Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Goodbye to all that #2
When I read about
Robin Morgan's essay rallying women to vote for Hillary Clinton "not
because she's a woman -- but because I am," I was at first a little
disappointed. It cemented a truism that seems to have emerged: that
Clinton can play the gender card to her advantage (because of the large
numbers of women voters), even as Obama scrupulously avoids calling any
attention to his race.
Mind you, I don't see that it's out of
bounds in any way for Chelsea Clinton to circulate the essay. In fact,
from the point of view of the Clinton campaign, it's a very clever
move.
It's just that Morgan's argument is pretty poor. At
first blush, it seems a convincing and otherwise unremarkable
affirmative action argument. When all other things are equal, why not
hire the African-American, or the Latino, or the woman? I'm sure this
is the sort of argument that would appeal to many liberal women,
especially those who grew up when affirmative action was new and
exciting.
But of course it's a straw man. Clinton and Obama are
not equal, and there are some big policy differences, despite what the
media would have you believe. There are also big questions around
electability that Morgan completely ignores.
I would hope that
women reading the email would take some time to reflect on this rather
than just leading with their emotion. Many probably won't, but then
it's fair to say many Obama supporters don't intellectualize too much
either, when confronted with the will.i.am video.
Anyway, this
is all a lead-in to try and spark a discussion about the role of
emotion in choosing candidates. How much did emotion affect your choice
of candidate? Does that seem fair?
Comments (3)
It is precisely those questions that matter most, that get decided with at least the last-minute check of "Does this feel right?" When other information is only the observables, and only observables reported on by someone else, of course one pays attention to feelings of confidence or unease.
A glaring policy conflict is a problem, but when the policy clash is minor it will be trumped by other less definable opinions. Anybody that claims to have added up column A and column B, pros and cons, is kidding themselves. There is no rational system by which we can assign precise weights to various issues. Those measures of importance will be unspoken, loosely defined, and not fixed over time.
All decisions are emotional, if they matter to the decider. It is others that will test the decision by raising factual issues. Test your decision against other's opinions, because you will always decide on feeling.
February 12, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, you are so right! ♪♪♪
February 12, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're interpreting her statement "not
because she's a woman -- but because I am" incorrectly. (Either that or I am, or I'm misinterpreting you're interpretation.) I took it to mean that she's voting for Clinton because she's voting for her and not because she's a woman. Sure, there's a dearth of information on why she's actually voting for Clinton, but she's not advocating doing it for the wrong reason.
This, to me, is actually a breath of fresh air from a campaign that seems to label everyone who's against Clinton as sexist or even misogynistic. Some people don't seem to realize that you can be in favor of Obama (or even just anti-Clinton) without being sexist, just as you can be in favor of Clinton (or even just anti-Obama) without being racist. We don't have to fall into the Bush mantra of "if you're not with us, you're agin' us."
February 12, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment