And so it comes to this. Ted Kennedy, the liberals' liberal has betrayed women (No one asked me) when he endorsed Barack Obama?
According to NOW-NY: "Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. " This is the final, horrible logic of identity politics come to fruition. No where in the press release is there anything about how Kennedy's endorsement was for a candidate who is less qualified than Clinton. And the over-the-top language? Ultimate betrayal? Not endorsing a female candidate for President is the worst thing that the Massachusetts senator could do to women? Really? Do they actually believe that?
Later they go on to say: "This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability..." Again, I ask really? What does it tell? Only that NOW-NY backs Hillary Clinton because she's a woman first and foremost. Is it possible that, even taking very cynical realpolitik into account, that Barack Obama is the most electable Democrat running? Might it even (gasp) be possible that he is imminently qualified to be POTUS?
Now, if I were a race-woman then this paragraph would begin by accusing NOW-NY of racism because they are supporting a white woman for POTUS instead of a black man. But I loathe identity politics with such a deep and abiding passion that I refuse to indulge that thought, even though it crossed my mind for maybe a minute. I do not believe that NOW-NY had racist intentions, just that in their rush to be feminist (a cause I absolutely support) they have merely gone to the other side of the coin. So let me make this clear: If Hillary Clinton is the nominee (and I hope she is not for purely political and policy reasons) I will vote for her (what other choice do I have) and I will be well-aware that I am casting a historic vote and if we wake up on the first Wednesday in November and discover that we have elected a female POTUS I will be proud and happy and joyful because she is a woman and it is about damn time we elected a woman. But it would be indefensible for me, as a feminist, to support Hillary Clinton merely because she is a woman. It is no different, in either style or substance, than someone voting against her because she is a woman. I support Barack Obama because I want a POTUS I can believe in. In the last decade of last century, there was a man I believed was that politician. I remember remarking to my parents that I finally 'got it' about their love of John F. Kennedy. And then Bill let me down. He let me down in policy ways and he let me down by being politically stupid. But I still want a President I believe in. Watching Obama, I really understand what people mean when they talk about Kennedy. Do I think he would make a perfect candidate? No. Do I think he would make a perfect President? No. But, I am not looking for perfection, just someone competent and in whom I can believe--at least a little. At present, I believe Obama when he talks about wanting to heal the divisions in America. I believe him when he talks about trying to rise above the politics of personal destruction. So far, so good. I am, of course, painfully aware that he is a black man and that if he is the nominee I will have the opportunity to cast a historic vote and if he is elected I will be living through a historical event that I will be able to tell my granddaughter. But I will not be voting for Obama because he is a black man, I will merely be voting for him because I believe he can do the job and happy that, finally, I get to cast a vote for a black man for POTUS.
NOW-NY has succumbed to what many committed activists do; the sirens' lure of identity politics where what you are becomes who you are and thus constrains your movements because you have to do certain things. As a woman, I'm 'supposed' (using NOW-NYs' logic) to support Clinton because she's a woman. If I bother to actually study her politics that's all well and good and no one should hold it against me if I do. But I'm 'supposed' to support her because she's a Democrat (I have a feeling that if it was Condi Rice running, she would not have NOW-NYs' backing but I could be wrong) and a woman. Nowhere is the idea that there are other, more pressing, political calculations to make.
Now, I want to be clear, I think Hillary Clinton is an inspiring figure. However, if you like the sound of President John McCain then Clinton is the Democrat you want him to run against. The GOP base may not turn out because there's no love lost between them and McCain, unless by doing so they can prevent Clinton from getting into the White House. Clinton is beatable and obviously so, Obama is not quite so beatable. But as a woman I'm not 'supposed' to take that kind of realpolitik into consideration. Well, this woman does because this woman wants to see a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Congress. Above electing a black man (which I'd love to see) or a woman (which I'd love to see), I want our nation to stop this destructive slide we are on and I think that a Democrat in the White House is our best, last chance for doing so. The Democratic party is famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (2004 Presidential election anyone) and this is one year we can't afford to do that (we couldn't in 2004 either but we did anyway. John Kerry? Really, he's the best we could come up with?).
NOW-NY is out to lunch but, in the making lemonade from lemons department, hopefully this will be yet another nail in the coffin of identity politics.
Cheers
Blogged with Flock
No comments:
Post a Comment