political campaigns

I’m in Easton, PA, watching campaign ads from my hotel room and feeling ill as I digest the latest news about the allegedly high percentage of Democratic voters who say they’ll “defect” and vote for McCain if their prefered Dem doesn’t win the nomination. PEOPLE, WAKE UP! I think I want to write another op-ed. (Paging Courtney–copy that?!)

I wish all those Dems who feel this way could have been at the dinner I attended with a group of Lafayette College students before my talk here last night. Most seemed to be Obama supporters, save me and one other student (go Abra!), but we all shared the fantasy of the Dream Ticket–Hillary and Barack, both. The passionate dinner table conversation, and a later exchange with Kimberly, a staff member here who was moved to drive up to New Hampshire to campaign for Obama door-to-door, put me in direct touch once again with the incredible energy and awakening among young people that Obama has set in motion.

To any post-college-age Democrat who feel “defecting” is an appropriate response, I have this to say: Defection is nothing but sore loserdom, with the emphasis on LOSER. Before you defect, please think about the message you are sending to a generation newly engaged.

(Image cred)

Many democracies–the United Kingdom, Argentina, India, Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, Liberia, France, and Jamaica, to name a few–have or have had women heads of state, and other countries–oh, like Peru and Bolivia–have elected presidents who are members of racial minority groups. Not so much here in the US of A, which is why, of course, it is rightly Such a Friggin Huge Deal. And the scholars are rightly getting busy.

On September 26-27, 2008, the Ronald H. Brown Center for Civil Rights and Economic Development at St. John’s University School of Law will hold a symposium entitled Making History: Race, Gender and the Media in the 2008 Elections at their Queens campus to explore it all. They’re inviting proposals from scholars from all relevant disciplines (law, media, political science, gender studies, race studies, ethnic studies, sociology, economics, history) and activists engaged in “developing concepts, analyses, methods, or data relevant to race, gender, media and elections.” Any takers? The deadline for submissions is March 14, 2008. More info available here.

Quick–pass it on!

But wait–is it a good thing that this is dragging out? I’m doing a little happy dance over here this morning, though Marco is down in the dumps. Ah, the joys of being a house divided. We both, however, have serious Election Fatigue Syndrome (EFS) and are more than ready to rally behind whoever becomes the nominee. That said, I’m still doing the happy dance and have regained hope for my girl.

Some great quips from other nail biters, all of us looking ahead, nervously, to the national election:

Lynn Harris at Broadsheet, “Women and Clinton: Damned If They Vote, Damned If They Don’t?”–there’s so much great stuff here you just gotta read it, but a favorite line: “We all know about ‘shrill.’ Which to me, for the record, describes John McCain.”

Gloria Feldt quoted over at Women’s ENews: For women, McCain would be “disaster in a nutshell.”

Kavita Ramdas at The Nation: “The next President needs the ability to demonstrate the inner courage and conviction that comes from owning his or her ‘otherness.’ As a woman and a mother, Hillary Clinton could bring insights and perspectives no other President in US history could have brought to the negotiating table of war and peace. As the stepson of an Indonesian Muslim and the son of a Kenyan and a white woman from Kansas, Barack Obama manifests what it means to be a global citizen. What is at stake in this election is not merely the historic first that would be accomplished if either a black man or a woman became the next US President. What is at stake is the fragile future of our shared world.“

(Thanks to Purse Pundit for that last one!)

That’s all. Just biting going on over here. More in the AM, when we have some real info!

For those who missed it, the following “letter” ran in The Nation on February 27, 2008:

Two days after the Texas debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a group of old friends broke out the good china for a light breakfast of strong coffee, blueberry muffins and fresh-squeezed orange juice. We were there to hash out a split that threatened our friendship and the various movements with which we are affiliated. In some ways it was a kaffeeklatch like a million others across America early on a Saturday morning–but for the fact that this particular group included Gloria Steinem, a co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus; Beverly Guy-Sheftall, director of the Women’s Research and Resource Center at Spelman College; Johnnetta Cole, chair of the board of the JBC Global Diversity and Inclusion Institute; British-born radio journalist Laura Flanders; Kimberlé Crenshaw, professor of law at Columbia and UCLA; Carol Jenkins, head of the Women’s Media Center; Farah Griffin, professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia; Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority; author Mab Segrest; Kenyan anthropologist Achola Pala Okeyo; management consultant and policy strategist Janet Dewart Bell; and Patricia Williams, Columbia law professor and Nation columnist.

It was a casual gathering, but one that settled down to business quickly. We were all progressives but diverse nonetheless. We differed in our opinions of whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama–our goal was not an endorsement. Rather, the concern that united us all was the “race-gender split” playing out nationally, in which the one is relentlessly pitted against the other. We did not want to see a repeat of the ugly history of the nineteenth century, when the failure of the women’s movement to bring about universal adult suffrage metastasized into racial resentment and rift that weakened feminism throughout much of the twentieth century.

How, we wondered, did a historic breakthrough moment for which we have all longed and worked hard, suddenly risk becoming marred by having to choose between “race cards” and “gender cards”? By petty competitiveness about who endures more slings and arrows? By media depictions of white women as the sole inheritors of the feminist movement and black men as the sole beneficiaries of the civil rights movement? By renderings of black women as having to split themselves right down the center with Solomon’s sword in order to vote for either candidate? What happened, we wondered, to the last four decades of discussion about tokenism and multiple identities and the complex intersections of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and class?

We all worried that the feminist movement’s real message is not being heard, and we thought about how to redirect attention to those coalitions that form the bedrock of feminist concern: that wide range of civil rights groups dedicated to fighting discrimination, domestic violence, the disruptions of war, international sex and labor trafficking, child poverty and a tattered economy that threatens to increase the number of homeless families significantly.

We thought of all that has happened in just seven short but disastrous years of the Bush Administration, and we asked: how might we position ourselves so we’re not fighting one another? Our issues are greater than any disagreement about either candidate. We all know that there is simply too much at stake.

….As we gathered up the empty plates, we recommitted ourselves to further joint discussions about how to attain that collective better future, however many early mornings, late nights and urns of coffee into the future that may take. We hope women across America will choose to do the same.

Read the full letter here.

Sigh. Yes. It’s a question many are starting to ask. In “Electing a Woman to the White House: Who’s on Deck?” NYTimes writer Susan Dominus notes that “There is…a good chance that if Mrs. Clinton falters, the feminist conversation will shift from what went wrong with her campaign to another pressing matter: who’s coming down the pipeline.”

Also of interest over there recently is an article titled “Mining the Gender Gap for Answers,” in which reporter Robin Toner concludes that answers are, well, few:

“Move beyond the tactical skirmishes in this campaign, and one of the most intriguing issues remains the influence of gender on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy. The questions are fundamental and — even with modern polling technology — almost impossible to answer.”

Well, let’s see what the day brings. It’s sure to be an interesting one at that.

(Thanks to CCF for the reminder.)

Following on the heels of oppression olympics comes a spin with far more freshness–and potential gender bendery? I’m talking, of course, about the way that Obama is now being tongue-in-cheek referred to as a female candidate for president in the same way that Bill Clinton was talked about as the first black president. Check out Newsweek’s piece, “The First Woman President?” for the latest iteration, by Martin Linsky, co-founder of Cambridge Leadership Associates and a faculty member at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. As Linsky notes:

[Obama] is pushing against conventional—and political party nominating convention—wisdom in five important ways, with approaches that are usually thought of as qualities and values that women bring to organizational life: a commitment to inclusiveness in problem solving, deep optimism, modesty about knowing all the answers, the courage to deliver uncomfortable news, not taking on all the work alone, and a willingness to air dirty linen. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is taking a more traditional (and male?) authoritarian approach.

…As a woman, Clinton feels constrained to portray herself as tough, competitive, willing to take on the bad guys. She has to be more male than men, in the same way that women are reluctant to leave the office early to pick up their children at day care because they fear they will not be thought of as serious about their careers, while men are applauded for doing so.

Obama can raise possibilities that are off the table for Clinton. She needs to tell us that she can solve our problems. Obama seems comfortable in what we think of as a female role: not overpromising what he can accomplish, and telling us that the work of change is ours as much as it is his.

What do the women’s leadership research gurus out there think of the way all this is being framed? (Paging my girls at Catalyst! See also comments by rhetoric scholar J.K. Gayle on previous posts.)

Again, kudos to feministingfor the heads up. Image cred.

As feministing notes, the media portrayal of the black man vs. white woman thing is oppression olympics defined. Note the graphic in this article oh-so-subtley titled “Black Man Vs. White Woman” appearing recently in The Boston Globe. Urrgghh.

For a more interesting take on identity politics in this election, check out the brilliant Ann Friedman’s latest over at The American Prospect, in which she notes that just because the Democratic candidates are a woman and black man does not mean this is the first election to hinge on candidates’ identities. Identity isn’t the problem, pretending it doesn’t matter is.

(Thanks to Court for the heads up.)

As folks who know me know, I’m endlessly fascinated with the intergenerational divide among women going on around this election. And I’ve come to feel like those my age occupy an odd place here on the cusp of 40. Many of the polls show the cut-off for Hillary vs. Obama support among women voters as being age 40. We all know that cut-off numbers are often random but convenient divisors, false but convenient truths. Still, I can’t help but wonder, does my earlier waffling reflect some kind of generational fence-sitting?

It comes as no surprise that women born at different times in history are going to differ in their attitudes across the board–though the realization does seem to be news for some. In the history of feminism, generational differences has been a central theme for decades. Think back to the 1970s: Betty Friedan (who was by then middle-aged) vs. the radical feminists (who came out of the New Left and antiwar movements and were generally in their 20s). They wanted different things. Some wanted change at City Hall, others rooted their politics in the bedroom. They fought for equality, and fought each other along the way, often destructively. So my question, always, is how do we fight and debate without tearing ourselves apart? How to adamantly disagree and still find the common ground? The questions were relevant in the 1970s, and they’re relevant today.

And speaking of, I’m currently gathering data and ammo for the talks I’m giving around the country for Women’s History Month and would love to be pointed to any articles you’ve seen that focus on this latest generational division among women. The way it’s all being framed has tremendous consequences, I believe, for the future of women’s organizing, for the health of intergenerational relations, and for national politics overall. Thanks in advance for any links. Please feel free to post em here in comments–along with any thoughts of course!–or email me.

P.S. The intergenerational panel I’m traveling with through 2008 may be coming soon to a campus near you! Our March is pretty filled up, but we’re booking into the fall, so for more info, please click here.

Image cred

I don’t know about you, but I’m about ready for some election levity. If in need of a laugh, watch below, courtesy of The Onion (and Marco).