Posts Tagged ‘democrats’

Women have a unique, all purpose ad hominem redirect that most women choose not to use, and yet one we see all too often — “You’re sexist,” or, more specifically, “You attack me because I’m a woman, you sexist.” We saw this in all varieties earlier this year. To name two: we saw it covertly, from the Hillary Clinton campaign; overtly, from her supporters.

Former Bush administration rouge Monica Goodling brought another spin on the same formula. She implied that she was attacked because she was a woman, yet did it without saying a word. All she had to do was start acting in the manner of an attacked woman, or at least act like the exact stereotype of an attacked woman.

Stephen Colbert took it at face value. From the same excellent episode of The Colbert Report that brought us the Three-Card Monte game that explained high oil prices, we have also this very funny segment that sums up the incident nicely:

For television, this is a remarkably deep look at what isn’t even the most recent scandal at the highest levels of our incumbent administration. Naturally, there have been deeper analyses of Monica Goodling’s testimony, but Colbert is, as always, going for the laugh. If he makes his viewers thoughtful, all the better.

I was pretty thoughtful for a good five minutes. I think that throwing Monica Goodling to the wolves was meant as all-purpose damage control.

She wasn’t blamed for the improper hiring and firing of federal attorneys just because she’s an expendable woman, but more precisely because the blamers that be knew she could use her femininity to her advantage. As Slate notes, she was in full damsel in distress mode during the hearing, and most of the panel fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

Party-line Democrats who weren’t watching closely had already joined her side because she had appeared to be yet another woman scapegoated in the tradition of Eve. Note that the “You can’t blame me because I’m a woman” defense is only credible if we already believe that women are frequently scapegoated.

It’s a bitter irony that we’re all the more susceptible to Goodling’s innocent girl performance only because we rightly acknowledge that witch hunts still exist.

Before I betray my feelings about a particular portion of Mario Cuomo’s keynote to the 1984 Democratic convention, please read it. This passage in particular sticks with me.

It’s an old story. It’s as old as our history. The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans — The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. “The strong” — “The strong,” they tell us, “will inherit the land.”

We Democrats believe in something else. We Democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees — wagon train after wagon train — to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans — all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America.

Cuomo characterizes Democrats with courage and confidence and, by comparison, he characterizes the Republicans as non-inclusionary jerkwads.

The Democrats will lift their fellow neighbor into the wagon of progress, be he black or white, hard-working or lazy. The Republicans expect you to climb in on your own recognizance. The Democrats want to improve the nation by helping individuals to lead better lives, while the Republicans want the improve the nation by letting individuals try. Each side accuses the other of being cynical, and each side praises itself for having faith in America. But the editorial we digresses.

Cuomo praises his party for being inclusionary, but, after a certain point, how much value really exists in being inclusionary? Universities, community colleges and technical schools are already inclusionary, and, once we work out the kinks in the system, every American will be on a level playing field in all the ways that matter.

If, after that level playing field, I find that my steak is rare and I wanted it to be cooked medium, I don’t care whether it was cooked by a white guy or a lesbian Asian-Pacific Islander. It wasn’t cooked correctly, and he-and-or-she had his chance.

In practical matters, and after school is done with, diversity cannot be the end-all and be-all. Yet, even today, Democrats echo that same, tired calling card of pluralism, and they echo it to exclusion.

It’s rather short-sighted for party that claims to have such vision.

Except that it isn’t.

Some squeaky wheels over at the New York chapter of the National Organization of Women don’t like the surviving Kennedy brother. My first reaction was to describe this as them getting their something-in-a-twist until I realized that such a comment would be wrongly interpreted as sexist, rather than innocently idiomatic.

Read it and weep.

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings. Continue Reading »





Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.