As the post-mortems of the Hillary campaign gear up, one of the things I'm starting to hear discussed is who suffered worse: Hillary from sexism, or Barack from racism?
I suppose you'd expect me to say this, but my vote goes to sexism. I think it is much harder to be perceived as a leader when you're a woman. Women always walk a fine line between looking weak and looking bitchy--indeed, I'm not sure the line's even there in upper management positions. Women have had a harder time making it into the CEO's office. Everyone watched Carly Fiorina's ascencion to the head of Hewlett Packard and her spectacular implosion, with the subtext that maybe a woman just can't run an important company. By contrast, how many of you knew that Stanley O'Neil had stepped down as CEO of Merrill Lynch after criticism of his performance--much less that he was black?
I don't mean to belittle the racism that clearly still exists, and there really do seem to be an appalling number of people who will not vote for a black man. But we don't have any cultural problem with images of black men as leaders--think of any of a hundred movies where black men are military leaders, politicians, family patriarchs, and so forth. By contrast, there aren't very many images of strong women successfully and sympathetically holding a traditionally male leadership role.
We've heard a lot of worry about what Barack Obama believes--is he a closet black nationalist? But much of the focus on Hillary Clinton is about who she is: a controlling ice queen, a petulant weakling using her tears to garner false sympathy. I've heard more than one man say to me that he couldn't vote for her because she reminds them of their mother. This carries with it a cultural presumption that we don't want a president with maternal qualities. Personally, I don't agree with her message. But I can think of worse things than having the president tell the federal agencies to clean up their damn rooms.
I think you're probably right about sexism being a bigger obstacle to leadership positions than racism.
Still, doesn't it make you proud of the overall direction of your country that less than 100 years after women got the right to vote, and 50 years after the fall of Jim Crow laws, we have viable black and female candidates? When Kennedy was running for President, he had to take enormous pains assure voters that, being Catholic, didn't mean he was taking his orders from the Pope.
To out-of-context quote the famous ad slogan, you've come a long way, baby.
America is not perfect, but we get far more right than we get wrong.
But HRC is actually dishonest and pandering. I don't personally know anyone who does not find her campaign persona to be false and insufferable. Do you? If I am right that this perception of her is widely shared, I don't understand how you can argue that it is the result of sexism. Her faults are not gender stereotypes. They are more like the stereotypical faults of brain-dead Democratic politicians.
On the other hand, a lot of HRC voters in the South have actually told pollsters that they won't vote for Obama because of his race.
Please!! Hillary lost because she ran a sucky campaign. She obviously misjudged Obama and what he was capable of. She started her campaign as being the inevitable one, and didn't realize there was a wide swath of the Democratic electorate that didn't care for her one bit(Her vote on Iraq being part of that). Besides, there are plenty of people in the DFH blogostan who preferred Elizabeth Edwards over Hillary, so no it isn't sexism, it is the particular candidate. As far as Carly Fiorina, she has the same problem someone like Chuck Schumer has. They never met a camera they didn't like. Was she as bad a CEO as people thought back then? Likely, no. She obviously isn't that bright though considering her comments on behalf of McCain last week(parroting Hillary in that economists are untrustworthy and the like).
How has Barack Obama ever suffered from racism in America? It seems that the only real racism he ever encountered was in his Indonesian schoolmates who beat him up for being different. He has led a charmed life in this country.
Psittakos:
And what political stripe are you?
These things are not incompatible. She could be running a sucky campaign and have had a harder time establishing a coherent campaign narrative. I'm not saying sexism is the reason she's losing; I'm just saying that I think sexism is a bigger handicap.
"Psittakos:
And what political stripe are you?"
I do plan to vote for Obama in the general election.
I disagree. Obama's race has lead to 24-hour security. Hillary, on the other hand, can go about as she pleases. Being a woman in this campaign has not threatened her personal well-being (if you don't count the 'iron my shirt' episode).
Hate for women and blacks has been spewed throughout this election, although more blatantly in Hillary's case (and not so blatantly in Obama's case -('he's unelectable' (spoken by Hillary herself (on many, many occasions)).
Hillary has openly capitalized on her being a woman then when she started to lose complained about it. Barack has remained steadfast in making his race a non-issue. I commend that.
Britain has a female monarch. They've also had a female prime minister. Closer to home, here in Arizona we have a female governor, Janet Napolitano. She has high approval ratings and won a landslide victory in her last re-election campaign. Obviously women can and do lead.
This election I'm voting for McCain, but frankly either of the two Democratic candidates would be acceptable. I have no strong feelings against either as leaders or as people, I just disagree with their protectionist policies.
Has sexism been a handicap for Clinton? Certainly. But has it been a bigger handicap than racism for Obama? I don't think so...but I do think he has been more successful in overcoming the handicap.
To see just how big a handicap racism has been, look in the non-obvious place: all the black voters who initially did not support him, simply because they did not believe a black man could win. Racism, pure and simple (if not the kind you usually think of first). When he proved that was wrong, they came around.
Similarly, racism has almost certainly colored Obama's poll standings wherever people didn't know him. Once he started campaigning somewhere, the polls turned around. Not necessarily completely, but substantially.
Clinton, on the other hand, shows no signs of having won over much of anybody new. To say that her inability to do so is simply sexism is to ignore all of the women who have managed to win governorships around the country -- and without explicitly riding their husbands coattails, too.
I just don't buy it. Sexism is HRC's latest vast conspiracy, but I don't think it can avoid Occam's razor. When we have a female candidate better than HRC, we might be able to talk about this stuff more seriously.
If I thought she would constrain her "clean up" remarks to federal agencies, I wouldn't have a problem, especially if they were ones that needed it (versus ones she just didn't like).
But I have no confidence that she can keep her intrusive nanny-state attitude within the confines of government ... she wants to command-and-control the whole "village", interfering in private agreements and arrangements and abrogating Bill of Rights rights to force them to fit her own little social oxymoronic view of how things "ought to be".
On top of that intrusiveness, she's proven herself to be vindictive, mean, arrogant, power-hungry, and just generally not a very nice person. Has nothing to do with being female. Sometimes an pompous ass is just a pompous ass.
We don't have to get to the "sexism" to find good reasons to detest her as a pol. That's just excuse-making and ex post facto rationalizations on her part.
That said, it seems obvious to me that her popularity in places like WV and KY are more based on rascist rejections of Obama than acceptance of her.
This is ridiculous. First off, if we look at progress across the corporate world, we see that white (and black) women, but especially white women, have done much better in every area of management than black men. No contest, numerically. You might have more black CEO's, but that is debatable.
Senator Clinton has rolled through race, class, and now sexism to try to find ways to form a justification to explain why she should continue on in a race she lost back in February. The problem is not sexism really, or women, but rather Hillary herself. And in her denial she is trying to say, "It's not me, it all women" when in fact it is her and all her negatives.
It's a funny thing too, because she can use the accusation of "sexism" to rally votes, but Obama cannot in fact use "racism" to rally votes from the white voters he needs (and in fact it is amusing that many Hillary supporters like to suggest that HE is playing the race card when in fact doing so would not be in his self interest).
Obama made every effort from day one NOT to be seen as the "black candidate" but the Clintons so racialized the campaign as to lose all their black support and infinitely add to the complexity of the campaign that Obama had to run.
Hillary suffers from being unlikeable. If you cackle with a seemingly fake laugh, and people fine you insufferable, running $20 million in debt to continue a campaign you cannot win, then the problem is you, not sexism.
Any other woman with a better personality and less negatives, but with the same amount of moxy, would have fared better.
As a woman (and a white woman) Hillary had the network, the money, the former president as husband, the bulk of the white vote, the history of whites always voting in a white president for hundreds of years, and 50% of the voting public in terms of females.
Obama had what again? Himself? Some good campaign staff? The initial support of some blacks until the Clinton's decided to try to belittle him into submission? The support of some whites who decided that the status quo is absurd and that change is more important than color.
Hillary lost not because of sexism, but because she ran a pretty bad campaign. She assumed that the race would be over on super Tuesday, and she calculated, typically, that the black candidate was not to be taken seriously.
And now, sore loser, she continues on, taking shots, and making white women run the ridiculous argument that somehow their struggle is worse than that of black people. Let's go to the statistics and see who is really struggling.
This is ridiculous. First off, if we look at progress across the corporate world, we see that white (and black) women, but especially white women, have done much better in every area of management than black men. No contest, numerically. You might have more black CEO's, but that is debatable.
Senator Clinton has rolled through race, class, and now sexism to try to find ways to form a justification to explain why she should continue on in a race she lost back in February. The problem is not sexism really, or women, but rather Hillary herself. And in her denial she is trying to say, "It's not me, it all women" when in fact it is her and all her negatives.
It's a funny thing too, because she can use the accusation of "sexism" to rally votes, but Obama cannot in fact use "racism" to rally votes from the white voters he needs (and in fact it is amusing that many Hillary supporters like to suggest that HE is playing the race card when in fact doing so would not be in his self interest).
Obama made every effort from day one NOT to be seen as the "black candidate" but the Clintons so racialized the campaign as to lose all their black support and infinitely add to the complexity of the campaign that Obama had to run.
Hillary suffers from being unlikeable. If you cackle with a seemingly fake laugh, and people fine you insufferable, running $20 million in debt to continue a campaign you cannot win, then the problem is you, not sexism.
Any other woman with a better personality and less negatives, but with the same amount of moxy, would have fared better.
As a woman (and a white woman) Hillary had the network, the money, the former president as husband, the bulk of the white vote, the history of whites always voting in a white president for hundreds of years, and 50% of the voting public in terms of females.
Obama had what again? Himself? Some good campaign staff? The initial support of some blacks until the Clinton's decided to try to belittle him into submission? The support of some whites who decided that the status quo is absurd and that change is more important than color.
Hillary lost not because of sexism, but because she ran a pretty bad campaign. She assumed that the race would be over on super Tuesday, and she calculated, typically, that the black candidate was not to be taken seriously.
And now, sore loser, she continues on, taking shots, and making white women run the ridiculous argument that somehow their struggle is worse than that of black people. Let's go to the statistics and see who is really struggling.
Sorry for the double post. Browser was just sitting there staring at me and I stupidly resubmitted.
I knew that Stanley O'Neal was an African-American man and that he was criticized for his performance at Merrill Lynch.
I also knew his name is not Stanley O'Neil.
Next thing, you'll be blaming sexism for the fact that you write sentences like this: "I've heard more than one man say to me that he couldn't vote for her because she reminds them of their mother."
You don't suppose that, of the two woefully inexperienced Dem candidates, Senator Obama is just much the more impressive person? And with no record of acting as bagman for a corrupt spouse.
Obama campaign's response to Ferraro's charge of sexism:
"She is just being hysterical."
These were the exact words used by Dick Harpootlian on the Brian & the Judge show on Fox Radio on 5/21- I'm trying to find an online reference to this but I heard it myself driving in to the office this morning.
P.S.- Knee-jerk Fox-haters: spare us your schtick- it's beyond old now.
It's true, Megan, that sexism has made an enormous comeback in this country. Think of it--six months ago there was this powerful woman politician who was leading all candidates for her party's nomination by a mile and everyone in America was sure she was going to be the next President. And then the sexism resurgence occurred. My God, how could she possibly be expected to have realized that sexism would make it necessary for her to campaign in all 50 states! The horror! Or that all those sexists might disapprove of her positions on the Iraq war. Bastards!
Honest to God, I swore I was going to quit reading your stuff, but I'm a person of weak character and can't help doing occasional drive bys to see the carnage from the train wrecks. The good news is that you never disappoint.
We've heard a lot of worry about what Barack Obama believes--is he a closet black nationalist? But much of the focus on Hillary Clinton is about who she is: a controlling ice queen, a petulant weakling using her tears to garner false sympathy.
Even assuming that this is entirely a question of their identities, rather than their personalities, it is not obvious to me that the second of these is a greater problem than the first.
Would you prefer a president who wants to destroy you to a weakling?
Hillary ran as a woman, and made a big deal out of it. She ran a sexist campaign from the beginning, and that turns some people off, so they voice it. She had it coming, her own doing. I think Maggie Thatcher, had she been able to run for US President, would have won in a landslide. She was a tiger, and never let sexism stand in her way. Bill the Buffoon may be Hillary's worst enemy, but she is her own second worst enemy. Her whining about sexism is soo Hillary. Very tiresome.
Sexism did not cause Clinton's defeat. Her abyssmal showing between February 6th and March 3rd put her so far behind that she could never catch Obama. Her campaign needed to be planned better with respect to the caucuses, and it needed to be run with more foresight with regards to the possibility that she would not wrap things up on February 5th.
She deserved to lose.
Racism has kept Clinton in the race, but it was not enough for her to overcome the deficit she found herself in.
Is Obama's campaign hurt by racism? Not yet, but my prediction is this: on November 3rd he will be polling 5-10% ahead of McCain and will end up losing by 1-2 points.
Either way, it's still better than being an Asian-American man. A black man, a white woman, and an Asian-American man apply for a school or a job. Guess who won't even be considered?
That's right, me.
Everyone watched Carly Fiorina's ascencion to the head of Hewlett Packard and her spectacular implosion, with the subtext that maybe a woman just can't run an important company. By contrast, how many of you knew that Stanley O'Neil had stepped down as CEO of Merrill Lynch after criticism of his performance--much less that he was black?
Not a well-crafted example IMO. Fiorina had done good work at Lucent but was a relative unknown on the public stage when she was tapped by HP. Thereafter she promptly took the public stage, aided and abeted by HP senior management, and did everything within her power to clash with HP's corporate culture, starting with her rock star speeches and ending with the ill-conceived Compaq merger. She was the first CEO in HP history to move around with a bodyguard entourage -- this in a company where previous CEOs would quite commonly show up in corporate lunchrooms, dressed in business casual, and give pep talks or chat with employees. Small wonder she got attention for all this, especially during a time when Tech Was Big and, lo and behold, she was leading a major tech company.
Last year, HP surpassed the $100B mark, becoming larger than IBM. Following the earnings release, CEO Rick Wagoner sent around a company-wide memo congratulating everyone for their hard work. When some wag asked him why there wasn't a big press event and fireworks, he reportedly responded that he didn't think HP was that kind of company. He's also a lot more popular at HP than Fiorina could ever hope to be, and it has little or nothing to do with sexism.
I hate to interject any realism into this Oppression-Off, but white men sometimes come a-cropper too (yes!). Or were Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, et al. the victims of racism and sexism?
Considering that neither Hillary nor Obama intrinsically has the qualifications to be a city alderman, they've done pretty well for themselves to get this far. Hillary's done zip, apart from clutching her husband's coattails. (Guess we now know why she put up with the bimbos. Quid pro quo, and all that.) Obama's done even less, and is basically a political hologram (hope! change! change! hope! Please. The animatronics at Disneyland have a wider repertoire. Obama is hopeless when he gets off the teleprompter. Invade Pakistan, an ally with nuclear weapons?? Maybe not, Barack.)
The only reason that either got a position beyond municipal government is because of racism and sexism flying top cover for them. Racism and sexism provide them with zealous adherents (for whom they can do no wrong, simply and solely because of their race or sex - no prejudice there), while accusations of racism or sexism provide them with a sword and buckler against the most pointed criticism from (white male) opponents. The only reason any criticism came out this time is because each faced a member of another privileged group.
So Hillary and Obama better join Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the entire cast of NOW in praying that racism and sexism remain on the agenda, or they'll all be out of a gig.
Sexism vs. Racism! Are we REALLY surprised we’ve arrived to this level of analysis? I, for one (as a liberal white man), stand by my sisters. If you review the website for the leading organization for women (National Organization of Women) you CLEARLY see their choices to fight not only for women’s rights, but against racism, homophobia, economic injustice, etc. (the sections are easily seen and identified). If you visit the leading African American organization’s website (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) you do NOT find clear choices that support women’s rights, gay rights, etc. Their subsections speak of youth, education, economics, etc. but they don’t seem to care for women or gays (not even black women or gays). The choice, while quite regrettable, is simply clear…women simply appear to more broadly fight for a range of oppressed peoples while the leading African Americans have not. As a pastor who cares about ALL people (and especially all people suffering from oppression) I must stand by the one who represent the hopes and dreams of women…and all oppressed peoples. I stand by Hillary (flaws and all - we all got 'em) May God be with us all during this difficult time of discernment.
Gosh, I'm so sorry we have evolutionary biases against women being leaders.
Tell you what, Megan_McArdle, I'll give a damn about that if in return, you give a damn about women prefering to mate with leaders.
