On Hillary: Katha Pollitt thinks that women…
…are too hard on Hillary Clinton because women are hard on other women.
Just when you think you’ve heard all the excuses possible for why Clinton isn’t receiving the approval she was expected to get, you see something creative like this:
My women college classmates (Radcliffe ”˜71) aren’t so excited about Hillary Clinton. An e-mail to our New York City potluck group elicited distinctly modified rapture. They’re bothered by her high-priced speeches and the aura of favor-trading and favor-banking around the Clinton Foundation. They don’t like her Wall Street connections, and they don’t like Bill (a”‰k”‰a the “ick” factor). Plus, she’s not progressive enough…
But this is where women differ from the other American groups underrepresented in politics. Racial and ethnic minorities can be extremely loyal to their own, but women are hard on other women””and feminists are no exception. Even the idea of electing a Democratic, pro-choice woman president doesn’t necessarily get a rousing cheer.
Actually, feminists are usually hard only on conservative women like Sarah Palin. When Palin was running for VP in 2008 I wrote a piece entitled “Palin unhinges feminists on the left,” and “unhinged” is really the correct word. For example, this quote was, unfortunately, fairly typical of the sort of invective that was routinely spewed towards Palin:
I confess, it was pretty riveting when John McCain trotted out Sarah Palin for the first time. Like many people, I thought, “Damn, a hyperconservative, fuckable, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a ”˜sexy librarian’ costume ”” as a vice president? That’s a brilliant stroke of horrifyingly cynical pandering to the Christian right.
And then there was Professor Wendy Doniger:
I submit a piece that appeared at the website “On Faith,” under the aegis of Newsweek and the Washington Post. It was written by Professor of the History of Religions Wendy Doniger, who teaches at the University of Chicago Divinity School, and it contains the following astounding line referring to Palin [emphasis mine]: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”
Yes, women can be hard on women.
But back to Hillary. Pollitt tells us what she likes about Clinton, and why she’s very excited by her candidacy:
First, I’m excited about beating the Republicans, and she’s the best candidate for that job.
Translation: however bad Hillary may be, Republicans are by definition always worse. And besides, we haven’t got anybody else.
Second, Hillary will be the first woman president””and that is important. At this point in world history, it is embarrassing how backward the United States is. More than 70 women have been chosen to lead their nations, including in gender-conservative countries like Pakistan, Ireland, and the Philippines””and 22 nations have female leaders right now. What is the matter with us?
Translation: if Hillary is elected, I can finally feel proud of my country, which will then have attained a status right up there with forward-looking Pakistan.
By the way–although Pollitt ignores this fact—the late Benazir Bhutto, who remains to this day Pakistan’s only female prime minister, came to politics and the job in the same way Hillary Clinton has: by being related to a man who was the head of the country.
Pollitt goes on:
Third, Hillary is a feminist and is running as one””as she made clear in an April speech…[O]n a range of issues that matter to women””reproductive rights, healthcare, childcare, pay equity””she will move the ball forward. She will nominate liberal women and people of color to important posts.
Translation: she mouths the right feminist slogans, and she will appoint people from the favored special-interest groups.
But the most interesting thing about Pollitt’s article is that she had to write such a pep talk at all, in an effort to rally the faded, weary troops. What Pollitt’s message really boils down to is that Clinton is a woman and a Democrat; it’s the equivalent of the old “hold your nose and vote” that conservatives are so familiar with on the Republican side.
This isn’t the way it was supposed to be for Hillary. It may be enough to allow her to win, though.
[NOTE: I look at the Republican field, on the other hand, and I feel actual enthusiasm. A lot of these candidates seem decent, intelligent, and capable. My favorites so far are Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina. Perry’s now in, too—not quite up there with the others for me, but with an excellent track record in Texas.
It’s an embarrassment of riches. Jindal’s good, too, although (as I’ve written before) I think he lacks that indefinable something to appeal to a broad swatch of voters, some sort of energy and magnetism that’s needed. But still, it’s by far the best Republican slate I can ever remember seeing. In a meritocracy, any of these people would beat Hillary, hands down. But the world is not a meritocracy.]
I like Bobby Jindal a lot and would love to see him as the nominee, not in terms of whether he could win, but in terms of him making a good President.
