The Folly of Single-Issue Politics

There is much ado around the web this week about proto-second-wave-feminist Robin Morgan’s new essay, Goodbye to All That (#2) (following on her well-known, 1970 essay of the same name) in rabid support of Hillary Clinton and against every man on earth.

Bloggers and others are falling all over themselves in support of it and in disagreement with it. The supporters are well in the lead, most of them posting nothing more than a version of “Hear, hear” and reprinting Morgan’s book-length screed written in the worst kind of feminist polemic, the kind that embarrasses me by over- and understating as needed to make her point, and in several cases in this essay, mis-stating the facts.

You’ll need to follow the link above to read it as I’m quoting only her summation:

“Me, I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman - but because I am.”

Turn that sentence around every way possible and it still means the same thing: vote based on gender. And that is sexism.

The United States is in such deep trouble on so many fronts we cannot, we dare not, fall prey to voting on isms. Has Hillary Clinton been attacked unfairly for being a woman? You betcha. Has Barack Obama been attacked unfairly for being black? Sure enough. That, unfortunately, is politics. It comes from ignorance, it is not new and it is the wrong reason to vote for either one.

Nor should the relative oppression of blacks and women be pitted or measured against each other.

Choosing a candidate to vote for is always a crapshoot. They never live up to their campaign promises whether they had been only pandering to constituencies or due to the intervention of circumstances. Presidents can push all they want for their pet issues – healthcare, war, fiscal responsibility, whatever – but the fact is, Congress and not the president makes law.

This election and the future of our country are too important to take sides based on the irrelevant issues of race and gender. And as to voting for a woman because she’s a woman, all you need do to see the folly in that is ask what the person third in line for presidential succession, Nancy Pelosi, has done for us lately.

Robin Morgan’s explosive essay is divisive, sexist and counterproductive. With this campaign, we have arrived at a time in American history when we have proved a woman or a black can be elected. Whether it is now, next time or the time after that doesn’t matter and anyone who votes based on race or gender is failing in their responsibilities to their country and its future.

[At The Elder Storytelling Place today, Lia is back with another in her embarrassment and mortification series: Trying Unsuccessfully to Emanate Sophistication.]

Comments

[Kay Dennison]

I have railed against "one issue" camdidates more than once. There are so many huge issues in this campaign. You wrote one of the best pieces on Hillary I've seen at Blogher a while back. She sold her soul to big money long ago and we ordinary mortals will not matter when it gets down to the nitty gritty. I just posted a YouTube video the other day from the Cafferty File that demonstrates why neither Hillary nor McCain is a good candidate for the changes we need and need NOW. It says a lot. I'm tired of the whole mess.

[Rain]

So true and it frustrates me too that women would make such statements. Supposedly all older women are voting for Hillary simply because they want to see a woman president. These are the kinds of nonsensical things that led men to say women should not have the vote. It is just as bad when the men say they would not vote for her because she is a woman. I would like to think we have gotten to a place where we are intelligent enough to study the issues and vote according to who best meets those we believe are important. I'd like to believe that...

[naomi dagen bloom]

"Super Tuesday: 21st Century Possibilities" is the title of the post i wrote yesterday. i invite you to read and comment on what you see as the role for older Americans at this moment in our history.

to have a woman and a black man running for president speaks to the hard work many of us championed during the last century.

[janinsanfran]

A friend sent the Robin Morgan piece to me and I found it annoying. But Morgan has long been annoying, a bit of a bomb thrower. We sometimes need folks to shake us up, but we also need our own wisdom. Her divisive rage is not mine.

The sister who blogs at WOC PhD summed this up eloquently.

The Bottom Line

By voting for a white woman whose policies and record represent your ideals you are not voting against a black man or aligning yourself with racism.

By voting for a black man whose policies and record represent your ideals, you are not voting against women or aligning yourself with sexism.

You are only aligned with bigotry if you vote against a woman because she is one, or against a black man because he is one.

You are only aligned with bigotry if you actually believe the lie that one oppression is more important, more prevalent, or more real than the other or that one exists while the other does not.

Bigotry is not change it is the status quo.

[Darlene]

I agree 100% with you, Ronni, and I especially like the point you made that it is counterproductive to vote based on sex. That attitude will sink all the hard work of the Feminists like Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinham (sp?), and others. We women are still walking a fine line on being equal. To push for perks based on gender is self defeating.

[Marian Van Eyk McCain]

I'm not a US citizen, so I should probably stay out of this altogether. But I just want to say that (a) if I were, the only candidate I'd really have trusted would have been Kucinich.
and (b) if you think gender trumps issues, remember Maggie Thatcher.

[Mage Bailey]

Shaking my head. Perhaps living her feminism would be too simple.

[Sharry]

My daughter, Sally, had a cute story about voting in Massachusetts Tuesday. My granddaughter Evelyn, 6, was distressed that Sally was voting for Obama. "I thought you would vote for the girl," Evelyn said. Sally explained her reasons for voting for Obama and Evelyn was satisfied. It makes sense that a 6 year old might vote by gender. Those over 6 should know better.

That said, I'm for Sen.Obama, but Paul Krugman's articles over the past few months pointing out the strength of Sen. Clinton's positions give me more confidence that she could be a good president.

[notdotdot]

Excellent piece. As for the two Dem. runners, we feel they both are worthy and both would be effective. That's a good feeling. That being said, we hadn't either of them in mind to vote for.