No deal? Okay then.
The Obama Campaign appears to be sexist and racist in its hiring practice. No senior staffers have obviously Latino or Asian names. Only three of 15 senior staff are female and only three of 18 senior policy advisors are female.
For a senior staff list, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#Campaign_staff_and_policy_team.
Given that a person's hiring practices are direct evidence of their values in action, I think this is an important story.
First people...we are talking about sexism in AMERICA, not England or anywhere else. Those countries have far surpassed us in those areas.
Second, she has NOT ran a crumby campaign. She has won more single votes than any candidate (Dem or GOP) in the history of our Nation, AND she's broken every fundraising record ever set (with the exception of Obama who simultaneously topped her fundraising).
Get your facts straight. America is SEXIST and it is RACIST. But sexism is far more prevalent and accepted than racism. PERIOD. And if you're a man, you'll never ever ever understand this fact completely!
Amber,
I'm assuming - just based on the averages - you're not black.
If you can seriously argue with a straight face that I will never understand that sexism is more prevalent than racism by the simple happenstance of possessing a Y-chromosome, then you also tacitly accept the premise that you will never understand that RACISM is more prevalent than SEXISM. If you are not black, after all, you will never understand this completely.
Your very fixation on identity politics short-circuits your argument.
On the other hand, maybe there are certain things about warfare, football, pornography and logic that you will never understand completely.
Oh. And driving.
;-)
Obama's race has probably been an advantage more than a handicap. He has received almost universal support from people who are of his race. IF Clinton had received the support of 90% of white women, this race would probably look a lot different. However, in the general election Obama's race will not be as beneficial and will probably be a handicap. Any democratic candidate will receive a very high % of the black vote, so there is little gain from being a black Democrat and some unquantified amount of downside.
First people...we are talking about sexism in AMERICA, not England or anywhere else. Those countries have far surpassed us in those areas.
Not exactly a compelling introduction for your ALLCAPS assertions of FACTS that follow. Much of western Europe has some very serious cultural and racial problems, of the sort that have more than a passing whiff of 1970s US-style social upheval.
Get your facts straight. America is SEXIST and it is RACIST. But sexism is far more prevalent and accepted than racism. PERIOD. And if you're a man, you'll never ever ever understand this fact completely!
I detect a note of sexism here. What remedies do you propose inflicting on yourself in order to bring this horrible legacy to an end?
And if you're a man, you'll never ever ever understand this fact completely!
Pardon me if I giggle like a schoolgirl at this example of sexism in action.
I quite agree that Carly Fiorina was a train wreck. I just mean that we find it surprising, or notable, when a woman becomes CEO of a major company, in a way that we are not surprised when a black man does.
Oh boy,
Secret Asian man:
Can you point to some statistics that show Asians are suffering at the hands of society, or do they, at least in terms of income statistics do quite well? Hmmm. I would best most Asian men are quite up there, economically speaking.
Occam's Bear:
Simplifying both Hillary or Obama (or anyone) down to the ridiculous does not a good point make. You would have to assume that racism or sexism carried both candidates above all their competitors. But it's the voters who decide who has the message that resonates. If McCain can put together a set of issues that really click with the public, he will easily win. If he can't he wont.
gaypastor:
Comparing NOW (which represents all women) to NAACP (which was created to address specific issues regarding blacks) is comparing apples and oranges. Nor is there anything inherent in the Obama campaign that would suggest he intends to ignore women.
Occam's Beard: "Invade Pakistan, an ally with nuclear weapons?? Maybe not, Barack."
The issue was a spot-attack based on intelligence if the Pakistanis wouldn't do it themselves, not invasion. Funnily enough, the CIA did that very thing the next week.
I don't think you make a convincing argument that men thinking Clinton reminds them of their mother is tantamount to sexism. Isn't it a *good* think that citizens don't want their President running their life?
I think gender helped Clinton's campaign-- how many women voted for her for the sheer purpose of electing a woman president?
And if she were a man she wouldn't have the benefit of being a President's wife-- with all the contacts, money and support that brings. ($100 million in five years...! ). I'm sure some people wouldn't not vote for a woman, but I don't think that's why she lost. She lost because she didn't run a strong campaign and people do not trust her.
I quite agree that Carly Fiorina was a train wreck. I just mean that we find it surprising, or notable, when a woman becomes CEO of a major company, in a way that we are not surprised when a black man does.
I'm still not seeing it. As noted, Fiorina did time at Lucent prior to HP, and as far as I recall, nobody dropped an hors d'oeuvres tray when she was hired there because she evidently functioned as a fairly normal and competent CEO.
Her new tenure at HP, meanwhile, was announced along with a major transition for the company -- spinning off HP Test & Measurement into Agilent Technologies and refocusing the company into more of a pure-play computer products vendor -- and she arrived with so much bombast that people couldn't help but notice. Especially, again as noted, because it happened at a major tech company during the 1990s, and orchestrated a massive merger that inspired a shareholder fight.
If the circus arrives in town, it's probably not a clear example of sexism to notice that the ringmaster is tall, blonde, and female. It's not like the names of Ken Lay or Andrew Fastow are any less of a household ephitet.
Tell you what, Megan_McArdle, I'll give a damn about that if in return, you give a damn about women prefering to mate with leaders.
Take it from a fellow beta male: this is not a helpful mindset. I completely understand where it's coming from, but it makes you appear even less desirable.
Women are inherently attracted to socially dominant men, just like men are inherently attracted to physically beautiful women. It's not "fair" in either case, but it's not "wrong" either; it just is. You can either work on improving your standing, which might succeed, or you can try to convince women to ignore millions of years of evolutionary pressure, which will not.
But HRC is actually dishonest and pandering.
So is every male politician, for the good reason that dishonesty and pandering are necessary to get elected, yet everyone winks and nods at them for doing it while women get disqualified or raked over the coals for playing the same game.
(P.S. I'm not a woman, which I point out because I often get read as one.)
Brian_2: I appreciate your concern, but, first of all, I don't use Megan_McArdle's blog on theatlantic.com to troll for dates, so I'm not too worried about my comments here making me appear less hot to women.
Second of all, understanding the "what I claim to want"/"what I actually want" distinction is VITAL for connecting with women; I don't see why you would think otherwise. This rule is just a special case of the more general rule that you should try to accurately form your mental model of the world.
The true danger lies in reading deceptive posts like Megan_McArdle's here, and thinking, "gosh, it sure is an injustice how women are kept out of leadership positions ... I guess I need I'll be more deferential to women in order to *responsibly* do my part to balance out this discrimination they get" not realizing that it's just a form of self-castration.
If it's unreasonable to expect women to like betas, it's unreasonable for men to like women as leaders. That's just how reality works.
This is not a question that anyone should be trying to answer.
I'll note, though, that the black leaders Megan points to are fictional.
And then content myself by mentioning that the degree to which it's publicly acceptable to express racist or sexist views doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the degree to which they're operating. Can you imagine Obama accusing the media and the voters en masse of racism and hatred of black people? No. Is there any doubt from the exit polling that there are quite a few Kentuckians who deserve those labels? Not in my mind.
I'm not taking the "racism is worse" side. I'm just saying that if you actually think you can see or know about anything but the tip of the iceberg of either, you're deluding yourself.
But announcing it in public? Has it perhaps intruded upon Obama's consciousness that Pakistan is just a tad unstable, and that Americans proposing publicly to violate Pakistan's sovereignty (in whatever fashion you might term it) might agitate to no good purpose Those Who Seethe? It was an incredibly stupid, dangerous, and amateurish thing to do.
That's exactly what I assume. Hillary's dowry was the older white female vote. Obama's is the black vote, on which he has a lock. Each has gained that support simply and solely because of that candidate's appeal to those of the same sex/race. Period. Straight-up sexism and racism, by any definition.
Add in those who vote on an identity politics basis with earnest liberals who will vote for a woman/black to convince themselves that they're not racist/sexist and you've got a lock on a lot of votes that a white male would have to earn the hard way, over a field of other white male candidates.
What disturbs me the most about the Democratic primary race is that liberals are so quick to accuse those of us who are critical of Sen. Obama as uneducated white racists. I am a lifelong Democrat who got arrested during civil rights demos. Am I now a racist because I refuse to follow the left-liberal political line and support the very junior senator from Chicago? If Colin Powell were the Democratic candidate, I would vote for him.
"But we don't have any cultural problem with images of black men as leaders--think of any of a hundred movies where black men are military leaders, politicians, family patriarchs, and so forth"
However, you have to correct for the fact that at least 70% of those black leaders in movies were Morgan Freeman. The minute Barack Obama didn't have that reassuring vibe -- because of wife or his preacher -- racism reared its ugly head again.
I'm wondering, Megan, how you would classify Margaret Thatcher, who was amazingly successful and very popular in America.
So would I.
And to Mike's point, I lived in the UK during part of the Thatcher years, and thought she did fantastic job of pulling Britain back from the abyss.
I would say that Britain wanted a really tough woman at the time. We don't right now. Britain was in near collapse from strikes and so forth. If we were in that position, Hillary might win, though I'd still bet on McCain in the general.
Megan, I beg to differ. I think Britain wanted a really tough person (not to sound PC) at that time to reverse the downward spiral of postwar socialism.
The fact that Thatcher was a woman was neither here nor there. A sufficiently tough man would probably have been at least as desirable to most Brits, maybe more so. Thatcher's sex was not part of her draw.
Moreover, Thatcher, like Reagan, was a conviction politician. She knew exactly what she thought needed doing, and then did it, popularity be damned. Hillary does not have that quality. She wants to be President, and now she's just trying work out how to get it. She's not running because there's something specific that she thinks needs doing. Big difference.
I don't really want to weigh in here except to make a narrow point: if you're asking who has suffered worse in the campaign, the black guy or the woman, it isn't enough to try to figure out whether more racism or sexism exists -- one must also figure out the backlash that results from the existence of any sexism or racism.
When I hear about woman voters who are backing Hillary more fervently because she's being treated in a sexist way, and black voters who are backing Obama more fervently because he's been treated in a racist way, I wonder which effect is bigger -- women are half the country, after all, so you'd think this would give Hillary the edge. On the other hand, Obama is winning black votes at a much higher proportion than Hillary is winning women's votes.
So I don't know which way this cuts.
Obama is not perfect by any means, and I'm not happy with his support of the farm bill. But, HRC's campaign has been defined by the multitude of "How stupid does she think we are?" moments. I just don't believe that it's sexism that causes people to turn away from her kind of politics. And, certainly we can agree that Hillary Rodham Clinton is no Margaret freakin' Thatcher!
It seems to me that the media has focused on Obama’s race (and his real or perceived weaknesses with white “beer track” voters) far more than Clinton’s gender. The attempts to portray Obama as a “radical” black candidate - by linking him ideologically to Rev. Wright and, by extension, Louis Farrakhan - have been far more flagrant than any efforts to “feminize” Clinton.
I also have trouble believing that Clinton, as a member of the largest demographic group in America, has more significant electoral problems than a black candidate.
This isn’t to say that Clinton hasn’t been treated unfairly. But if we’re really going to compare electoral handicaps (and I’m not sure you can in any meaningful way), I think race trumps gender.
Jeremy, how can you not "link" Obama to his pastor of 20 years? Seriously, how is that possible? He gave Wright's church $50K over the last two years. Doesn't that financial support imply some philosophical support as well?
And please don't give me the lame "he made the trains run on time" excuse.
Wright's remarks are totally unacceptable, as is Obama's tolerance for (or ignorance of) Wright's remarks. It's that simple. If these two weren't black, they'd be disappeared from the political scene in a heartbeat. And quite right too.
Finn:
You ask, I provide. As I mentioned before, growing up I would notice that underqualified blacks and whites would be put into advanced classes and overqualified Asians would be left out.
Secret Asian Dad once explained to me that to get ahead I would need to be twice as good as a white man, three times as good as a black man or a white woman, and I'd stand no chance against a black woman. We live in a system where whites enslaved blacks, and a reparation for that, Asians are punished.
"This is unfair!" I'd say to Secret Asian Dad. It filled me with rage then and it fills me with rage now. "It is. Work harder" he' say to me.
I don't want to have the same talk with Secret Asian Kid (or, given the way my social life seems to go, Secret Half-Asian Kid)
Secret asian man, it is grossly unfair, and you have every reason to feel aggrieved, but are well-advised not to nurture the grievance. Your father was wise indeed.
I hope to live long enough to see the day when the race is to the swift. No preferences, no whining, no excuses, no blaming others, just suck it up and perform, or else.
I don't want to have the same talk with Secret Asian Kid
So don't. The last thing we need is for Asians to become a new grievance group.
My own half-Asian kids won't get any sort of lecture like that from me.
Hillary is a shrill, smug, harpie; people don't dislike her because she is a woman, but because she is patently dishonest. She claims to be a fighter for women's rights in this country even though for decades she has been an enbler for her womanizing, sexual preditor husband. People hate, and I do mean hate, her because she thinks that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to her. As a male, I think it is safe to say that my bretheren recoginze a bitter, scorned woman eager to get back at the male population of this country when we see one.
There is an answer to this question. As a matter of fact, a person with the answer probably walked by you today:
If we are asking what is worth, doesn't it make sense to talk to someone who is both.
I mean why aren't reporters asking black women?
Most black women (generalization) see their race as being a bigger issue and as such, they often identify first as blac and second as female.
That has to mean something, right?
There is an answer to this question. As a matter of fact, a person with the answer probably walked by you today:
If we are asking what is worth, doesn't it make sense to talk to someone who is both.
I mean why aren't reporters asking black women?
Most black women (generalization) see their race as being a bigger issue and as such, they often identify first as black and second as female.
That has to mean something, right?
Forget it, Angry Black Guy. If you're not a female black dwarf lesbian Vietnam-era veteran currently in the reserves with spina bifida and a cleft lip, you'll never fully understand.
Is it just me, or is there something a bit obscene about comparing the grave hardships faced by two of the folks in the upper-crust, power elite of the planet? This is probably how it sounds to the just-across-the-border Salvadoran gardener when he overhears the two spoiled rich Anglo kids complaining about how cruel their parents are for not buying them cars. Oh, how sad that the cruel racism of the country is about to put Barrack Obama into the white house, while its sexism is probably going to shove Hillary Clinton aside to the VP spot.
I seriously question how quickly people infer racism when someone votes against their candidate. (No Hillary supporter thinks it's sexism when women vote *for* their candidate, just as no Obama supporter thinks it's racism when blacks vote for their candidate. It's only sexism or racism when someone votes the "wrong" way.)
Occam,
I am pro-choice, but my pastor often rails against "abortionists." That hasn't stopped me from donating to the church - because I know that most of the money I give goes to charitable services.
I certainly wouldn't say that I'm ideologically "linked" to the church. My pastor's political views are his own.
Anyway, if you really think that Obama's ACTUAL beliefs are so radically different from his stated positions, there's probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
But just out of curiosity, are you a Clinton supporter?
Nope.
I think you've rather missed the point though, Jeremy. Abortion is an issue on which men of good will can differ. Not to make light of a grave issue, but in this respect at least it's kind of like one's views on the designated hitter rule.
Wright's views, on the other hand, are completely unacceptable, and any candidate who seriously wanted to represent the people of the U.S. - all of them - would have walked out. Hell, I would have walked out, and I'm not a candidate. If the principal of my kids' school said anything remotely like anything that Wright said, you can bet your ass I'd be pounding on his door, howling for his head on a pike. And quite right too.
Try the exchange of variables experiment. (Always a good test of impartiality.) Suppose a candidate's pastor - who married him, baptised his children, inspired the title of his book - said "God damn the blacks! They deserve to be stepped on! They're disproportionately responsible for most of the social ills in this country: illegitimacy, crime, drugs, welfare, and urban decay. We tried to civilize them, and this is how they repay us." In short, he said exactly what Wright said, but with inversion symmetry applied to all variables.
Then that candidate rather offhandedly laughed him off as a crazy uncle (to whom the candidate had contributed $50K in two years, belieing the crazy uncle assertion - who would give $50K to a lunatic?).
Would that be OK? Why, or why not? Does this help to see why Americans have a problem with this? Think about it. George Allen said "macaca" - once, a peculiar and ambiguous comment at most - and flushed his political career. Obama's pastor, for whom he presumably relies for spiritual guidance, spews racial venom presumably for a generation (surely you don't think his sermon of 9/11 was unprecedented, do you?), and lots of people have no problem with that. Why?
I don't disagree that Wright's comments were outrageous, but I've had college professors who said far worse. And while I did choose to take those professors' courses and I did support them financially (through tuition), I don't think that I should be culpable for comments that I do not ENDORSE, but that I did TOLERATE.
I'm much more interested in Obama's actual positions (and his legislative record) than his past associations and friendships.
And, listen, I also don't believe for a second that John McCain can be ideologically "linked" to John Hagee, a man whose endorsement he actively sought. Obama is not the only candidate who, in my view, has been treated unjustly by the press.
Jeremy, fair enough. By no means should you be held responsible for what your professors said. But that's a totally different situation from that we're discussing here.
Specifically, I would distinguish taking a course from a prof with attending a pastor's church. Tolerating nonsense from a professor for a semester is one thing. Choice of courses, etc., is not entirely free, and courses don't last that long.
Choosing a pastor is another. First, the choice is entirely free, unlike that of professors and courses. Choosing to return, and have one's children marinate in those views, is rather a different matter from briefly putting up with a professor with whom disagrees. Second, I hope we can agree that presumably no one who chooses the same professor for 40 semesters has a fundamental problem with his views.
Put still another way, how many relationships are closer than pastor and congregant? Husband and wife, parent and child, then what?
I don't think it's racist for African Americans to vote for Obama or sexist for women to Vote for Clinton. In a representational government, it makes sense to vote for someone "like oneself.' You're assuming that their experiences and viewpoints are similar to yours. White people vote for white people all the time.
As for Rev. Wright (again!) he spoke the truth.
One of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.
To commemmorate it, we're designating the first Wednesday in November as the voting day for everyone to whom this argument seems sensible.
Occam, maybe I can give you some examples that are a bit more apt.
My pastor has made some pretty bigoted comments about homosexuals. So have a number of people in my church. Many of my friends and acquaintances have not-so-enlightened views regarding race. My father and mother have both, on more than one occasion, used racial slurs. Many of the people who I know and love (and voluntarily associate with) say things that are offensive and outrageous all the time.
Can't we accept that people are complex? Acknowledging this doesn't mean that we CONDONE what they say.
And giving money to a church doesn't mean that you somehow endorse your pastor's political views.
Jeremy, again, fair enough.
I would, however, distinguish your examples. First, no one chooses his parents. Their views are their views, whatever they may be. Their status is independent of their politics. I don't care if they're Nazis, Communists, whatever. They're still your Mom and Dad.
You did choose your friends, but you're not responsible for their views, either. The basis of your friendship isn't necessarily their politics, or more generally their philosophy.
I'd say a pastor is a little different proposition. While I'm a straight-up atheist, I'd say a pastor would ideally be someone who someone who one aspired to emulate. And that's the rub in Obama's case. Is Wright the man he aspires to emulate?
Frankly, this puzzles me.
If the pastor's political views were his own business, fair enough.
But if he espouses them from the pulpit, and are therefore common knowledge among his parishoners, sorry, no sale. How does contributing to a church whose pastor espouses political views differ from contributing to a political candidate?
Well, I can't speak for Obama, but I don't and didn't choose my church or parish based on political agreement, but based on believing that this church spoke to me, that I was called to be there. I have no idea if Obama felt that way. For all I know, he daydreamed or slept through the sermons every Sunday and kept going to keep up appearances, or silently agreed with the wackiest stuff Wright said. But it's not the least bit unreasonable to be a member of a church whose political stands aren't your own.
Here's a novel idea: How about a church that doesn't take political stands, seeing as the leader the church calls "Lord" isn't on the ballot and didn't attempt to win adherents by force the first time He was here? Maybe instead make simple statements of faith, and then let the parishoners act in good faith upon the direction of their own consciences?
I know, I know; flying pigs. But still.
Occam,
Because I know that when I contribute to my church, I'm not contributing to anti-gay bigotry, I'm contributing to charitable causes. The church may be using some of that money to proselytize, but most of it is going to helping people (whether they be gay or straight).
I also don't see my donation as connected to my PASTOR. I'm giving to the CHURCH. I think that's an important distinction.
"I think it is much harder to be perceived as a leader when you're a woman."
# of women governors: 8
# of women senators: 16
# of black governors: 1
# of black senators: 1
Obviously both under-represented based on % of population, but as a matter of electoral politics, I'd pick being a woman over being black if I had to run for office.
On the racism vs. sexism question, I put the most stock in how black women vote. In their view, which would be a bigger step forward, a black man or a white woman getting elected? They've gone overwhelmingly for Obama, so I take that as evidence that race is a bigger deal in shaping status and opportunity.
So if the pastor of the church went on an anti-black rant in his sermons, as outlined above, but ran a soup kitchen (say), you'd write a check to the church?
I'd find another church. Fast.
On the racism vs. sexism question, I put the most stock in how black women vote
Loyalty to ones race usually trumps loyalty to ones sex.
Race is hereditary in a way that gender is not.
If it's not too late to join in the hysteria, this "as the post-mortems of the Hillary campaign gear up, one of the things I'm starting to hear discussed is who suffered worse: Hillary from sexism, or Barack from racism? I suppose you'd expect me to say this, but my vote goes to sexism" reminds me of the observation of the first Freudian, Emmanuel Kant, who reminded us that we can't really perceive anything except through our faculties and the instrument may affect the results. Your recent blogposts that have touched on the election have been about overcoming 'original sin' by voting for Obama; Don McKinnon just quit as McCain's chief ad guy because 'electing Obama would be historic.' It seems to me the identity issue has been much more prowhatyouwanttocallit than sexist but Amerikans, per the liberal instrument, can't do anything out of positive emotions so, with all due respect, you give us the commentary you have.