I think that “undefinable” thing that he is lacking is that he looks like a nerd. Not, of course, because he is of Indian ethnicity, it’s just the way he looks. He’s not tall and doesn’t have that strong chin like Mitt Romney. I don’t personally care… in fact, to me it makes him more relatable, but I think there is a lot of benefit from having a candidate who is tall, good-looking and has good hair.
I recall reading some years ago that the taller candidate almost always wins. That might be coincidence, but there might also be something to it. Again, Mitt Romney is the exception because he is the most “presidential” looking candidate since Reagan, IMO. But he also faced unprecedented difficulties and didn’t seem to have the cutthroat mentality that is the sine qua non of presidential campaigning.
I do agree though that the Republican field at this point has a lot of good potential, with several smart, accomplished people, whereas the Democrats seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, and aside from O’Malley, there isn’t a candidate on the left (that I’m aware of) who isn’t nursing home fodder.
Klein who wrote the Amateur about Obama was interviewed by Stuart Varney, says his *sources* tell him that Bill has advised Hill to *pace herself* that she feels *faint* from time to time, has been having an increase in headaches & suffers from insomnia.
She’s unqualified (like Obama) for this job, good lord she has to ring up *confidants* (Blumenthal) to get
direction & have things explained to her. She has brain damage if you ask me, just too out of touch to realize it!
In the general populace female voters have 2 behaviors.
Single women & ivory tower women are all into this
*cause* of women baloney, where as more mature women, married awhile & 40 +, are more conservative
voters. And also less apt to villify fellow females for their political views. Hillary deserves to be called out for her incompetence & disasters. Sarah Palin hardly, she was smeared. She let her Downs syndrome child be born
*oh the horror* to the so called *pro choice * crowd !
“Her [Palin] greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”
What greater pretense to being a woman than female cattiness and bitchiness in the advancement of Leftist ideologies — it fools no-one. It’s much the same as Muslim pretense to ever hurt feelings for the advancement of treating Islam with kit gloves. Has any woman ever been so hard on women as to kill off a million or so double Xs?
I must say that I am disappointed in Katha Pollit’s article. I could not find one occurrence of misogynist, misogynistic or patriarchy.
KRB
More than 70 women have been chosen to lead their nations, including in gender-conservative countries like Pakistan, Ireland, and the Philippines–and 22 nations have female leaders right now. What is the matter with us?
Death knell of the idea of enlightened electorate. The best-
credentialed-educated minds vote with their conformation.“. . . forward-looking Pakistan. ” This is delicious! You have a gift!
As for the left, it’s always about appearances and only appearances. Credentials (the Ivy League degree, a title, a profession v. a trade, etc.) are about the appearance of being smart, powerful, urbane, tolerant, wise, etc.. Scratch a leftist’s Planck’s-length thin surface, however, and all sorts of noxious ooze begins to flow: Envy, arrogance, intolerance, racism, guilt . . . . They are a social cancer.
As for Wendy Doniger and third wave feminists, one should spend some time reading R.S. McCain:
http://theothermccain.com/
McCain has undertaken the unenviable task of actually reading and correlating feminist writings to analyze their raison d’etre:
Neo:
In a meritocracy, the election between a genuine war hero — DURING WARTIME — against an untried community organizer would have gone to the former, hands down. But 2008 didn’t work that way.
In a meritocracy, the election between a phenomenally successful businessman — at a time of economic downturn! — and a President who turned everything he touched to mud, likewise, would have gone to the former, hands down. But 2012 didn’t work out that way.
It will be up to the candidates to DEMONSTRATE that they have more merit than their opponents, and the importance of this, beyond soundbites and ridiculous scandals-of-the-moment. (Marco Rubio has traffic tickets. Wow.)
@ Daniel in Brookline:
Um, let’s not overblow the candidacies of McCain and Romney, huh? They were both flawed.
Generally:
It’s the identity politics I hate. Right-thinking people should’ve been taught a lesson about electing leaders based on superficial traits, after Obama.
For the rest of the left, they’re lost in their cult.
Hillary will lose for the simplest reason, though: nobody likes her. It’s the “beer test” all over again.
Jindal strikes me as actually being what Jeb Bush is advertised to be: a sharp-tack policy wonk with executive experience.
If Jindal ran for President, I think he’d perform better than expected.
Po’wittle Hilly…Some women(even Radciffians!!) disappwove of her. Discwimination on po’wittle goil. I cy. I bwood. I sulk at po’wittle goil with the massive cabooski. Weeeepage..!!
Hillary and Sarah in a cage fight should settle things in katha’s pea brain.
Matt_SE: I would certainly agree with you that both McCain and Romney were flawed candidates. What I was saying was not that they were not flawed, but that they were miles better than the candidate they ran against… particularly given the issues of the day.
McCain’s flaws, for example, did not pertain to his war-hero status or his military background… which ought to have been decisive during wartime. (That it was not, in my opinion, had a lot to due with Bush fatigue and the starry-eyed magic of the Obama candidacy. And yes, McCain ran a poor campaign.)
Ditto for Romney. As a Massachusetts resident, I certainly have my share of issues with the man. But his corporate and economic track record were his strengths, not his flaws… and during a time of economic downturn, a man with a proven track record of turning failing companies around ought to have been a shoo-in. (He too ran a poor campaign, and was not willing to go for the jugular when it counted.)
You don’t have to like a candidate to acknowledge that he or she is head-and-shoulders above the competition. That’s why, while I would hate for the 2016 Republican nominee to be Christie, or Jeb, I’d vote for either of them in a heartbeat if they’re running against Hillary (or Warren).
I’ve got to say that the more I hear Carly Fiorina speak, the more I like her. Too bad the GOP powers that be won’t back her. She’s one of the best extemporaneous speakers I’ve heard in recent years and obviously has a very high IQ (is that term still allowed?).
I was very much a Palin fan, and so were the women that I talked to in my neighborhood — we thought she was a brilliant choice, especially since she had worked her way up through local offices in the good-old-fashioned way, and not through being the spouse or spawn of an established political family.
I am beyond outraged at the way that she was treated by establishment so-called feminists, by the establishment GOP, by the lap-dog media and by the entertainment world.
I have a long memory, and intend to nourish my grudges. Anyone who had an enthusiastic hand in rubbishing Sarah Palin are noted down in my “bad book”.
Payback is a dish best eaten cold. Carly Fiorina may not have been all that brilliant in business – but if she is administered the Palin treatment, my fury will be doubled.
Re: Pollitt,
“Man is not a rationale animal, man is a rationalizing animal.” R.A. Heinlein
“My favorites so far are Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina.”
As of today, I too support Walker, Cruz, and Fiorina.
Rubio however is a snake, a political opportunist bereft of principled ethics. Whatever he might promise or claim to support and no matter how basic in principle, he has already demonstrated that, if he decides it to be of political benefit… he will unhesitatingly betray his former ‘position’.
Being supported by the GOp Establishment is perhaps a sign of you lack of integrity, rather than the presence of credentials or Presidential material. Then again, one might say the same thing about being a Leftist.
Not a single word by the Ivy author that Hillary is a plain old crook. Why is that so hard to acknowledge?
For the GOP field, what I would love to see is that the others that don’t get the top two slots agree to cabinet posts. Their country needs them.
Trump has no chance to win, but he has a good message. If he would agree to be SecCommerce, he would be a ton of good. His country would love him. Another example: Bobby to HHS. Lindsay to Defense. Carson to Surgeon General. Perry to Homeland Security.
Dear Ms Pollitt,
Is your assumption that most women are so immoral that they don’t care whether a candidate is a crook? Are there no other women who can represent us, or, in a nation of about 150 million women, is only one qualified? Are the rest of us idiots?
Being a Badger as I am, I want Walker, but, by Gadfrey, I DO like Ms. Fiorina! That is one smart person!
In his book “Angels and Us” Mortimer Adler uses the phrase “The brain is necessary to but not sufficient for thinking.” This leads me to think in terms of amoral vs. moral/immoral. Professor Wendy Doniger’s amoral brain appears to be filled with stuff but, weither she likes it or not her utterances gets filtered through her moral/immoral thought processes. Hence this gem of immoral thought. “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”
The heart and the mind must function as one. A person that acclaims themselves an intellectual while lacking emotional fortitude and a spine, isn’t at the top of humanity. Nor is a person who reacts to his emotions first and foremost, controlled by anything reasonably called logick.