for him in my high school debates.
What JFK believed in, I believed in. Gradually I moved to the left of his pragmatic liberalism. Certainly Kennedy was responsible for my decision to major in political science in college. When JFK was assassinated, I switched my allegiance to Bobby Kennedy.
I was opposed to the Vietnam War from its beginning My husband to be applied for conscientious objector status and was willing to face jail rather than be inducted. Fortunately my husband received a high number in the first draft lottery, and the spectre of several years in jail faded.
Russell-
The problem is, we just can’t let any Tom, Dick, or Harry in. The vast majority of immigrants from Mexico and S. and central America are decent, hard-working people who just want their shot at the American dream. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever – that’s the kind of person we want here. It’s what our country’s greatness is built on. But we can’t be letting criminals, drugrunners, and the like in – and Latin American gangs are particularly dangerous in this regard. Some sort of regulation is necessary.
But we can’t be letting criminals, drugrunners, and the like in
Why not? Do US-born criminals, drugrunners, and the like fear competition from legal immigrants that much? Surely good old American organized crime can cope with an influx of immigrant competition? Why be protectionist about the right of US criminals, drug runners, and the like to operate without competition from immigrants? Why should they and not the hard-working honest citizens receive protection against immigrants competing for the same work? Organized crime has a great immigrant tradition in the US: why, in the 15th century, a bunch of organized criminals from Europe walked in and stole everything.
“But we can’t be letting criminals, drugrunners, and the like in – and Latin American gangs are particularly dangerous in this regard.”
What metric and source do you have in mind to cite to demonstrate that Latin American gangs are “particularly dangerous in this regard,” compared to, say, Russian gangs, Chinese gangs, Thai gangs, Congolese gangs, and so on?
I have to say I particularly like the way you use “in this regard” to specify that Latin American gangs are — in your view — “particularly dangerous in this regard,” with “this regard” being their skills at being “criminals, drugrunners, and the like,” which differentiates them from non-Latin American gangs of “criminals, drugrunners, and the like,” who presumably spend their time on other, more wholesome, activities.
“But we can’t be letting criminals, drugrunners, and the like in – and Latin American gangs are particularly dangerous in this regard. Some sort of regulation is necessary.”
On the other aspects of this statement: what’s your explanation for why it isn’t necessary for, say, New York and New Jersey to take this attitude with regard to their borders, crossing them, and immigration?
Is it your argument that there aren’t all that many dangerous criminals in either New York or New Jersey? Or what?
The problem is, we just can’t let any Tom, Dick, or Harry in.
That should be Tomas, Ricardo y Peludo. I think.
Gary –
Latin American gangs aren’t more dangerous because they’re Latin American, per se. They’re more dangerous because 1.)cocaine-derived products originate in Central and South America, so they have a natural monopoly on a large portion of the drug trade, 2.)drugs and other contraband are more likely to come into the U.S. across the Mexican border than through any other channel, 3.)unlike Russian, Chinese and other gangs, these gangs are geographically close to their home countries and have large populations of their countrymen in the U.S. to exploit, and 4.)civil war in Central and South America (particularly El Salvador and Columbia) have given some of these gangs a lot more training and much more of a violent bent than other organized criminal groups. I read a big article full of statistics and the like on this somewhere recently – google it and I’m sure it’ll come up (I’m at work and search engines are blocked here, or I’d do it myself.)
jesurgislac – what political ideology, exactly, are you trying to make fun of? I think reducing violent crime is something we can agree is in everybody’s interest (except that of the criminals).
The problem is, we just can’t let any Tom, Dick, or Harry in.
Off the top of my head, my guess would be that if regular, hard-working folks could come here legally, and/or had a simple path to citizenship, it would actually be easier to weed out the criminals.
Criminal gang members come in now. Not just Latin ones. It’s not like our current policies are keeping them out.
Instead, our policies make criminals of the folks who come with good intentions. What’s the point of that?
Thanks –
Russell, I agree. I’m in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration, but also of increasing quotas for legal immigrants and/or a guest worker program for seasonal migrant workers.
The question:
Response:
No metric. Color me unsurprised.
Gary, I gave you the reasons. I can’t provide the numerical data to back them up because, as I explained, I’m at the office and can’t google the article in which they are contained. You’ll have to trust me that the analysis of the issue I read was chock full o’ data that established that by any criminological metric, Latin American gangs are a major threat.
I don’t think I particularly need data to support my assertion that the fact that the U.S. is geographically close to Latin America and not geographically close to Russia, China, Thailand, or Congo, and has a large population of Hispanics but does not have a large population of Russians, Chinese, Thais, or Congolese, would make gangs from the former more dangerous. Greater density and mobility of ethnic population = more gang members = more gang-related crime = greater danger. Pretty simple, regardless of what the actual numbers are.
“Gary, I gave you the reasons.”
That’s nice. Not what I asked you.
As a rule, no, “I read somewhere that” isn’t an acceptable citation around here (or for anyone interested in useful discussion). Nothing personal.
(Also out is “I heard from my sister’s boyfriend’s brother that….”)
“What metric and source do you have in mind to cite […]?” was the question. It didn’t require an immediate cite.
But you can’t answer what metric you’re using. Okay.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55419
http://www.heritage.org/Research/UrbanIssues/bg1834.cfm
http://www.mexidata.info/id1279.html
Gary, that’s three articles on the topic (one a scholarly paper and two news articles) I found with a single google search. If you want metrics, they got metrics – crime rates, murder rates, arrest rates, smuggling patterns, human trafficking statistics, you name it. Since you obviously haven’t researched this topic, I’m not going to do your work for you. Read up and be educated.
I’d like to throw out a general request for consideration:
To the Old Timers:
There are some new folks around here. It’s also become evident that there are now and have been a lot of lurkers around who are hesitant to actively participate for one reason or another. As long as they adhere to the posting rules, please cut them a little slack. That doesn’t mean let bad arguments stand or facts in dispute go unchallenged – but maybe instead of your sharpest rapier use the practice one with the ball on the point for a little while. It’s not realistic to expect someone new to read four years worth of archives to understand what arguments are “settled” (as if they ever are) or to get a feel for the personalities here.
To the new commenters:
Welcome! Understand that some of the regulars have been here since the beginning (not I). There are some very strong personalities here and a lot of very smart people. Understand that you’re likely to be challenged on almost anything you say. If you’re going to claim that “the sky is blue” you need to be prepared to back that up. Also understand that emotions are running a little high right now. Stick around. It’s a great place.
To the Lurkers:
Dive on in. The water is fine…
“Dive on in. The water is fine…”
Once you get used to it.
And to new commenters, even the old timers can get on each other pretty hard at times, so don’t feel singled out.
No problem, OCSteve – I expect people to challenge my assertions, and welcome it (it makes me rethink my own positions and question my own assumptions, as well as sharpening my debating skills). If an argument is presented without evidence and logic to bolster it, it’s not a very good argument and deserves to be challenged. I’m not at all intimidated by disagreement (or the authority of people older/better versed in the annals of this blog than myself) so there’s no need to worry about bruised feelings on my part.. I also think maintaining a civil tone is important, and I’ve endeavored to do so despite my fondness for a sharpened-elbows style of debate (something I share with the British, I suppose). No worries…
@welfare: we don’t have foodstamps but money (sent to a persons bank account, so they can use their own debit card) and yes, some people abuse their dole. It’s a matter of weighing preventing abuse with the bad side-effects of the method you choose for the targetted group – and of how important/heavy the abuse is. I had a limited scholarship and I remember a freezing winter where I couldn’t afford heating and had to study fully dressed under the covers of my bed. One of my friends took a pity and gave me a small sum of money (about one week of heating oil). I used the money to go out and have fun with friends and he was torn between laughing and being miffed. But it was the first time in months I actually had an evening out with friends, I thrived on it for months afterwards and I still remember how important that was for me psychologically – more than 20 years later. I wasn’t frozen or starved so my needs were beyond mere survival. IMHO if you want people to become community members (and not just prevent them from being dead) you have to allow fulfullment of needs that are slightly higher in Mazlows pyramide.
If I read Jeffs description of all the factions and levels involved I also wonder about the costs of all that administration. What’s worse for the taxpayer: preventing abuse or helping people? I’d rather that 70 cents per dollar went to the people who needed it and 30 cents would be abused than that 40 cents of that dollar were spent on administration and checks to prevent the abuse. It’s like the discussion on universal health care where people don’t know that the administrative costs in the US are about as high as the government spending in a lot of countries with universal healthcare.
I’m not taking the drug addicts into account because we have a very different approach in any case.
@immigration: I tried to look up our percentages to compare (though our problems are different because we are a densely populated small country and have a more expensive social network) and found an interesting Dutch piece about amnesty. The short version is that it won’t work, but they examplify with the US Immigration Reform and Control Act from 1986 and talk about the current situation. According to them the INS doesn’t check certain industries (agriculture in California, Texas and Florida / meatpackaging in Nebraska and Iowa) because of the negative economic consequenses since these industries rely on illegal immigrant workers.
@abortion: Jes and I have a very different viewpoint about some of the essential abortion issues but I have to fully agree with her here, including the phrase ‘women incubators’, if someone thinks it is a good idea to prevent contraception and abortions to create enough future workers. You’re not pro-life, you’re not pro-choice but you’re pro-labour?
@Clinton: the number and content of the attacks on her make me more and more inclined to lean towards here and I don’t have a boon in your elections at all. If the attacks would stick to her policies and political performance it would be more productive – also to reconciliate afterwards should she win the primaries. I read the WP article, but what it didn’t mention was that the results in NH are actually the same as earlier polls predicted and it also didn’t mention that the poll-predicted percentage that voted for Obama was the same, which would imply that her bouncing back might not be because she drew people away from Obama, but from somebody else.
her bouncing back might not be because she drew people away from Obama, but from somebody else.
And/or, that folks who might not otherwise have voted were inspired to come out and vote for her due to the juvenile nature of the attacks on her.
the number and content of the attacks on her make me more and more inclined to lean towards her
my fear there is that that sympathy won’t hold up for 10 more months, and people will tire of feeling pity for her, come November.
dutch-
Re: welfare. Administrative costs are always a concern with any government program. It seems to me electronic banking cards would cost a bit more in that regard than simple cash transfers (though they could be reduced via smart deployment of new technology), but they’d also ensure that the money went where it’s meant to go (rather than being wasted, or, worse, exacerbating social problems). I think that’s a worthwhile tradeoff, though others may disagree. That’s not an argument that anyone’s made against them, though.
As for the Maslow pyramid point – I think it’s problematic to get the government involved in that, because while everyone has the same requirements of food and shelter, different people define more cerebral needs differently, and drawing lines as to what’s necessary is difficult. You might need a night on the town to unwind (costs something), person B might need a Caribbean vacation (costs a lot), and I might need a day to sit under a tree in the park and contemplate (free). I think it’s best to
not to open up this can of worms.
As for the addict who “needs” that next hit of heroin – I favor using welfare only as a temporary safety net anyway, but if you do favor a more extensive use of it, how does one argue for the government subsidizing socially destructive behavior? (Remember that there’s a ripple effect here also – addicts, both in the U.S. and Europe, are disproportionately likely to commit crimes, and their purchases help to bankroll vicious drug gangs which also engage in other unsavory activities).
Re: immigration. I think we’re in agreement. I’d be interested to learn a bit more about the Dutch situation, since as you note the dynamics are totally different from those of the U.S.
Re: abortion. I’m pro-choice, but personally opposed to abortion. Fairly common position in the U.S., I believe. I think that’s only tangentially related to the question of population replacement, though, and I don’t understand why jesurgliac immediately assumed a stance of pro-choice militancy when my original point was merely that Europe’s low birthrate is a very serious social problem regardless of one’s stance on feminism or the right to choose.
I can see what you’re saying about Clinton, though as I’ve already said I think many of the attacks are substantive. Note that Obama has been victimized by some of the same sorts of attacks, as well as underhanded dirty campaigning that’s far more reprehensible:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html
Why no sympathy vote for him?
The WaPa had this article that may be of interest
WELLESLEY, Mass. — The two students walked on the same paths across campus here this week, past the dormitory where Hillary Rodham lived for four years, past two dozen framed portraits of groundbreaking women in Alumnae Hall, past the banners on the quad proclaiming “Wellesley: Women Who Will.” But Katie Chanpong and Aubre Carreon Aguilar — feminists and political activists — arrived at contradictory conclusions.
“If you’re a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere,” said Chanpong, a sophomore.
Carreon Aguilar, a senior, said: “If I’m supposed to vote for Hillary just because I’m a woman, that’s kind of sexist.”
when my original point was merely that Europe’s low birthrate is a very serious social problem
Only if you’re a militant forced-pregnancy kind of person or a militant white-supremacist kind of person. Otherwise, we live in a world with 6 billion people: a low birthrate is never a “serious social problem”.
Only if you’re a militant forced-pregnancy kind of person or a militant white-supremacist kind of person. Otherwise, we live in a world with 6 billion people: a low birthrate is never a “serious social problem”.
You imply that immigration is the magic pill to solve this problem. But it won’t work as well in Europe as it does in the U.S., Canada, etc., because unlike us barbarians, the majority of you cosmpolitan European civilizations have racist laws that prevent immigrants from coming in, politically and/or culturally disenfranchise them, and make it hard for them to assimilate when they do get in, and they’re pissed off as a result. Europe may not become an Arab colony, as some argue. But it is going to be a very, very different place 50 years from now – the secular, liberal western Europe that we know will likely not endure if current trends hold, the European welfare states will become increasingly unviable economically, and traditional European culture will become increasingly irrelevant to the rest of the world. But what do you care, jesurgislac? You’ll be dead by the time Islamic social conservatives become a large enough voting bloc to impose any of their oppressive fascist patriarchy on your granddaughters (if you choose to endure the indignity of human incubatorhood and have any).
Oh, and thanks for yet another veiled multiple choice swipe at me as either an A.)misogynist, or B.)racist. That really makes me feel like my efforts to civilly and intelligently debate these points are appreciated. I’m starting to get the feeling that talking past you is precisely what I should be doing.
the majority of you cosmpolitan European civilizations have racist laws that prevent immigrants from coming in, politically and/or culturally disenfranchise them, and make it hard for them to assimilate when they do get in, and they’re pissed off as a result.
Coming from someone making racist comments about immigrants to the US, that’s almost funny. Almost.
Yes, the EU has an illegal immigrant problem, which I think we can resolve by the simple method of making it easier for people to legally immigrate. (Certainly if someone is willing to risk death to get into my country, I think we should let them in legally instead and let them become British.) We also have far more asylum-seekers and refugees than the US, and I think we deal with them very badly. We also have a great deal of labour mobility from the newer EU countries to other EU countries – where I live, three or four Polish delis have opened up in the last two years, and my bank now has information posters in Polish explaining how newcomers can open a bank account.
Low birth rate simply means: Women are getting to choose how many children we want to have, and when to have them. Only someone convinced that women are incubators could see this as a “social problem”: in a world with six billion people, it will never be a significant real problem.
You accuse me of making racist comments about immigrants to the U.S.? Could you point out where I made a single racist comment about immigrants to the U.S.? You can’t, because I haven’t. In fact I have repeatedly denounced racism in the U.S. and elsewhere.
“Women are incubators” is your absurd formulation, not mine. But we all realize now what your definition of a substantive argument is, i.e., someone else’s vapid left-wing sloganeering in 100% lockstep agreement with your own.
I can deal with the fact that other peoples’ opinions differ from mine. But you calling me a racist I consider a serious personal insult, and it pisses me off. I would demand an apology if I gave a rat’s *ss about maintaining a dialogue with you, but you have just become officially not worth the effort of talking to, so let’s just make a truce instead – you don’t respond to any of my logic, data, or sincere efforts to explore the issues, and I won’t respond to any of your facile, mind-numbing agitprop. I’ll even leave your little bubble of unreflective self-righteous sanctimony intact. Deal?
Only someone convinced that women are incubators could see this as a “social problem”: in a world with six billion people, it will never be a significant real problem.
Even if the idea that a low birth rate is a social problem is demonstrably incorrect, I would guess there are myriad reasons, aside from being convinced that women are incubators, that one might harbor such an incorrect notion. I might be wrong about that, of course, so I wouldn’t go to far out of my way to impugn someone’s character based on that guess.
But we can’t be letting criminals, drugrunners, and the like in – and Latin American gangs are particularly dangerous in this regard. Some sort of regulation is necessary.
Maybe this isn’t a proper reading of what you meant, but since being a criminal or a drugrunner can land on in prison, I would argue that we do have “some sort of regulation” regardless of our immigration policies.
hairshirthedonist, I think we can discuss this a bit more rationally. How is the idea that a low birth rate is a social problem “demonstrably incorrect”? I’ll acknowledge that it’s not an INSOLUBLE problem, but absent some sort of solution (massive immigration, which entails problems of its own, or large-scale spending cuts), for a state with a massive pension apparatus and a demographic bulge approaching retirement age, it seems to me it presents an economic dilemma. Certainly the fact that the governments of countries confronted with this situation (western Europe and Japan, particularly) are frantically trying to encourage childbearing would suggest that policymakers in those countries view it as an issue.
I would guess there are myriad reasons, aside from being convinced that women are incubators, that one might harbor such an incorrect notion
Mmm. Except that of all the myriad reasons, Xey suggested that restricting women’s access to abortion and contraception was a good thing, because free access, he thinks, means a low birth rate. (In point of fact, the direct correlation is: the more education women get, the fewer children they’re likely to have. The lower birth rate in Europe would correlate to better education in Europe…)
Certainly the fact that the governments of countries confronted with this situation (western Europe and Japan, particularly) are frantically trying to encourage childbearing
No, they’re not.
Maybe this isn’t a proper reading of what you meant, but since being a criminal or a drugrunner can land on in prison, I would argue that we do have “some sort of regulation” regardless of our immigration policies.
Okay, but if we let ’em in, we have to catch and convict them for a crime committed here, and pay the costs of incarcerating them. Wouldn’t it be far easier and cheaper (both socially and economically) to just regulate immigration more tightly and deny entry to known criminals at the border?
. But you calling me a racist I consider a serious personal insult, and it pisses me off.
I would say that if you are pissed off by having your racist comments picked out as racist, a better solution than getting insulted would be to refrain from making racist comments in future.
Hey, I can comment, for once.
Since this appears to be one of those epic comments-struggles, put me down as someone who disagrees with Jesurgislac’s forced-gestation bit of rhetorical prestidigitation, and also disagrees that low birth rate is a big problem. Low birthrate is what we want. I’d prefer to get there by contraception rather than by abortion, but disagree with me on this issue as thoroughly as Jes normally does, I’d bet she’d have the same preference.
If there’s a country that’s in trouble because of low birthrate, it’s going to be China. I think it’ll be interesting to see what happens there, when the Mao babies begin to retire.
Wouldn’t it be far easier and cheaper (both socially and economically) to just regulate immigration more tightly and deny entry to known criminals at the border?
Why, what a good idea. Suggest you write to US Immigration and tell them that you think that if someone entering the US has an unexpired conviction for a serious offense, they should be denied entrance at the border.
You’ll probably get a polite letter back telling you that they already do that, and because you are a US taxpayer they will probably not add “…you idiot” to the end of each sentence.
(This is why friends who have been convicted of offenses they are not sure if US Immigration will regard as “serious”, enter the US via Canada or Ireland: either way, if you’re going to get rejected, you just get denied entrance while still in a civilised country, rather than locked up indefinitely without any legal rights.)
Slarti: I’d prefer to get there by contraception rather than by abortion, but disagree with me on this issue as thoroughly as Jes normally does, I’d bet she’d have the same preference.
Duh. Everyone except pro-lifers thinks it’s better to provide contraception.
Regulating more immigration more tightly and denying entry to known criminals are actually two separate things. The latter is not a justification for the former in that you can look for known criminals with a rather loose immigration policy. (Not to mention the fact that much of the mechanism of organized crime will be through the use of people who are UNKNOWN criminals).
Hrm. I’m starting to get deja vu flashes.
Xeynon,
Maybe I’m not clear enough in my writing. “Even if” was meant as way to assume, for the sake of argument, that a low birth rate is clearly not a social problem. (I don’t know if it is or isn’t, and I’m not concerned enough about it at this time to try to figure it out.) My point was simply that thinking such a thing, even if incorrect, doesn’t mean that one must believe women are incubators. Just as thinking that the acceleration due to gravity at sea level on the planet Earth is 11 m/sec^2, though incorrect, doesn’t mean that you hate martians.
I consider myself pro-life, and I think it’s better to provide contraception, so I think that there might be some flaws in that generalization.
Unrelated, I don’t think I’ve done anything lately to have earned teh smack, but I might be wrong.
hair: My point was simply that thinking such a thing, even if incorrect, doesn’t mean that one must believe women are incubators.
And I agree. You could think a low birth rate was a problem, and have ideas for ways to change this, if you wanted to, that would not involve regarding women as incubators. (However, thinking a low birth rate is a problem in either Europe or North America has a high and strong correlation with some form of white supremacy: the problem is not the lack of babies, but the lack of white babies. The standard code to express this is to talk about “culture” – as if a baby growing up in the UK doesn’t imbibe British culture regardless of where their parents came from…)
However, anyone who suggests denying women access to contraception/abortion so that they can birth more babies for an increased labor force is thinking that women are incubators (or has unthinkingly taken the idea from someone who does think women are incubators, without examining this idea and seeing what it says about them.)
Okay, but if we let ’em in, we have to catch and convict them for a crime committed here, and pay the costs of incarcerating them. Wouldn’t it be far easier and cheaper (both socially and economically) to just regulate immigration more tightly and deny entry to known criminals at the border?
Maybe or maybe not – I don’t know. But comparing one form or regulation to another requires two forms of regulation, both of which must therefore be “some form of regulation.”
Slarti: I consider myself pro-life, and I think it’s better to provide contraception, so I think that there might be some flaws in that generalization.
Not one pro-life organization in the US thinks it’s better to provide contraception, Slarti: and since providing contraception is intrinsically pro-choice, I would say that makes you pro-choice, rather than pro-life.
…how it was nothing, of course, but all-JFK for days, and how, at age 5, I actually understood that the President had been killed, and that it was terrible, and that everyone was very sad.
And I accepted that it was reasonable for there to be nothing but coverage of the death and events for the first three days.
And then on the fourth day, I finally started to get really annoyed that they hadn’t brought back any cartoons, or anything, and felt this seemed like it was going on too long.
I was born in 68, and I have a very similar memory regarding Nixon’s resignation, though I think I was upset about cartoons by the second day.
I disagree with that premise, but overall I agree with your statement given the definitions you’ve provided. I don’t agree with the definitions, but that’s another discussion entirely.
If you require that one must belong to a pro-life organization to qualify as pro-life, then I’ll accept that I am not pro-life, by your definition of the term.
Concerning what Xeynon is saying re: border control, I’d interpret it as follows: we’ve got criminals and such crossing our borders illegally, so clamping down on the illegal immigrations would in and of itself address the crime problem. The filtering effect Jes mentions on the far side of the border only applies to legal entry.
Possibly I’m wrong in my interpretation, but that’s what discussion is all about.
I see your point, and thanks for posting them here, but if she wins the nomination, will you at least agree that she is vastly better than the Republican nominees, and support Hillary then? Or are you going to go third-party and ensure a Huckabee presidency?
Jes: where I live, three or four Polish delis have opened up in the last two years . . .
You’re on to something here. The problem in attracting immigrants to Britain is the FOOD. Maybe things are getting better since I was last there 🙂
For the first time in US history the old white male monopoly of the Presidential process has been seriously threatened. The fear is palpable as the corporate news manipulate data, impose religious belief as a test of ones qualifications to be President (against the Constitution). We have seen the talking heads and the interminable “debates” which never seem to cover what we are truly interested in.
Clinton’s gender like Obama’s race, has hummed in the background of every comment, remember the cleavage issue, implying that she cried, which she didn’t, calling her “human” for showing a bit of emotion. Making an issue out of Obama’s middle name, commenting that he wore a dark suit with a white shirt sans-tie, much like Admadijinadad, you know who I mean. Waiting with baited breath for some poor white man to make what could be construed as a racist comment, (Poor Cuomo said “shuck and jive” oohh the bigot).
But the thing that scares the old-white-mens club the most is that Obama and Clinton are the best candidates running, Edwards is no slouch either. Where as the GOP has the scariest looking bunch of characters I’ve ever seen. I mean Giuliani and Rommny, sheesh. If you open Rudys closet wide enough a shitload of corpses would tumble out.
I supported Clinton and even forgave her for voting for the war. I watched in horror as the American people called for Iraqi blood for 9/11, I shouted at the tv screen, “they were Saudi and Yemeni, not Iraqi!” to no avail. But she “tore her draws” with me when she lock-step voted to label the Iranian military as a terrorist organization opening the door to a 3rd front. I know she doesn’t want to appear weak on the terror war, but she must have the backbone to do what the American people want.
I am concerned about the expensive war in Iraq and Afganistan, yep we are still hot on the trail of the evil Taliban/al Queda. As a veteran I am appalled at the growing death rates or civilians and military and the evil us against them hate mongering.
For every family member killed in our name a new set of enemies are created.
I am concerned about the economy and the selling of our country piecemeal to China,Russia,India,Dubai,Saudi Arabia…you get the point. This looming 1trillion dollar debt will have to be paid for this war. If any of the above countries demand payment on the T bills they hold we could be bankrupted without the ability to fight any sort of military conflict.
Immigration. I understand the Latin Americans desire for freedom to enter the country, well unlike the good old days when we were the most loved country in the World, we have killed and maimed millions of Iraqis and who knows how many Afgans, we have destablized the entire middle east. So we truly do have enemies desiring to do us harm. Latin Americans aren’t the only ones coming here illegally.
As far as abortion/birth control is concerned the government has no right to dictate what a woman can do with her body. I understand on a personal level how hard a choice abortion is, and contrary to the zealots and men who would deny me the right, when they start taking all of these abandoned, abused and unwanted children languishing in foster homes or better yet help a woman for the 18 years it takes to raise a child, then maybe I’ll reconsider.
How can you deny a woman the right to choose then deny public assistance if she needs it and then vilify her as a lazy piece of crap when she falls apart?
Prisons an Wal-Mart are our biggest growth industries, and I don’t know if anyone noticed but, we don’t make anything anymore. I dare you to find anything in you home not made in China.
We had no industry to benefit from the falling dollar, oh yeah, there was a chain-link manufacturer on CNN.
This is getting too long-I think I’ve made my point.
thinking a low birth rate is a problem in either Europe or North America has a high and strong correlation with some form of white supremacy
That’s one of your stupider, more sexist and more racist comments, Bikeshed, and there’s some competition for that claim.
Still waiting for that apology by the way.
You know, our new friend Mr. X has only argued about birth rate in re its relation to the ongoing maintenance of a viable social security and pension apparatus, and unless I’m mistaken, I don’t believe he’s said anything at all about what effing color the babies should be. On that basis I agree that Ms. J owes him an apology, and I also know he’s never going to see it. Instead we will see 500 words about why since some people who say similar things in another context are racist that therefore blah blah blah blah blah.
Hairshirthedonist – okay, I misinterpreted what you said.
jesurgislac: I typed out a long post full of citations pretty much disproving every factual claim you made about education and birthrates in the U.S. and Europe and western European governments’ programs to encourage childbirth. But the damn comment filter ate it. Suffice it to say, you are 100% incorrect factually. Women in the U.S. are more likely to attain a university degree than women in Europe, and since U.S. universities are on average of higher quality (17 of the top 20 in the world are in the U.S. – only 2 are in Europe), those degrees are on average of higher quality (American women also find it easier to find employment after graduation than European women do). On the childbirth question, France, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland all have government programs to encourage women to have more children:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4837422.stm
So does Japan, where I live.
I can also point out that I never said women should be forced to give birth, nor do I see how anyone who’s read my posts carefully (which you’ve already admitted you don’t) could infer that. Here’s what I’ve said. A.)I am pro-choice. B.)I think that a conservative U.S. attitude towards the value of motherhood may be valuable. Not towards abortion. I haven’t said it explicitly, but yes, I am very much pro-contraception as well. As a bachelor who doesn’t yet wish to be a father, it’s not even a question for me.
Please, better reading comprehension, better facts.
Phil, byrningman – thanks a lot for coming to my defense. I was really annoyed that the typepad filter blew away 20 minutes worth of googling references with which to make my case factually impregnable…
Xeynon, your facts have a sexist white supremacist bias. I’ll trust jesuwhatsit’s, I mean Bikeshed’s, offensive sweeping generalisations instead.
On the childbirth question, France, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland all have government programs to encourage women to have more children
No: they all have government programs to enable women to have the children they want, when they want them, without being economically or socially disadvantaged for choosing to have
think that a conservative U.S. attitude towards the value of motherhood may be valuable
The conservative US attitude towards the “value of motherhood” is that: (a) girls should not receive informative sex education (b) there should be no government programs to enable women to have the children they want, when they want them, without being economically or socially disadvantaged for choosing to have children; (c) contraception should not be free or readily accessible by all sexually active girls and women regardless of age.
The conservative “value of motherhood”… isn’t.
On the childbirth question, France, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland all have government programs to encourage women to have more children
No: they all have government programs to enable women to have the children they want, when they want them, without being economically or socially disadvantaged for choosing to have
think that a conservative U.S. attitude towards the value of motherhood may be valuable
The conservative US attitude towards the “value of motherhood” is that: (a) girls should not receive informative sex education (b) there should be no government programs to enable women to have the children they want, when they want them, without being economically or socially disadvantaged for choosing to have children; (c) contraception should not be free or readily accessible by all sexually active girls and women regardless of age.
The conservative “value of motherhood”… isn’t.
I can also point out that I never said women should be forced to give birth
You argued that women should be denied contraception and access to abortion to ensure supply of future workers. So, yes, you did.
Phil, byrningman – thanks a lot for coming to my defense.
Phil has a long-standing hate on for me: byrningman seems to have decided to join him. Internal politics, gotta love it…
No: they all have government programs to enable women to have the children they want, when they want them, without being economically or socially disadvantaged for choosing to have
Poland bribing women to have babies isn’t proactive encouragement? Germany putting increasing the fertility rate “at the top of the political agenda” doesn’t constitute a concerted government effort to increase the birthrate?
Wow. I am in awe of your wrongness. You have a truly Bushian level of imperviousness to empirical reality. At least I know I can no longer care a whit about any claim you make, since it’s 95% certain it will be incorrect and 100% you won’t have researched it.
regardless who cry on tv, the real concern with the econ. is iraq…the new efforts and focus on surge and money will not work . sunni or latter
You argued that women should be denied contraception and access to abortion to ensure supply of future workers. So, yes, you did.
Where?
I can’t understand why I got angry about what you have to say – this is actually quite amusing. You just can’t stop digging…
I think jesulgisac is one of those unfortunate bloggy types who doesn’t think of itself as a troll, but is. This troll has openly insulted several posters on this one thread alone without once seeming apologetic or even, for that matter, making a coherent or fact-based point. From now on I’m filtering out those posts.
Jes: why, in the 15th century, a bunch of organized criminals from Europe walked in and stole everything.
So assuming the truth of what you just said, we just open the borders and see which organized crime group or disease will decimate the current population of the United States? It’s time for payback for Manifest Destiny?
And I’m confused about why limiting illegal immigration necessarily equals racism in your book. I infer this from your claim that Xeynon’s comments re immigration were racist. I went over all of them quickly and I think you are equating limiting Latin American immigration with racism.
From a purely practical standpoint, those most destined to benefit from illegal immigration are Latin Americans (and Canadians) due to simple geographic proximity. Therefore isn’t condoning illegal immigration racist? What about the Asians, Africans, etc.? I assume you support the US’s DV program? Why not use that program and simply increase the numbers? Why should the U.S. not screen for disease and criminal record? Why is screening for such racist?
No metric. Color me unsurprised. Gary, you really need a job screening scientific papers for publication.
Xeynon: Keep on firing! It’s been fun to watch.
From now on I’m filtering out those posts.
You can do that? How? Because as far as jeguslsiac… whatever.. goes, I’m all for it.
Keep on firing! It’s been fun to watch.
Alas, the hour grows late here, and I’m getting tired. I wanna be well-rested, because I’ve got a date tomorrow (hopefully with the future incubator of my babies). I’ll be back, though.
As for the addict who “needs” that next hit of heroin – I favor using welfare only as a temporary safety net anyway, but if you do favor a more extensive use of it, how does one argue for the government subsidizing socially destructive behavior?
If you’re talking about addicts, it isn’t going to matter if you give them a bank card, cash, food stamps, or if you, personally, deliver a market basket of groceries to their doorstep. If they need to, they’ll find a way to turn it into junk, or booze, or whatever their thing is.
IMO you just can’t make things like that the focus of policy-making. You focus on the positive outcome you’re trying to achieve, and work for that.
Somebody, somewhere will abuse it. Oh well. It’s the price we all pay for doing anything at all, in the private and even personal domains as well as the public one.
IMO if you can satisfy the 85/15 rule, you’re doing pretty good. I’ll bet we actually do better than that in practice.
You just can’t sweat the small stuff that much. Not that drug addiction and crime are small stuff, but I think you get the gist of what I’m saying here.
As an aside, if we wanted to actually help the social problems caused by chemical addiction, as compared to just punishing people, we’d probably do better to address it as a medical problem rather than a crime.
Thanks –
Xeynon: Where?
On the Ugh thread, in response to free provision of contraception and abortion on demand, you wrote:
since U.S. universities are on average of higher quality (17 of the top 20 in the world are in the U.S. – only 2 are in Europe)
this (17/20, 2) says nothing whatsoever about average quality.
byrningman: please mind the posting rules. I’m sure you can make your point without namecalling.
Demographics impact on more levels. You don’t have to fall back on Malthus to see that every additional human needs additional resources and causes additional waste (water, pollution, etc.). Less growth is a good thing if that’s all you consider. At the same time; expanding population leads to economic growth & older people need more resouces (medical costs, care, nurses, etc.) and those are often provided by the working people. Europe will face those problems soon and there are countries that encourage children being born for the latter reason. Promoting that via less acces to contraception or abortions should be condemned though.
I don’t have time to go into all other issues mentioned (maybe a seperate thread about demographics/immigration?) but the percentage of foreign born people in the US is not that much higher than the percentages in many West-European countries. The lowest graph in my old Dutch blogpost shows the graph from 2003.
Education: The American level of education should be a source of concern for Americans. Here are the PISA 2006 figures to compare 15 year olds performances – and look at the figures of 3 and 6 years ago too. The university figures should be looked at carefully too. A lot of those list have a bias towards English area universities, you should judge the results ‘per capita’ and to judge their impact on the american level of education you should know how many of the people giving the university its standing come from the american educational system.
Dive on in. The water is fine…
It’s certainly nice and warm. A little too warm…
Methinks someone’s been pissing in the pool. Several someones, actually. Maybe they could relieve themselves at TiO?
Poland bribing women to have babies isn’t proactive encouragement?
Wait, what? You’re saying – and can link to a Polish government official news release – that in Poland, a woman can go to a government agency, say “How much will you give me to have a baby?” and get the money? That would indeed be news.
Germany putting increasing the fertility rate “at the top of the political agenda” doesn’t constitute a concerted government effort to increase the birthrate?
Again: Can you find me a link to an official German news release that says that?
(And Hartmut: would you say the German government is “encouraging women to have more children” or allowing women to have the children they want, when they want them, without suffering from it?)
Heaven forbid that J actually contemplate the idea that she wronged someone. No, its that I hate her. That’s the problem here. (As if I’d waste perfectly good hate. )
To paraphrase “Inherit the Wind,” we grow an awfully strange crop of pacifists around here. This one thinks pacifism is comprised of constant insult, aggression and bullying.
“That’s one of your stupider, more sexist and more racist comments, Bikeshed,”
I don’t speak for the blog, but I’ve been here longer than any of the currently active blog-owners (Von says he’s quit, otherwise he was here at the start, and ditto Katherine), and I have to point out that while you can disagree strongly, calling people names is simple abuse, and is a violation of the posting rules. Quit it.
And in general, people: less personality discussion and analysis, and more substance on issues, please. Re-up the tone.
Don’t make me remind you who would have wanted that.
and I have to point out that while you can disagree strongly, calling people names is simple abuse, and is a violation of the posting rules.
Shucks, Gary, I’m fairly sure that as far as byrningman and Phil are concerned, insulting me is within the posting rules: certainly I don’t think Phil’s ever been warned off about doing so. Hard to tell: I regard his hostility as unremitting and his exercise of it as unpredictable, and tend to avoid reading his comments as much as possible. Byrningman just joined that group.
In a real pool, there’s no separation of the water, but on the internet, ta-dah!
Just in case that is too cryptic, please feel free to wander over Taking it Outside where you can, well, take it outside.
“But the damn comment filter ate it.”
The dog ate my homework excuse doesn’t work.
You’re new here, so you have no idea of the constraints we put up with. Yes, you have to sometimes break out links into only two per post. It’s infuriating. So is my having to go through over a dozen steps every time I comment here, changing the address I put into the e-mail field, so I won’t be rejected as “gary_farber@yahoo.com is an invalid address,” and then every time I make an error in the captcha — which I typically have to reenter about 5 times per each comment — and go backwards, I have to go into the Windows files to kill the Typepad cookie, even though Firefox is set to reject it, because every time you go backwards, “remember personal info” is automatically clicked on. Otherwise all my comments are rejected. It’s insane.
Each time I comment it takes minutes. And most times I have to put in more than two links, I have to break it into multiple comments. Naturally, one has to save every comment to a text file before posting, to make this all work.
It’s screwed up. I wouldn’t put up with it if I hadn’t been here long before the present state of absolute screwed-uppedness. (I like to hope that someday management will be up to fixing it.)
You’re new here, so you’re unaware of what we put up with, but, hey, too bad the dog ate your homework. I know it’s frustrating.
Deal.
Gary:
The entire point of a “guest worker” program is that it doesn’t allow people to become citizens, and thus prevents them from legally immigrating.
My comment lacked specificity. I did not intend to refer to the President’s guest worker program per se. And you cut me off mid sentence in your quote, leaving off the
and increasing visas to Latin American countries,
part. I’m in favor of increased immigration generally (not just Latin America) and think increasing the H1-b numbers and the DV program numbers are a FAR better answers than simply saying those that were able to sneak in get amnesty. Even if I was advocating the President’s guest worker program, how does that in conjunction with increased visas and a wall necessarily equal racism? Short answer: it doesn’t.
Personally, I prefer a guest worker program that potentially has citizenship at the end coupled with increased border security in whatever form. I am willing to consider putting illegals in the program but have reservations. Something along those lines might be the sort of compromise needed to work with those that feel that all illegal immigrants should be barred from becoming citizens. Put them into a guest worker program for a while, then move them into permanent resident status, etc. Not a racist notion at all.
If anyone believes that a non-immigrant visa automatically equals “racism,” why aren’t they advocating for the immediate citizenship of all the H-1B’s? After all, these are educated (bachelor or more) people currently working legally for American companies that had a need for their services! If the guest worker program is racist, then so is our H-1B program (keeping all those smart Asian and Indian computer programmers from becoming citizens and only letting them stay for a set number of years).
I am open to the argument that a wall isn’t practical and that increased sanctions against employers is a better answer. But that doesn’t mean that a wall is per se racist.
Those who take issue with my irritation ought to read through this thread and note that I have been insulted (explicitly called stupid, racist, sexist or whatever) without any justification, as have others, and that the person doling out such insults has not once made a single coherent argument and expressed any regret for their aggressive comments of a personal nature.
Furthermore, I stand by my observation that labeling Xeynon’s completely uncontroversial observation that low birth rates in Western Europe is a cause of concern as ‘white supremacist’ is indeed stupid, sexist and racist (the latter two accusations based on the fact that the person making that insulted claimed that Xeynon is a white male who hates non-white babies).
I also stand by my observation that the person repeatedly insulting posters on this thread explicitly on the basis that they are white and male is indeed stupid, sexist and racist. It may not be sexism and racism in form that we typically think of it, but if I can’t call sexism and racism ‘stupid’, then we have come to a very sad state of affairs indeed.
NYT oped stumping for the Bradley effect.
farmgirl: It turns out late undecideds did not break for HRC in proportions that could explain the discrepancies.
So we have a feel-good story:
— that there was a populist backlash against the media’s handing of HRCs misty moment
Or the ugly story:
— that this grand American democratic pageant, New Hampshire, the first true primary, was streaked through and through with racism
Which explanation do we choose to believe?
Byrningman just joined that group.
That would be the group of people you’ve insulted in the worst, most explicit terms without any justification at all? Consider me a proud card-carrying member of that group.
“Shucks, Gary, I’m fairly sure that as far as byrningman and Phil are concerned, insulting me is within the posting rules: certainly I don’t think Phil’s ever been warned off about doing so.”
It’s not for me to draw the precise lines here between acceptable-if-discouraged insults, and outright abuse, but calling people names is an objectively recognizable specific form of abuse. There’s no substance to it whatever.
We went round on this before, you may recall, in years past, when you tried to turn my name into an insulting verb; Hilzoy stepped on it as a posting rules violation. I consider any kind of attempts to relabel people with an insulting name, or make use of their original name to insult them, as clear and obvious abuse.
I certainly don’t want to bug Hilzoy to get an Official Ruling at present, so I’m hoping people will take a word to the wise as to that being a line they can’t cross here.
Disagree strongly? Fine. Outright sheer abuse? No.
If one has any doubt, it’s not hard to re-edit before posting, or choose to wait an hour or a day to post. It’s only our angry egos that get in the way of that. (And, sure, I’m hardly holding myself up as a model of perfect behavior and language around here; but folks are free to remind me, too, when I go too far.)
And “s/he hit me first!” also doesn’t work off the kindergarten playground.
On the flip side, I’d offer some advice about possibly better ways to approach exchanges like this:
But I hardly think my advice would be welcome.
Short version, nonetheless, is that we all frequently need to revise previous statements to further clarify what we were trying to say.
Rather than taking someone’s past statement, after they’ve denied a particular interpretation of it, and insisting that we grasp the writer’s true meaning better than the writer did, there are advantages to, instead, asking about the contradictions we perceive in the two — or more — successive statements by the writer, and trying to resolve the gaps in understanding.
Insisting that the person is wrong about what they really meant and felt, and that one knows better than they do what their inner heart and mind say, may not work as well as it’s rumored to.
On yet another point, I don’t observe a lot of worry about birthrates amongst liberals and leftists and people unworried about Teh Islamic Threat, nor do I see such worry about national birthrates amongst minorities (other than some men), but I don’t have any hard numbers to point to.
Was that a racist statement I just made?
Well, as far as the gender card versus the race card goes, consider this:
I think most of us will agree that it is a lot easier for a politician to play the gender card “us girls need to stick together” than it would be for a politician to play the race card “us … need to stick together”.
We might criticize them both, but one is not to difficult to imagine actually being said. And another is almost unfathomable.
I have a hunch a lot of people (leftists) would be a lot more willing to buy the Bradley effect argument if this were only Obama running against a white man.
It is also tough to admit that there is racism within one’s own party. I think more people on the left would accept that racism played a part if this had happened in the general election.
It is some sort of sick irony that the victory of the first woman candidate might come at the expense of another equally pernicious prejudice of ours. To believe that racism is alive and well and influences these things makes it a lot harder to feel good about HRCs ascendancy.
And I think that is what people want to do, which is why they will tend to discount these unsavory explanations.
“If anyone believes that a non-immigrant visa automatically equals ‘racism,’ why aren’t they advocating for the immediate citizenship of all the H-1B’s?”
Cite to those here who has opposed immediate citizenship of all the H-1Bs?
Without cite, relevance of imaginary straw people?
The argument “I haven’t seen X supporting Y, therefore X opposes Y” is a frequently laughed at illegitimate fallacy.
“It is also tough to admit that there is racism within one’s own party.”
It is? There’s racism within the Democratic Party.
There’s racism within the hearts of some Democratic Party members.
There’s some unperceived, unconscious, racism, and all sorts of prejudices, within almost every human being, and certainly including me.
That wasn’t hard at all, it turns out!
😉
Second try-typepad made me refresh and then posted an old post (sorry!). Here is what I meant to post
Jes: Can you find me a link to an official German news release that says that?
How about here or
here?
or a Rand Study?
I appreciate your point of view that there is no “birth rate” problem world wide. You imply Europe can simply allow sufficient workers in to remedy the problem. But most European governments apparently (see above) do not agree that immigration alone is a complete solution and that increasing the birth rate among their existing population will help.
Why do you think that looking to increase the birth rate in the existing population is necessarily racist and not just pragmatic? It is easier from a practical standpoint to rear an engineer, doctor, highly skilled steel worker, etc. in the U.S. for example than to rely on importing foreign workers. (I note that is not always the case and thus the large numbers of software engineers and even doctors).
I was an H-1B not so long ago, and I wouldn’t have been interested in US citizenship even if it had been on offer. Nothing against US citizenship, I just already have a citizenship I’m perfectly happy with. My point is that H-1Bs, as far as I can tell, are for specific high-skilled jobs that the US supposedly has a shortage of (hence so many hi-tech H-1Bs during the .com boom). I think if you hang around on H-1B status for 5-6 years you can get residency if you want it.
Either way, I don’t think H-1Bs have much to do with the immigration argument as it is typically conceived of. I don’t think there’s a country in the world that isn’t happy to offer work visas to highly skilled workers who will pay taxes for a few years, then bugger off without benefiting from those taxes.
“The argument “I haven’t seen X supporting Y, therefore X opposes Y” is a frequently laughed at illegitimate fallacy.”
The reason it is frequently laughed at is because it is so frequently used as illustrated several times on this thread.
Forgot to add, that it is also frequently accepted uncritically.
We might criticize them both, but one is not to difficult to imagine actually being said. And another is almost unfathomable.
Ara, I don’t know about that. I can see how Obama is not going to say that in a speech or in a BET interview, but this seems like an unstated notion when people are aware that they are minorities in a majority situation. There’s a parallel, I think, with the arguments over the N word, where it can be used as an in group descriptor, but when used by a person outside the group, takes on an entirely different tone. I think one can read the stories of Oprah’s support of Obama in that light and see that it is woven into the narrative, albeit not apparent at first glance.
Just to clarify the above, ‘it seems like an unstated notion’ is not about the Obama campaign, but the inevitable asymmetries of power when one group is in the minority.
bc, Xey asserted Germany putting increasing the fertility rate “at the top of the political agenda” doesn’t constitute a concerted government effort to increase the birthrate but what you came up with (thanks for providing the links) was two news articles about a couple of right-wing politicians from a centre-right Christian party suggesting that childless Germans should have their state pension cut. If that (or a similiar proposal intended to penalise the childless) were “at the top of the political agenda” you would have made your case: but I fear you haven’t. I have not myself heard of any such German government proposal, and I am fairly sure that if it had been seriously made with the intent of becoming law, it would hit the headlines here. (I suspect it would be illegal under European human rights law, too.)
Why do you think that looking to increase the birth rate in the existing population is necessarily racist and not just pragmatic?
I said that people who talk up declining birth rates as if having a low birth rate were a problem, show a high correlation with people who are racist/white supremacist. In general, this also often shows correlation with people who do not believe that women should have access to contraception/abortion and decide for ourselves how many women to have.
Oh, and having had a little while to think it over: while Byrningman’s consistent references to me as “Bikeshed” do tend to show that his anger at being told he was making sexist comments was not because he isn’t sexist, but because he doesn’t like a woman telling him he’s being sexist: still, for the record, no, I don’t like it, even if his persistent use of it is losing his argument for him. Schadenfreude can only take you so far. Mmm, pie.
who do not believe that women should have access to contraception/abortion and decide for ourselves how many women to have.
A lesbian Freudian slip. “how many children to have”. 😉
Gary, I know you’re trying to keep the sanity till the kittens can return but lay off Xeynon in re “the dog ate my homework”. I recognize that your personal saga of frustration is, well, frustrating; that doesn’t mean you should take it out on them, especially when they’re new here.
Gary: Cite to those here who has opposed immediate citizenship of all the H-1Bs?
Without cite, relevance of imaginary straw people?
Good grief, Gary! My “cite” is that nobody here is advocating immediate citizenship of H1-b’s on this thread! I am “citing” the entire thread! Instead, most appear to be advocating amnesty of illegals in the country. Perhaps they are not opposed to H-1b citizenship but they are not out there promoting it.
I NEVER said absence of advocacy equals opposition. You assumed that. So I will admit to a little lack of precision in my post that may have confused you and triggered your predisposition to assume and act condescending rather than offer substantive argument.
I think it is hilarious that when I point to the ABSENCE of argument on an issue you then ask me to cite those NOT arguing?
My main point has not been answered. Those that see a guest worker program as racist are not advocating for immediate citizenship of H-1b’s (or other non-immigrant classifications for that matter)and callling those programs racist as well. Maybe they are in favor of citizenship for all non-immigrant classifications. But it’s not being voiced. Why not?
IMHO, it is because those other non-immigrants here legally are not a very large voting block . .
Jesu,
I do admit the Bikeshed moniker gives me a chuckle, since you rather hilariously inadvertently confessed that your worldview was based on being teased by boys in your high school bikeshed (whether your perception of that situation is unknown). I was bemused to be the (wholly undeserving) target of that emotional transference.
You actually never stated what it is I said that was sexist, or stupid for that matter. I’m sure I often do say things that are stupid and maybe even sexist, I’m pretty sure I’ve said nothing like that on this thread however. If I did say something sexist, it would have been nice if you had been considerate to point out what it was, as I made it very clear I would like to know. You see, I consider myself a feminist.
he doesn’t like a woman telling him he’s being sexist
I don’t like anyone calling me sexist, since I consider myself a feminist. You are convinced that anytime someone reacts disfavourably to you, it’s on account of your gender. We call this a conceptual failure. It could be people just don’t like being insulted.
Feminism actually means something to me, it’s not merely an emotional defense mechanism. I spend a lot of time researching in a North African country, where I often donate my services to a certain indigenous women’s organisation that is not at all popular with the authorities. So I risk a lot more for feminist issues than I dare say most people around here do. Furthermore, on a casual basis, I often risk a nasty beating or some other unfortunate fate when I defend an Arab woman’s right to conduct herself or dress herself as she sees fit in my company (in public).
You have made it abundantly clear that your conception of feminism is some world of arbitrary and secret condemnation that men are not permitted access to and are, in fact, misogynistic in even asking for an explanation. In contrast, I consider feminism to be the extension of universal human rights to those humans who happen to possess ovaries, and thereby a cause that non-ovarian humans are perfectly capable of understanding, advocating, and even participating in.
Good luck with the bikeshed trauma issues, really.
With great trepidation, I second Anarch. I chime in fully aware that my contributions to the discussions held on this blog amount to a few small droplets in comparison to those of Gary. Perhaps ironically, that is part of the point.
Not everyone can be held to the standards of world-class bloggers like Gary. (And I make that characterization free of sarcasm.) Participation would be very low otherwise, I think. The per-capita presentation of useful information would be very high, but the room would be mostly empty.
I would further opine that sometimes “I read somewhere” is useful, if for nothing else, for illustrating what sort of notions random people have bouncing about in their heads. It also may serve well as a starting point for a more well-researched discussion that might not otherwise occur.
…a few small droplets in comparison to [the sea that] those of Gary [do].
What was in my head but didn’t make it to the keyboard.
You know, that women are better at detecting misogynist statements than men are is an entirely unremarkable point of view. That every statement perceived by every woman as misogynist is therefore definitively and objectively misogynist is patently stupid.
You’ll pardon me, Jesurgislac, if — given your own proclivity for hurling abuse and insult unchecked — I’ll neither accept your counsel on what is and is not acceptable, nor rely on your memory of what I may or may not have been warned about, as you are demonstrably wrong on both matters.
Jes:
If that (or a similiar proposal intended to penalise the childless) were “at the top of the political agenda” you would have made your case: but I fear you haven’t. I have not myself heard of any such German government proposal, and I am fairly sure that if it had been seriously made with the intent of becoming law, it would hit the headlines here. (I suspect it would be illegal under European human rights law, too.)
Not an “official German government proclamation” or such, but how about this?
And I quote:
Chancellor Angela Merkel and her minister for family affairs, Ursula von der Leyen, have made it [the declining birthrate] a prominent issue. A program known as Elterngeld, or, literally translated, parent money, which began this year, replaces up to two-thirds of a new parent’s salary to a maximum of 1,800 euros a month, about $2,530, if he or she decides to stay home. It replaced a program that only helped lower-income families with at most 450 euros, about $630, a month.
Sounds like this “at the top of the political agenda” and is a prominent focus of the German government supported by specific policies.
BTW, what would be the basis of a human rights violation under EU law for such childbirth promotion activities by the government?
since you rather hilariously inadvertently confessed that your worldview was based on being teased by boys in your high school bikeshed
oh nonsense. Jesurgislac (I don’t know her well enough to call her ‘jes’, my apologies for doing so previously) said
It was an early and instructive lesson
Redstocking could doubtless cite instead the kind of thing I’ll cite now: socialist society men being afraid to run in a student election (after a rather nasty incident), ‘supporting’ a woman society member who had the guts to run, then at the hustings, yelling ‘get your knickers off’. But things have got better since those early Second Wave days, as we all know….
(I wasn’t the woman and so that didn’t leave me with any ‘traumas’, not that it left her with any, either. And the men I was sitting with weren’t among the barrackers. But it was ‘an early and instructive lesson’, yes, and I felt anger, yes.)
Would we be asking the same tiresome question, “Is NOT voting for HRC like voting FOR patriarchy?”, if Elizabeth Dole had won the 2000 republican nomination? Having a vagina does not make you THE progressive political candidate in much the same way that having a penis doens’t make you “reasonable,” “strong,” or “emotionless.” There is more going on here than genitalia.
Because it’s been used quite frequently in history by unambiguously racist and eugenics groups before? It’s closely related to the arguments that undesirable elements like the heathen Chinese are outbreeding the civilized races….
I’m a little puzzled why this wouldn’t be realized…
“[…] in much the same way that having a penis doens’t make you ‘reasonable,’ ‘strong,’ or ’emotionless.'”
But it does give one worse aim, so it balances out.
That would be a much better answer, gwangung, if the word “necessarily” were replaced with “arguably” or “possibly” or “potentially.”
“I’m a little puzzled why this wouldn’t be realized…”
Of course, Jes never said any such thing as that “looking to increase the birth rate in the existing population is necessarily racist and not just pragmatic.”
What she wrote was that “thinking a low birth rate is a problem in either Europe or North America has a high and strong correlation with some form of white supremacy.”
“high and strong correlation” and “necessarily” aren’t remotely the same things. Anyone who claims otherwise either read poorly, or is being dishonest. Charitable folks should assume the former.
My daughters would tell you I am one of the worst misogynists they know. Until I became a mother at age 28, I would always join the circle of men, never the circle of women.
Spending a year in a Catholic girls college in Rochester was the most alienating experience of my life. I was sarcastic, and no one seemed to realize I didn’t necessarily mean it. One night my friends and I stayed up all night, discussing politics,sex, religion, what have you. The rumor rapidly spread that we were gossiping about everyone on the floor.
Working in the female-dominated fields like public librarianship and social work was a disaster for me. I intimidate conventional women. I never can accept that is the way it is and you can’t do anything about it. I am a trouble maker pure and simple. When I am upset, I defend myself by getting more ascerbic. I perceive that men enjoy ballsy women who giggle and smile and debate with them lots more than women do.
My most successful social work job was working with a great group of seriously mentally ill guys who were absolutely trapped in the system. Some had been in jail; most had substance abuse problems. I never was so appreciated by a group of people in my whole life. They were so wonderful to hang out with. I excel at eliciting the sanity in crazy people and the craziness in apparently sane people. There are lots of the latter in social work and public librarianship.
I also did extremely well with male gay clients. One told me I must have been a gay male in a previous lifetime I understand him so well. Another paid me the greatest compliment I got as a shrink: he said I was his only experience of unconditional love. We had a strange therapeutic relationship. Until I treated him, an Irishmen from an utterly abusive family, I never realized how Irish I was.
I have never been hassled on the street by a guy in my entire life. I do smile a lot. I am perfectly comfortable being the only women in a subway car full of men. African American men tend to find older, heavier women attractive, which is lovely fun. In the early days of women’s lib, women whined incessantly about street hassles. I wondered if I were the ugliest woman in the entire women’s liberation movement. I often have long conversations with homeless men. One street person teased me that I looked very friendly and approachabe, but I subtly conveyed that I could turn you to stone if you mesaed with me.
In the early days of women’s lib, women whined incessantly about street hassles.
For good reason (I’m glad you’ve never been hassled in the street, yes, smiling a lot probably helped…). Now, they seem to “whine” about being groped in the subway (you think perhaps they don’t smile enough?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/opinion/l27grope.html
I have to wonder if all the people, men and women, ranting about Hillary phony tears react the same way to loved ones crying. Do you accuse your mom or your sister or your wife or your kid of using tears to yank your chain? Do you tell your son that big boys don’t cry? I have watched people cry for 62 years, and it’s bullshit that her reaction was staged. If it was, she should get the Oscar for best actress. . SHE DIDN’T CRY. Her eyes might have been wet, but there were no tears cascading down her cheeks. Good crying is usually noisy as well.
And if she had cried, what the hell is wrong with that? The human experiment with the patriarchy has not proven that bottling up your tears in a gun or a knife or an automobile or a fist rather than letting them gentle your cheek advances the human condition. I feel very sorry for people who has not enjoyed the therapeutic relief of crying. The most essential equipment in a shrink’s office is the box of tissues. You could always sit on the floor. Some shrinks feel you are just marking time until you are able to cry.
“I wondered if I were the ugliest woman in the entire women’s liberation movement.”
Please don’t take this in any kind of instrusive/stalker way, and I hope I’m not being inappropriately personal — but you’ve been posting personal comments — but judging from your pictures on your blogs, that seems entirely unlikely.
This is not a come-on; it is an observation.
Just as a reminder, you can also link to your blog posts, as well as cannibalize them.
I have never been groped in the subway but that might be because I have had a child or a backpack barring access. At four my second daughter traumatized her dad who was trying to prevent her from running around the subway pole. “Get your hands off me,” she stormed to the utter fascination of everyone else in the car. So at 4 she knew how to deal. That’s one of life’s lessons. You can always stamp on his foot or thrust your elbow into his stomach if you are shyer than the four year old. Carry your briefcase in front of you. One of my favorite mom stories involved a hapless guy who called her over to his car and exposed himself. She took one look and said, “I am not impressed.” Dear me, castrating bitchiness. Another one of my darlings said, “I would cut off his balls with a butter knife.” That’s the one who has traveled around the world, working in at least 70 world cities.
Thank you Gary. That is so sweet. I guess you mean the 26 year old picture, not the 62 year old one:) Hillary endearinging laughed that her friends remind her that at her age it’s a compliment to have guys so obseesed with her. I obviously have no concept in inappropriately personal and I have never felt stalked except by toddlers who insisted on following me into the toilet or wouldn’t stop standing on my toes.
Gary, have you figured out whom I remind you of or did you know it all along?
My “cite” is that nobody here is advocating immediate citizenship of H1-b’s on this thread!
The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa that allows people with specialized professions to work in the US for 3-6 years. It isn’t intended to be a path to citizenship.
Legal permanent residency (“green card” residency) isn’t restricted by time, or to particular professions. It is, intentionally, a path to citizenship through naturalization.
It’s an apples and oranges thing. The programs have totally different intents.
H-1Bs do allow their holders to *also* apply for permanent residency and eventual citizenship, but they do that by applying for a green card *in addition to* the H-1B.
I have no problem with H-1B holders becoming citizens, and many in fact do. What I also would like to see, which does not exist now, is a policy permitting legal immigration in numbers greater than we currently allow.
The policy we have now is unrealistic and unenforceable. Or, it’s enforceable, but only by moving us further down the path toward a police state.
It’s not worth it. We have little to lose and plenty to gain in opening the door wider.
Thanks –
“Gary, have you figured out whom I remind you of or did you know it all along?”
Oh, no, you’re my grandma!
Just kidding. Actual answer:
?
No.
Does this mean there’s going to be Freudianism on the test?
One of my favorite mom stories involved a hapless guy who called her over to his car and exposed himself. She took one look and said, “I am not impressed.”
Without in any way minimizing the real threats that women live with on daily basis, I have to say that this story made me laugh out loud at my desk.
Thanks –
Nothing to do with Freudianism, everything to do with writing styles.
Length of posts are a clue as well:) I will start linking to my blog. I am doing it the other way around, which makes no sense. Originally writing the comment and then cannibalizing my comment.
“Nothing to do with Freudianism, everything to do with writing styles.”
Do I know you under yet another name?
To humor my children and disguise my wickedness, I have used other names, but you didn’t know me unless it was in my Jane Austen phase:) I am a bit chagrined; I thought you would see more resemblance to my heroine. I guess I have been giving myself a bit more credit than I deserve.
Russell:
I agree that the door should be wider in most areas. It makes sense if you are going to open the door to let those here legally have first dibs. There are a lot of persons here on non-immigrant visas other than B-1 and B-2 (those are business visitor and tourist). H-1b is one example. The whole H category comes to mind. So does L (intracompany transferees), O’s (extraordinary ability), P’s (athletes and entertainers) etc. They came legally. There are well over 1 million documented temporary visas given each year (I think it approaches closer to 2 million for the worker categories). That’s a lot of people. And they already have background checks!
I’m aware that you can still get to permanent resident status through some non-immigrant categories (I used to practice immigration law). it would be a different matter entirely if you simply said “you’re here, if you want a green card, just say so!”. I think it is interesting that we talk of amnesty without addressing what sort of impact that would have on our legal temporary workers.
I feel a bit bad putting up a link to this TPM post w/o putting up a balancing link to problems in the Obama camp, which gives me some insight into the nature of why the media finds being balanced easier than taking a stand. What Marshall says at the end is worth quoting to give a taste
This has spiraled pretty far in the last 48 hours. And I’m just now taking stock of it again. Like I said, it’s not completely clear to me the mix of intention, inertia and accident involved. But this is explosive.
What? That Democrats can act just as badly as Republicans if they get a whiff of power? And that they’re incapable of learning from the past?
Of course, Jes never said any such thing as that “looking to increase the birth rate in the existing population is necessarily racist and not just pragmatic.”
What she wrote was that “thinking a low birth rate is a problem in either Europe or North America has a high and strong correlation with some form of white supremacy.”
“high and strong correlation” and “necessarily” aren’t remotely the same things.
Oh come on. First of all, that was not the only crude insinuation she made of the subject of racism to that poster.
Secondly, I noticed above you mentioned that perhaps you write the most posts on the blog. Now suppose I was to quickly mention that “there is a very strong correlation between frequent posting on the same blog and being a f**king d**kwad” in response to your post. I’m very impressed that would never think that I could be even remotely suggesting that you are a f**king d**kwad, especially in light of the fact that a few posts earlier I had just called another poster a p*ss gargling cr*tchnibbler for no reason.
“Good luck with the bikeshed trauma issues, really.”
I’ve been distracted from something I meant to say much earlier.
We also saw the following from byrningman, in response to Jesurgislac’s comment here:
This is a campaign of abuse. It is deeply, deeply ugly.
Because of politics?
Because of things said on a blog comment thread about policy?
Only someone with overly limited empathy for other human beings who seem different enough from themselves could engage in such an ugly campaign.
Someone with little perspective on what’s important in life, and what lines not to cross for reasons that, in the scheme of our lives, are effing trivia. (It’s not like anyone here is a cabinet secretary, or MP, with discussion here affecting actual policy.)
Moreover, it’s been continued since byrningman received an admittedly totally unofficial warning that he was in violation of posting rules.
What Jes has said is irrelevant. If Jes violates the posting rules, take it up with the kitty. As I previously stated on this thread, “s/he started first” isn’t an excuse that flies around here.
I have no power to ban byrningman, but I can damn well say that he’s engaged in ugly, nasty, behavior, that I don’t care what his excuses are, and that while I’d started to grow some respect for him recently, I now thing very badly of him, indeed, something I don’t expect him to give a damn about, but I want on the record.
And I can say that he should damn well knock it off. Don’t argue. Don’t defend. Don’t pass it off on things Jes said — I’m hardly biased by my inability to be annoyed with or critical of Jes.
Just.
Knock.
It.
Off.
“Secondly, I noticed above you mentioned that perhaps you write the most posts on the blog.”
Say what?
My marrying an Englishman was much more complicated than people imagine. First, we both applied for the fiance visa, me here, him in the UK. . We had to detail every single meeting, with plane tickets, passport stamps, hotel stubs, restaurant bills, family photos, etc. He had to submit a police report from everywhere he ever lived. Thank God the UK has a national system. First the Vermont office rules on the visa then the American embassy in London. His fingerprins are checked, physical exam, HIV test etc.,original birth certificate, divorce decree.
It is hard to plan even the simplest wedding because we didn’t know when the visa would be granted. We had a justice of the peace ceremony and dinner at an excellent restaurant across the street less than a week after he got here. The fiance visa is for 90 days; you have to get married during that period. Immediately after marriage, he applied for adjustment of status and basically went through the whole process again, fingerprints, physical exams, tax returns, my proof that I can support him for 10 years or until he becomdx a citizen. His status was absurdly unprovable; all we had was a tiny little yellow receipt you might get when you buy beer on the corner. He had to apply three separate times for employment authorization and advance parole, which you need if you leave the country. Otherwise, they will assume you have abandoned the adjustment application.
We finally got the green card interview two years and three days after our marriage. If it had been less than two years, we would have had to apply again after two years. You have to bring all your financial records, tax returns, physician report, photos, cards, letters from people attesting to your legitimate marriage. The interviewer fouled up after approving permanent residency, and he didn’t get the actual green card until a year later. Everytime we traveled it was a big hassle; he was sent to a small room–very nervewracking. 90 days before the third year of the green card success, he applied for citizenship. If you aren’t married to a US citizen, you have to wait 5 years.
Fingerprints, photos, proof of no criminal record, no driving violations, 7 of questions about what he has been up to, the whole absurd dance all over again. The FBI and CIA have checked his fingerprints three separate times.Throughout this whole process, the NY office doesn’t answer phone calls, mail, or email. You have to go downtown and wait in line for hours to find out anything. He applied for citizenship the earliest time he was eligible. He waited 6 months for the interview, got 100 on the government test. Then we waited another month for him to take the oath, which was the day our first grandson was born. We started the process in Sept. 2001; it took 8 months short of 6 years. We didn’t use a lawyer except I became one. All the necessary information was on the web because so many people meet online. There is a wonderful support community. I am so happy we are out of their clutches. It was quite expensive and they have doubled the rates recently.
Comment deleted at commenter’s request.]
Seconding what Gary said @ 06:34 PM (ET).
(Make that 06:33 PM.)
[With apologies to Gary, quotation from deleted comment also deleted at original commenter’s request.]
Ohh!
There’s one you did right.
(I have no doubt about the others, but I can’t speak to that just now.)
Just throwing this out there, most of the “illegals” I know, came here by way of airplane. I suspect if folks were really serious, they would start putting INS Agents and Border Guards at LAX and JFK.
Just a thought.
“I suspect if folks were really serious, they would start putting INS Agents and Border Guards at LAX and JFK.”
I’m a bit puzzled at this: is it a joke?
Of course there are INS agents — and Customs, and other law enforcement agencies — at international airports. Ditto some Border Patrol.
How could it be otherwise? Or am I stupidly missing something obvious?
(It’s because of this that there’s been such a decline in international travel to the U.S. since 2001, given how many perfectly innocent people are being detained in humiliating fashion every day at our airports, leading to a major decline in business travel into the U.S., which combined with the decrease in tourism, ain’t helping our economy, to say the least.)
“I feel a bit bad putting up a link to this TPM post w/o putting up a balancing link to problems in the Obama camp”
FWIW, the controversial comments I’ve seen are in my view squarely in the “tendentious reading” category. Obviously people need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and trying to maintain a Caesar’s wife standard on race isn’t a bad idea, but reading comprehension comes first.
… comes first in judging such issues, anyway.
My unladylike younger sister has been appropriately chastened and banished to a room of he own..
OK: I’ve been out of commission for a bit, obviously, and so wasn’t following this. Now that I have gone through the entire thread:
I totally agree with Gary’s most recent comments, the ones about what should be knocked off. Specifically: byrningman: the comments Gary cites here are completely out of line. If you have a problem with what Jes says, take her arguments apart. If you have a problem with her, go for a run, or make a little Jes voodoo doll and poke pins in it, or — well, anything other than being uncivil here. This is an official warning. Continue doing it and you will be banned.
Jes: you often take what people say and reinterpret it in such a way that your new version is a lot worse than the original. To pick an example that doesn’t get into the contentious issues of abortion and immigration, take this:
Honestly: that is just not what byrningman said there. It simply isn’t.
Likewise:
The claim that someone will not vote for HRC because she does X does not imply that that person thinks it’s OK that other people do X, unless all the other candidates have also done X, and the person in question plans to vote (rather than sitting out the election on the grounds that s/he can’t vote for any candidate who has done X, and all of them have.) In this particular race, have all the candidates played the gender card? Not obviously. I am unaware of Obama doing so, for instance. Someone who had resolved not to vote for HRC for this reason, and was planning to vote for a candidate who had not played the gender card, could not (on these grounds) be said to think it was OK for men but not women to play the gender card, at all.
Accusing people of being racists, or thinking of women simply as incubators, is of course much more serious stuff. If someone thinks (for instance) that a country’s declining population (e.g., in Russia) is a problem — one among many — and that perhaps it would be a good idea to put policies in place that might try (non-coercively, e.g. by providing incentives) to affect this, that does not mean that that person sees women merely as incubators. Nor need such a person be a “militant white supremacist sort of person.” There are all sorts of reasons other than white supremacy, let alone militant white supremacy, for being concerned about low birthrates, and for thinking that while raising birthrates and allowing more immigrants are both ways of addressing a decline in working-age population, they are not the same in all respects, and thus that one might, in some respects, be preferable to the other.
I don’t think doing this helps either civility or your own arguments. In your place, I would think very hard before accusing someone of being racist, misogynist, a militant white supremacist, etc., just as you would before accusing someone of being a pedophile or a serial killer. They are all very serious accusations, and should not be made lightly. Please don’t.
I thought Xeynon tried fairly hard to stick to substance, but frayed a bit towards the end.
Phil: I think this would have been a lot better had it ended after the word “apology.”
To Xeynon, and to everyone, I’ll say: yes, I should have been here earlier, and yes, pretty much everyone was provoked. My sense is that a lot of people said things that they would not have said had things not gotten out of hand.
On the other hand, we’re all adults here. It’s really not necessary to move past disagreement into anger. What does the most damage, I think, is criticizing people, not just their arguments. Even if you think your criticism of someone’s character is completely warranted, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good idea to express it here. (Personally, I tend to say these things to my cats. They know all about which comments annoy me. 🙂 )
I’d also like to thank everyone who tried to defuse this, or didn’t take the bait.
Two more things: first, I am aware that I warned byrningman but not Jes, despite feeling (fwiw) that they were both out of line. One reason for this is that I think it’s a lot harder to say why Jes was — I don’t particularly want to try to enforce a ban on calling people sexist or racist, even though I generally think it would be a lot better to saying those things about their arguments. By contrast, deciding to call someone “Bikeshed” when that refers to a story about that person’s past is out of line in a much more clear-cut and enforceable way.
I think that’s the main reason. I cannot completely discount the possibility that I’m affected, just now, by the knowledge that when Andy needed a favor from Jes, one that I think (from her comments) she thought was no big deal but that mattered to him, she did it without hesitation, and without taking the fact that they had butted heads here to be relevant in the slightest.
I don’t think that’s why I didn’t warn Jes, but I can’t say it isn’t with any great amount of confidence. Fwiw.
Second: I suspect that all the regulars here are pretty raw just now. I know I am. I think it’s a time to cut everyone extra slack. I don’t plan to do this by not telling people when I think they’re out of line, as my previous comment should, um, indicate. But I don’t plan to be making any sweeping judgments about anyone’s character based on what they’ve said during the past week.
“Second: I suspect that all the regulars here are pretty raw just now. I know I am. I think it’s a time to cut everyone extra slack.”
Part of the reason I kept my mouth shut re the above.
“Phil: I think this would have been a lot better had it ended after the word ‘apology.'”
I’m guessing, Hilzoy, that you meant to link here, rather than the comment you linked to.
Gary: yes, I did. Thanks.
Thanks for making a statement, hilzoy. I have to admit that I missed the origin of the “bikeshed” comments and was confused about what it referred to. After scanning through the thread, it’s clear to me now that it was way out of bounds. There’s always a certain percentage of comments that I consider not worth tunneling into, because of the time and effort required by said tunneling.
Part of my frustration with this and other, related disputes is that I don’t trust myself to be fair, so I elect to do nothing instead. Not that I’m any longer in a position to do anything, but I have been.
And thanks too to Gary for his comments here. I think possibly he erred on the side of kindness in his interpretation of Jesurgislac’s comments, but perhaps we might all consider the merit in leaning in that direction.
…and I completely agree with Gary that turnabout is not the proper response to some perceived wrong perpetrated by another, here at OW. Posting rules violations are not cancelled out by other, oppositely directed violations.
Thanks, Slarti.
I didn’t say anything before because I hadn’t been reading the thread, and so didn’t know there was anything to be making a statement about. Thanks to the various people who emailed me and let me know I ought to.
I think ObWi needs a few more top-level posters (and more frequent posting), not just to get more activity, but more to allay some of the anger that builds up over these long threads. A new thread tends to shift people’s attention and start the conversation all over again, while these long threads have a tendency to fall into anger and name calling.
“I think ObWi needs a few more top-level posters”
This is longtime popular standing opinion. Do you know any articulate, reasonable, vaguely right/libertarian/conservative types to nominate?
After we get back to three of those, another one or two left liberals might be added, and another couple of right/con/libertarian types, and than another lib-left type.
About 5/5 would probably be good, though it might take 7 con/right/libertarian types to balance out Hilzoy and 2 other left/liberals.
A year ago wouldn’t be two late for this to happen.
I nominate OCSteve, for starters.
I would like to apologise for this comment I made earlier:
“Oh for goodness sake jesu. For goodness sake. Have you even taken the time to read some of the replies people have put up to respond to you? Indeed your high school story is sad, and I’m sorry that it has clearly affected you to this day, but it is a complete non sequitur. I agree with byrningman, I think you owe some people an apology.”
Sorry Jes, if this came across as snarky. I didn’t mean it to be a personal attack, only one on your ideas. (If it didn’t seem a personal attack, then ignore my apology.)
I’d second the nomination of OCSteve.
I guess I’m not as concerned about the political viewpoint balance as others. I think it’s important to have a good healthy blog first, and then to address one’s mission statement later.
I guess I mean: if there were someone you wanted to read like K & H, would it really be worth putting off their nomination because it would tip the political balance of the blog? To me, the answer is no.
But, frankly, head counts are less important than post counts: K&H have been much more sporadic over the last few months. It might take one *extremely active* conservative to balance out the blog.
“It is also tough to admit that there is racism within one’s own party.”
It is? There’s racism within the Democratic Party.
There’s racism within the hearts of some Democratic Party members.
There’s some unperceived, unconscious, racism, and all sorts of prejudices, within almost every human being, and certainly including me.
Racism raises it’s ugly head once again…
I played a casual gig last night in a bar here in my town. While we were setting up, an older local guy walks up to me to shoot the breeze.
He mentions that he’s looking forward to hearing the band, because he loves to dance. He used to be a good dancer, he says, but a year or so ago he got a heart transplant, and ever since then his dancing has been even better. The donor, you see, was a black man.
“!!!!???!?!?”, thinks I.
“Hahahahaha” says I.
Later on, I see him on the floor, and think to myself, “He is actually a pretty good dancer for a white guy”. Then, I had a good laugh at my own expense.
It’s everywhere.
My marrying an Englishman was much more complicated than people imagine.
My brother in law recently married a woman from Columbia (the country, not the university) and their experience so far matches your own.
I’d second the nomination of OCSteve.
Thirded.
Thanks –
I’d fourth the nomination of OCSteve, fwiw.
Even if he did get mad at me once.
The Clintons are incredible media manipulators. They somehow have people feeling sorry for a person who is by far and away the national front runner, who has raised over $100 million for her campaign.
If New Hampshire is interpreted as the resurgence of women’s voice in politics, I don’t understand how this does not set the women’s movement back. If the story coming out of New Hampshire is that women turned to Clinton because she became misty eyed, how does this do anything besides play into perceptions that women make emotional decisions for frivolous reasons?
If there’s anything that pushes my buttons, it is people with senses of entitlement. She lost a caucus. Boo-hoo. Everybody was ganging up on her. Boo-hoo. This is what every politician has to go through: losing. I guess it wasn’t going to be a coronation. Other candidates deal with loss. But she seemed bent out of shape over it. So people felt sorry for her and stormed to her side.
I just don’t see how this perception — and this perception will be there — does any good.
Having said that, I used to think that Obama had a better shot in the general election. What did I base this opinion on? Polls. What can’t I trust anymore? Polls. Maybe I was entirely wrong. Maybe I should support Hillary, because the country is so deeply and secretly racist that I have to question my assumptions that Obama’s support is what his poll numbers suggest.
I can’t imagine how dispiriting this would be for the Obama campaign, for the African-American community. You gauge your viability as a politician by polls. If Obama has this kind of let down in state after state, why would he run in four years or eight years? How could he ever know what his viability really is?
Hi,
This is strictly anecdotal no balanced sample or anything, but it is worth discussing those first two on the list they are gut-level, fear-based assessments.
=======================
johni
Addiction Recovery New Hampshire
Addiction Recovery New Hampshire
The people are losing their moral while becoming modern. The society needs to be attentive that moral values. Well things needs to be modernized but keeping intact with moral values. As addiction is spoiling the atmosphere of the world to a great extent.Drug Strategies, the definitive site for help with drug and alcohol addiction, in Hawaii Drug and Alcohol Addiction Treatment Centers and Rehabilitation Programs are providing good services to bring the addicted person from filthy atmosphere of drugs.
===================
John Assam
Drug Intervention New Hampshire