Clinton and Gender Bias in the Primaries
Okay... It's one thing to argue that liberals should monitor the media's campaign coverage for bias against Hillary Clinton that treats her differently or with disdain because she's a woman. Since that has happened before and will again, that's good advice. One could even extend it to say that we should come up with strategies to fight back effectively against gender swift-boaters or the subtler MSM purveyors of bias. It's another thing entirely, however, to suggest that Clinton's low level of support among men and her high level of support among women is a particular reason to argue in her favor in general. I should say that it's a little unclear to what extent Francke-Ruta is arguing for Clinton per se, rather than just against a tendency to "flee her side simply because her gender helps make her a divisive figure." At that level, Francke-Ruta is absolutely right. Treating her gender as a reason not to support her because one thinks others will so treat her is to make the danger of gender bias a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, more talented women should be hired as pundits and elected to office. But in a particular election, one has to judge the candidates on the merits and for the most part argue for or against them accordingly. As I indicated above, they should generally be supported when they are subject to unfair attacks, even if they aren't our favored candidate. But that's a far cry from saying they shouldn't be criticized.
As for Clinton's differential popularity based on gender, I find that troubling in two ways. First and foremost, gender bias is encouraging men (and some women) to denigrate her unfairly, and secondarily, it's encouraging women (and some men) to support her as a woman beyond what their knowledge of her career or proposals can justify. (Supporting her because she's a woman would probably only make sense if one agreed with her no more or less than with other candidates and if one believes, as I do, that she has at least a reasonable chance of winning a general election.)
The broader point is that I suspect that many Democrats' views of her are rather uninformed as of yet -- and certainly, I think it's fair to say that the more female and male liberals learn about her policies, the more their support for her would tend to drop, especially when she is compared to some of ther other Democratic candidates. She is smart and hard-working and I would support her enthusiastically if she were to win the nomination. But we have a primary season precisely so we can study and compare the candidates, all of whom will be subjected to unfair press at times. She'll probably get more unfair press than most if not all of the candidates in both parties, partly for reasons Francke-Ruta explains. As I said, we should fight back against such coverage. But we should also express our own opinions about the candidates, because the differences between them carry divergent implications for the direction of the country.
I think this is the link you want? GFR at Tapped on HRC
March 25, 2007 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the link.
March 27, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
From that link can I just say that GFR's statement that And so, with all due respect to Sam and Matt and Scott and Ezra and Mark, their views on this site must be understood as unavoidably a reflection of their demographics, as well as their judgment, as are the differing views of Dana and J. Goodrich and, well, me
is completely sexist.
Yes, the men here are objectified and reduced to idiots mindless repeating what the patriarchal culture that has privileged them has droned into them.
Thank the goddess that the women at TAPPED can see clearly.
March 25, 2007 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its not that Hillary is a woman, its because she's a Democrat.
The MSM will go only so far in looking at and questioning Republicans, but as to Democrats, all gloves are off.
March 25, 2007 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
She isn't just any woman. She's the WIFE of a former President. She didn't get to be a Senator from New York because she was such a terrific attorney in Arkansas. There's no purity on the gender issue here and Democrats who cry she's being treated unfairly are only going to irritate the majority of voters.
March 25, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton has been blessed from the start with a perfectly hideous series of political enemies on the right who hate her for, among other things, being a woman in public life (and, as always IOKIYAR, so GOPer women are exempt from these criticisms).
In part because of these attacks, Clinton also became the object of liberal fantasies during her husband's presidency. As President Clinton dismantled the welfare safety net, refused to raise CAFE standards, encouraged consolidation of the broadcast media, signed corporate-friendly "free" trade deals, and declared "regime change" to be official US policy toward Iraq, loyal liberal Democrats could always hope that Mrs. Clinton somehow constituted the White House's liberal wing (this was especially important during the second term, when whatever actual liberal wing the Clinton White House once had--e.g. Robert Reich--had departed DC).
The fact is that Clinton is as much a figure of the center-right as her husband is, but she lacks Bill's extraordinary communication skills (as well as his more obvious character flaws, of course).
As her refusal to apologize for her Iraq vote indicates, she's not going to tack left during the primaries. This makes the opposition to Hillary Clinton peculiarly important for her primary race. The longer her supporters can keep the focus on her opponents, the better she will be able to do with the Democratic base. Opposition to Clinton from progressives, on the other hand, does not help her.
Whether she intended to do this or not, Garance Franke-Ruta is essentially attempting to lump Clinton's progressive opponents in with her wingnut enemies. I can't imagine that this will work, but it's an interesting way to put off the Democratic base's reckoning with Hillary Clinton's actual political commitments.