Occam,
It would have to depend on the circumstances. If my pastor went off on an "anti-black" tirade, I wouldn't feel comfortable remaining with the church. But if he made some bigoted remarks in the context of a broader sermon - which, as I said, my pastor has - I would stay.
I think this is a bit of a straw man argument, though, since Wright wasn't going off on anti-white rants. Saying that the United States is controlled by "rich white people" isn't racist, it's true. (My real concern was that Wright was justifying terrorism, not that he was attacking whites. And Obama was, verifiably, not in attendance the day that Wright said "Goddamn America.")
Still, we seem to be approaching this from two different perspectives. As I said, I hear people say outrageous and bigoted things all the time.
I tend to think that we SHOULDN'T insulate ourselves from marginal or offensive views. You obviously think the opposite.
Occam,
It would have to depend on the circumstances. If my pastor went off on an "anti-black" tirade, I wouldn't feel comfortable remaining with the church. But if he made some bigoted remarks in the context of a broader sermon - which, as I said, my pastor has - I would stay.
I think this is a bit of a straw man argument, though, since Wright wasn't going off on anti-white rants. Saying that the United States is controlled by "rich white people" isn't racist, it's true. (My real concern was that Wright was justifying terrorism, not that he was attacking whites. And Obama was, verifiably, not in attendance the day that Wright said "Goddamn America.")
Still, we seem to be approaching this from two different perspectives. As I said, I hear people say outrageous and bigoted things all the time.
I tend to think that we SHOULDN'T insulate ourselves from marginal or offensive views. You obviously think the opposite.
Occam,
It would have to depend on the circumstances. If my pastor went off on an "anti-black" tirade, I wouldn't feel comfortable remaining with the church. But if he made some bigoted remarks in the context of a broader sermon - which, as I said, my pastor has - I would stay.
I think this is a bit of a straw man argument, though, since Wright wasn't going off on anti-white rants. Saying that the United States is controlled by "rich white people" isn't racist, it's true. (My real concern was that Wright was justifying terrorism, not that he was attacking whites. And Obama was, verifiably, not in attendance the day that Wright said "Goddamn America.")
Still, we seem to be approaching this from two different perspectives. As I said, I hear people say outrageous and bigoted things all the time.
I tend to think that we SHOULDN'T insulate ourselves from marginal or offensive views. You obviously think the opposite.
Occam,
It would have to depend on the circumstances. If my pastor went off on an "anti-black" tirade, I wouldn't feel comfortable remaining with the church. But if he made some bigoted remarks in the context of a broader sermon - which, as I said, my pastor has - I would stay.
I think this is a bit of a straw man argument, though, since Wright wasn't going off on anti-white rants. Saying that the United States is controlled by "rich white people" isn't racist, it's true. (My real concern was that Wright was justifying terrorism, not that he was attacking whites. And Obama was, verifiably, not in attendance the day that Wright said "Goddamn America.")
Still, we seem to be approaching this from two different perspectives. As I said, I hear people say outrageous and bigoted things all the time.
I tend to think that we SHOULDN'T insulate ourselves from marginal or offensive views. You obviously think the opposite.
Ah, that's where our difference lies. I believe Wright was going off on an anti-white rant. It's hard to interpret this quote:
as anything other than an attack on white people, particularly since Wright had just finished saying that the government was controlled by "rich white people." He was basically alleging a conspiracy to commit genocide. Not nice.
Again, try the exchange of variables experiment. Suppose your pastor says that blacks generate a large proportion of the social ills afflicting us, such as crime, drugs, illegitimacy, domestic abuse, illiteracy, and urban decay.
That's every bit as true as saying the government is controlled by rich white people. Would that be OK, or would you have had enough at that point?
I don't see that as an attack on whites. It's ridiculous and conspiratorial (though the Tuskegee Study wasn't too far off), but it's not racist.
If my pastor said that black Americans, as a percentage of the population, commit more crimes and have more out-of-wedlock children, I don't see how I could be offended. If he implied that this was because blacks are somehow inferior to whites, then I would be offended.
I should add that even if Wright HAD said that whites infected blacks with HIV, I wouldn't consider that racist. It would certainly be promoting a culture of black victimization and irrationality, but it wouldn't be racist.
Likewise, suggesting that blacks have all the power in the United States isn't racist; it's just untrue.
Again, I think Wrights comments about 9/11 were the most offensive.
"# of women governors: 8
# of women senators: 16
# of black governors: 1
# of black senators: 1" DKE
TR: I hoped someone had made that point. (Although I think there are two black governors now: New York's and Massachusetts's)
It might be hard for a woman in power, but the average white women is going to have better access to things that bring power than the average black man. So she has a better chance of finding a way to seem powerful without being seen as b***y. Black men are less likely to get the chance to seem powerful without seeming menacing or militant.
Hillary had to know what world she inhabited. Maybe that world is unfair, but other women do better at thriving in it. Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius have managed to be popular Democratic governors in their respective "Red states." Condoleezza Rice, Oprah Winfrey, and Meg Whitman aren't seen by people the way Hillary is. Condoleezza seems like a pretty cold-fish, but I don't even think the Left sees her as precisely an "ice queen" or "b***."
I see some poor folks are still bringing up the Rev. Wright stuff and I just have to ask...have any of you people ever done more than glance at the Bible? 'Cause I know whenever I crack open my copy, I keep reading about an assload of religious leaders and prophets who condemn their societies and even their fellow believers in the strongest, bluntest terms possible.
I can certainly see blasting Wright for the ignorance of some of his statements, but this limp wristed horror over the nature and tone of his comments doesn't make any sense.
Mike
i do not understand a word of this
i do not understand a word of this