[Judith Shapiro]

We all vote for a myriad of reasons - many obvious, some that we aren't even aware of. We vote because of; in spite of; for one candidate; against another. Without even knowing it we're influenced by race, gender, age, looks, voice, body language, whether we admit it or not. We "throw our votes away" to make statements. All matter of things
motivate us. Our duty is to vote, to do the best with it that we can.

[Judith]

Upfront I want to make clear that I am an Obama supporter and volunteer. I made this decision a year ago this month.
- My reading of Robin Morgan did not offend me or threaten me. For me it was interesting and insightful

- I did not agree with her direct and indirect criticisms of Obama

- I did agree with many of her positive assessments of Clinton

- I did not feel that she was pitting racism and sexism against one another, but pointing out that the work is to oppose all oppressions - those directed toward us and those directed towards others.

- If a person sees both candidates as decent people with decent platforms, there is nothing irrelevant or wrong with gender, race, age, sexual identity, abilities and disabilities, etc. entering into our considerations. They deeply impact how we experience life and how other people relate to us. McCain’s identity and experience as a military man impacts his vision and policies. Obama’s identity and experience as a multiracial man influence him. Clinton’s identity and experience as a white woman shape her. Every President comes with a particular lens on life.

- It would be wonderful to have a President, who as a woman, has a particular understanding of the importance of a Equal Rights Amendment, the tremendous need for child care and education, the needs to support caretaking of parents, the inequitable pay scale between men and women, the horrendous prevalence of domestic and sexual violence in the United States and around the world (and its interplay with other forms of violence including war). What would be wrong with issues of particular interest to women having prominence on the national agenda? That would be a boon for women, children and men.

- Finally, I struggle to understand how supporting a woman, when you are a woman, is sexist. A bias towards is not the same as a bias against. I have yet to find a woman, or woman’s group, who support Clinton only because they share female anatomy. The support comes from a much more thoughtful place.

- And, “Yes We Can.”

[Candace]

My goodness Ronni

What distilled wisdom you have written here. It should be required reading in every political science class.

My daughter is about to turn 18 and is excited to vote soon.

I guarantee you that she won't be voting for the girl because she is one, but I will have her read this post. (Perhaps she will share it with her friends)

[Audrey Vest]

With so much idiocy finding its way into print about all the candidates, your sane, reasoned point of view is sorely needed. I voted for Barack Obama in the primary because I happen to believe that he has the best shot at beating McCain. But if Sen. Clinton receives the party nomination I will support her gladly. She is highly qualified. By the way, I will be 70 next month, so not all older white woman necessarily vote for Sen. Clinton like automatons.

[Alice]

And I voted for Hillary because of her stance on health care. I just went to a doctor for a check on an ear problem and the total bill came to more than $700! Just one visit. And I didn't even get a prescription. The ear began discharging a couple of days later and I actually needed the Rx for the eardrops the doctor told me about but didn't prescribe. Would Medicare have to pay another several hundred dollars so I can see the doctor and get a prescription for antibiotic ear drops he should have prescribed the first visit? Who watches over the costs providers charge for healthcare. I'm fortunate to have it, but not everyone does. With Hillary ALL Americans could have it at less than half the cost of Obama's plan which would leave a lot of people uncovered. Guess your vote depends on what your issues are--at my age mine is healthcare.

[Leah Aronoff]

Amen, great blog, but one quibble. The title of your blog seems to imply that sex or race is an issue. Sort of like saying fat or thin, short or tall, hairy or bald are issues. Surely that's not what you meant?

[Joy D]

Wonderful post! I wrote on my blog that evidence that I'm really a liberal is that I was going to vote for Edwards even though he's a white male when viable Hispanic, female, and black candidates are running because I agree with him more. Since he suspended his campaign, I voted for Obama. I don't represent my demographic either.

I need to apologize for my rant about misconceptions of the South. Tennessee did go for Huckabee. What can I say? (except that more than twice as many voted for Hillary and Obama than for him, thank goodness)

[Virginia Ray]

This post is pathetic - when women vote our interest we are sexist - when wealthy white men do it, as they always do, they are smart politicians. They are not ridiculed because they have come to power from said actions and everyone knows it. The women who are writing about the Hill are talking about identity which is far deeper than biology and you have reduced it to trivia. Women are looking at another woman who has worked for the issues that framed our lives in ways that are deeply meaningful, in almost every area from medical issues to child abuse to student loans to green job training for those of us in poverty.

We see a woman who has been attacked and betrayed, yet who did not give up as many of us did, who did not give in to bitterness as many of us did, who kept the faith while many of us quit. Maybe a faith you never had, in other women and in our ability to organize for institutional change to end oppression.

We see a woman who kept her eye on the prize in a way we admire. We see a role model. This is why we identify with Hillary Clinton and your post is superficial and has demeaned us all.

Go read Erica Jong's essay if Morgan's is too wordy for you. I couldn't finish it as she always talks too much for me, but Erica Jong said what I feel (somewhere - I don't have the link).

I did not like this male media identified post of yours at all. It is typical of how the media always treats women who stick together to name and change the oppression that affects us and our children in every area.

Our lives are larger than our biology in the issues we care about but those issues are all affected by gender in how we experience them.

You think this is sexist? Well that is the doublespeak of 1984. It is explained by Mary Daley in GYNecology.