March 25, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Jeanne Shaheen three times for Governor of New Hampshire, and have no problems with voting for a woman as the chief executive of either my state or the country. And in several of the respects that I think are important presidential qualifications - e.g. intelligence, decisiveness, organizational and leadership abilities - I suspect Clinton is as strong as any candidate out there.
My opposition is based mainly on my perception of the ends toward which she will apply those qualities. The chief area of concern is foreign policy. And I don't just mean Clinton's past support for the Iraq war, but a whole range of issues on which Clinton's views and leanings are opposed to my own, and in which I think she will steer the country in a direction that is very different from the direction in which I want it to go. In fact, I think she will be positively dangerous for the country.
I also imagine she will continue to pursue the "flat world" neoliberal agenda of national aggrandizement, economic imperialism and weakly-constrained globalization which I oppose.
My second major area of concern is that Clinton is a weak-principled panderer and opportunist given to practice an ugly style of insider politics. This leads me to suspect that (i) she will continue to divide the country, and (ii) on a whole host of issues which I can't even imagine right now, Clinton will tend to side with Washington and corporate elites and power-brokers. Frankly, I just don't trust her. And since in choosing a president, we are choosing someone to handle unforseen issues as well as the issues that are already in front of us, trust is an important factor.
I also believe that the Clinton campaign will have the unfortunate effect of reviving a whole bunch of messy issues from the Clinton era that should remain buried, and will in the end bring discredit on the party as a whole.
What Franke-Ruta doesn't address is that in the 50+ age group there is no gender gap in Clinton's level of support. The interesting phenomenon is in the 18-49 year old group. Men in that group are significantly less likely to support Clinton than men in the older group. But women are significantly more likely to support Clinton than women in the older group. So perhaps the gender bias cuts both ways. And if the views of Sam and Matt and Scott and Ezra and Mark "must be understood as unavoidably a reflection of their demographics", then Franke-Ruta's support is equally a reflection of her demographics. Perhaps the gender bias cuts both ways.
It is my view that the Clinton campaign and its supporters have themselves sought to use gender as a wedge issue, and are engaged in a transparent campaign to whip up a certain amount of irrational male liberal guilt to help draw support to their side. Clinton's campaign and its supporters also continue what appears to me a gender-biased practice of refering to their candidate as "Hillary".
March 25, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully agree.
Hillary is DLC, the corporate friendly and Republican lite branch of the Democratic party. When the DLC elbowed the liberals into the margins probably 80% of the public lost representation. Under Clinton we had 6 years of a DLC White House and a Republican Congress. We lost the House and Senate under the DLC, then we lost the White House to the worst President in American history. I'll pass on Hillary in the Primary, but I can't see voting for a Republican in the General.
Finally, I have no trouble voting for a woman for any office.
March 27, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is somewhat shortsighted to think of Hillary as having some lock on voters due to their gender. It is the same as thinking that candidates have a lock on voters based on ethnicity. The truth is that neither ethnic groups or gender are monolithic when it comes to voting.
While individuals may lean a certain way based on gender or ethnicity, in the end it comes down to who earns their vote and rests with the individuals principles, values and determination of the candidates character judgement.
While there may be women willing to vote for Hillary on the basis of gender, there are lots of females unwilling to vote for Hillary based on her politics.
The gender issue is just another polarizing strategy out of the Hillary camp.
March 25, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 25, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd vote for Boxer or Pelosi for president tomorrow, gladly.
It should be a matter of pride not to seek office if a close relative has already held that or a similar office. I honestly don't know how some of these people - these Bushes and Clintons - were raised.
Okay, having a second Roosevelt president was a good thing - but there was at least a little more distance between them, in terms of blood, and they weren't even in the same party.
March 25, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am one who thinks that gender bias works in Hillary's favor in this instance.
I commented two months ago:
I stand by that. If Hillary Clinton were a man, and if her last name were not Clinton, yet she had the same views, positions and legislative history not one actual Democrat would take her seriously as a candidate.
Gender bias, and a lot of corporate money, are the only things Hillary has got going for aside from a media desperately trying to promote her in the primary so they can destroy her in the general.
March 27, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your comment in the main, but FWIW Sen. Clinton opposes a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration. But don't relax; she indeed supports legislation doing the same thing.
March 27, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is even more hypocritical since she must know that such a law woud be declared unconstitutional. The whole idea of an amendment arose because SCOTUS declared flag burning laws unconstitutional in the first place as protected speech. So here she is, supporting a bill she knows will be voided. What's the point of that if not just BS political pandering theater?
March 28, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink