The Fence

As a bi-racial, Ivy-League educated, thirty-something feminist who campaigned for Bill Clinton, the election has me squarely on the fence. I love Barack's vision and know intimately the mosaic of ideas and experiences that helped shape it. I also feel a profound loyalty to Hillary who, after much sacrifice, has the chance to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all.

Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the New York Times didn't help Team Hillary [full disclosure, GS is my godmother]. It crystallized for me that Hillary, no matter how symbolically potent, runs the risk of being seen as a Second Wave candidate. She's one of the first women to gain power and access, and may be one of the first with power and access to ignore the criticisms of women of color, progressive men, and many young women, all of whom have been sending clear messages to Second Wave feminist leadership for well over a decade.

Messages like:

Women are not only victims, but active participants in the shaping of their lives. It's not Hillary's gender that may keep her from winning this election, it's her lack of preparation. If she had an inter-generational, multi-racial, digitally savvy, globally inclined machine behind her, crafting electrifying rhetoric like The Audacity of Hope and The Power of Now, she'd be swept into the White House by a landslide. Hillary wasn't forced into the number two position in Iowa, she made decisions that put her there. New Hampshire is a case in point; she made different decisions and got different results.

Racism and classism are as definitive as sexism. Did Steinem insinuate that Barack's gender, and not his talent, put him in the top spot? I thought black men were capable of performing at his level without an irrationally granted advantage. And the idea that black men always reach the Promised Land before white women? Forty per cent of black men don't finish high school in America, and one in four are incarcerated. Hillary, and her feminist supporters, are not going to win this election by glossing over the realities of African-American men.

Men are not the enemy. Steinem claims that sexism is responsible for Hillary's loss in Iowa, implicitly accusing men-at-large of devaluing women, while many of them may simply be more inspired by a candidate who happens to be a man. This type of divisive discourse that judges and alienates the many men who support the women in their families, communities, and the civic sphere every day is not only bad for women, it's bad for Hillary's campaign. Obama is running as a uniter. Hillary needs to avoid re-inscribing historical divisions in order to gain ground.

And, finally:

Young women are not stupid. The idea that young women are too naive to realize the pervasiveness of sexism is an old Second Wave trope used to dismiss and discredit an entire generation, many of whom now support Obama because he doesn't insult them. As a result, there are a few women lining up behind the "feminist" placard, but many more running in the other direction.

Far from being ungrateful or unintelligent, these women know that confrontational political labels and a religious fixation on gender aren't productive. They, rightly, choose to enjoy the rights they should have had all along, and find other, more complex approaches to righting the rampant injustice in the world. Hillary's gender is not enough to win their vote, and she needs to show them that she knows it.

So while there's still plenty of time for Hillary to win me over, Obama is looking pretty good at the moment. He's listened to what many of my generational peers and I have been saying for the last decade, and his momentum proves it.

Comments

[Tata23]

Yikes! It took six posts to get my whole thought process out. And, they are in reverse order. Please scroll down and read up to get the full effect.

[Tata23]

What about a non-white woman? What about an Indigenous woman? I"d vote for Winona LaDuke for President. A native activist woman might actually shake things up.

I really don"t foresee much real, lasting change coming from either candidate. Superficial legislation, maybe. Easily eroded over time by the power structure. Taken back in degrees. This has been the way of things for as long as Western systems of government have existed. The power system is patient. Power shifts do happen, however. As in the shift from true monarchy to parliaments and congresses. But not wealthy to "average". That just ain"t gonna happen. Not unless "we" as individuals make some very hard decisions for ourselves.

I"ll leave it here for now. There are many, many more issues with this topic. It"s not linear. It"s a spiral. Weather it is a downward spiral or an upward spiral, that is a matter for the individual.

[Tata23]

If we had a binding, "None of the Above", clause in our voting process, one that mandated the removal of the current candidates and replacement with others, I"d vote. If, we had a mandatory Federal funding of election campaigns with absolutely no outside funding whatsoever with a true multi party system, doing away with the current two party, wealthy candidate only, system. I"d vote. If truly any kid could grow up to be president, I"d vote. If we did away with the political party system entirely, I"d be very happy. If we did away with the system of elected representatives, I"d participate in my local collective council. I"d be very involved with my governance because it would mean I actually would have a true say via consensus. Unlike now.

The debate on which Democrat to choose is mute. Energy is going to be spent on deciding weather it should be a white woman as president (the first) or a black man (the first). How it"s their qualifications not their gender or race, and how they stand on "the issues". Not much will change regardless. They are being placed into their positions by the media because either one, if they are to win, will serve the current power structure, and both are very sellable to the general, average public.

[Tata23]

Clinton or Obama. War. Will this change if one of them is elected? Even if there was a complete withdrawal of troops in a years time, would it happen again? Under a different pretext? Would there suddenly, after they are elected, be a reason to reverse their campaign promise of troop withdrawal? A reading of this Nation"s history would tell you, yes, regardless of the party in power. Both, Democrats and Republicans ground Vietnam into dust. Racism. Will this go away? Will work even begin, real work in our culture and society mandated and backed by the government, to dismantle the oppression that has been caused by racism? No. Sexism. Will this be diminished in our societal structure? No. Poverty and all its root causes? No. Environmental degradation? No. Returning control of the land to the original inhabitants? No. There has been no significant movement by any president to truly do away with any of these issues since the founding of this Nation. Yet, people have been voting for over 230 years. Supporting the very system of power that keeps them in a place of no true power. Just like an addict. Going to what is known. What is familiar. Unable to do or see any other way. Unable to get out of the discourse of "...isms" and "...ists". After all, it"s what we have and we"re used to it.

[Tata23]

As to the specific topic at hand, Clinton or Obama, in the context of a strictly Democrat and Republican world, my thoughts are these. From the get go, there is division. Division that has been expertly exploited. The mere fact that the issues of gender and race (ethnicity) are talked about at all in choosing a candidate shows how the divisiveness is working in favor of the Republicans. In this context, before Democrats can choose a candidate, they have to decide if they want a white woman or a black man. While the Republicans don"t have this issue before them. It"s a white, wealthy man from the start. And, if the Democrat is elected, (both of them wealthy) it won"t change a thing as to the system of power, abuse of said power and the general lot of the majority of people in this country. It won"t do squat to eliminate racism, because laws won"t and can"t do it, only hard-hard work in the way of societal change can. It won"t eliminate poverty because the wealthy must stay wealthy in this Capitalist system. And, to do so means there must be an impoverished class. Only a true understanding of what is important will eliminate this and, again, that takes hard-hard work and societal change. The land will still remain in the hands of the invading power structure and not in the original people"s hands. Returning the land, this one change, would solve many of the ills we all now face. But, again, it would take hard-hard work and a total dismantling of our current power system. Sadly, that"s not going to happen by electing any political candidate. And, especially Clinton or Obama.

[Tata23]

The key points for me are the ability of a candidate to enact what the power structure needs and wants to happen, and also, how sellable the person is to the general public. Both must be in the mix and in that order of preference. All this while, via the media, maintaining the illusion of control for the general populace. While the populace thinks it is truly in control, it can be manipulated in many different ways.

I want to go to a quote from the former president, Bill Clinton, from a phone Interview with Amy Goodman and Gonzalo Aburto November 8, 2000.

"The truth is there is an ideological struggle between those who believe that the best way to draw the economy is to give more money to the wealthy. And the Democrats believe that the wealthy will make more money if average people do better. "

President Bill Clinton

Now, what did he say here? "And the Democrats believe that the wealthy will make more money if average people do better."

Which democrats believe this? All of them? Do you if you are a Democrat? Or, is it just the wealthy ones. The ones who are in power. If the average, or middle class people are given a bit more money, then the wealthy will get more wealthy. That"s what they believe. And, the Republicans believe something else, "...give more money to the wealthy." So, neither party wishes to do away with the current system of power. Please keep all this in the back of your mind.

[Tata23]

Hello all, and especially, hello Rebecca. I am very grateful for the opportunity to share my views and ideas about what is to come in this, a very important time, and what some would think is an important election. The above post is a topic that interests me greatly on many fronts (our system of government, voting, the Nation State, racism, class, etc). Some of which I"ll start with right away. Some of which I can elaborate on in later posts. So, bare with me. I have to lay some groundwork first.

I"ll start with a variation on a post from the Mothering forums responding to a poster wanting to know how presidential candidates are chosen. I believe it is relevant here.

"Well, there is the, ideal-feel-good-about-our-system, answer. Then, there is the bottom line answer - candidates are determined by money, sellability, and who is the best one to further the agenda of those in power. As to electing the president, there is the, ideal-feel-good-about-our-system, answer. Then, the reality answer - we do not elect the president at all. The electoral college elects the president. They do not necessarily have to vote the popular vote. Now, with the advent of computerized, paperless voting machines, there is even less accountability in the voting process and more ability to fraud-up the elections real good. So, the bottom bottom line is, the people who are elected are elected because they can serve a purpose, and not because they are the best or most wanted for the positions. The media helps quite a bit. Since they are controlled by a handful of corporations which are run by the power structure of the country, they link up with the above. It's all pretty obvious now. But, people still prefer to believe that the, feel-good-about-our-system, answers are the reality. It's someone's reality. And, they told everyone else a good story."

[beaneater]

Is no one else afraid of thepremature disappearance of race in America as both race and gender are being presented as "non-issues?" Also, issues important to black people may be sacrificed. I am for Obama, however, as a 33 year old black woman, I fear that what we witnessed during the "Black and Brown" debate was a 'truce' that romantically moved us "beyond" race toward an "equal opportunity" that doesn't yet exist and never has. Issues of race ARE divisive. But we make them "non-issues" rather than confront them. It IS significant that Obama is a Black man. Watching him deliberately downplay this significance is troubling although I understand its strategic importance. I truly believe that if he mentioned this too much, liberals would jump ship. Equally offensive is the belief that being representative of blackness would compromise Obama"s ability to be president.

I theorize that by the time my 15 year old cousin is my age, he will struggle to maintain blackness as his identity. By the time my 7 year-old-niece is 33, "American" will replace all racial identities. This country is moving toward a politic of racelessness before issues of race are resolved. Black folk (or women) aren't naïve enough to make Obama (or Clinton) president because he is black (or she is woman). But it"s unreal and unfair to ask any of us to remove these historic factors from the equation as we decide.

America is still racist and built on racist principles. IObama is a black man who is bringing his experiences as a black man into the presidency. His experiences as a black man will affect the decisions he makes"just as we"ve seen with GW"white moneyed son of Texas who ran US like a corp, protected the wealthy few, and left blacks in NO swimming in their own feces.

Who are we fooling? RACE MATTERS. And I for one want it to matter until it truly doesn"t anymore, not because this nation has chosen AGAIN to sweep it under the rug.

[duboisist]

Ms. Walker,

This is not meant to be the personal attack that I"m sure it"s going to sound like, but there just isn"t any other way to say it --

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Of course, Hillary Clinton isn"t going to "hear" exactly what you think or feel. She's a 60 year old white woman while you are the 17 adjectives at the top of your blog. Even if you shared the same adjectives, you would still be two separate individuals.
It"s not her responsibility to read your mind and please your every whim, no matter how irrational. That"s the type of attitude that she, Gloria Steinem, your mother, Dr. King, you, I, and millions of others have been fighting against most (if not all) of our lives.
It"s YOUR responsibility to speak up AND FIGHT for your self. Other people can stand up WITH you, but they can"t stand up INSTEAD of you. Moreover, STANDING UP for oneself IS NOT THE SAME as STANDING AGAINST someone else. Telling the truth IS NOT making somebody else the enemy.

If you read the comments on what you have written, then you have an idea of the type of comments that have been made on the Huffington Post about Sen. Clinton. There are people who are unfairly attacking Sen. Clinton for everything she does and for things they only imagine she did. Facts don"t matter. Reason doesn"t matter. They spew the same hatred they project at anyone who makes them uncomfortable by speaking out for justice.

You have heard good poetry enough that you shouldn"t be fooled by Sen. Obama"s rhetoric. Barak Obama wants to talk this country back before the movement for justice took place in the "60s." That"s what his talking is all about.

Those of us who believe in freedom, justice, and equality are going to have to fight no matter who is the next President. We can either fight (against) Barak or fight with (along side) Hillary.
You need to get off the fence, go down to her campaign office, and help get Hillary elected.

[wread]

Very well stated! I think that one of my concerns is that we, as a voting society, risk becoming too self-congratulatory. Of course, the person's gender/race/religion should not matter, but the very fact that we pat ourselves on the back for Obama's success in Iowa or Hillary's in New Hampshire shows that we are all-to-aware of the fact that those barriers DO exist in this country. Instead of congratulating the "open-minded" voting bloc, we should be pushing harder to get to the point that those issues aren't given a second thought.

[WorkingClass]

The corporate media have given us Hillary and Obama from a field that included stronger, better qualified candidates including Edwards and Richardson. Why? Because Hillary and Obama are owned by the oligarchy and to turn the so called election into a discussion of race and gender. These candidates, hand picked by the destroyers of democracy and oppressors of the working class are not worthy of your consideration.

[Robert67]

Thank you for offering us a chance to comment, Rebecca.

It happens to come down to these two. It allows the populace to see the democratic contest as a gender or a race issue. Maybe this is a discussion that"s been long overdue, but I believe to see our options only in the light of these gender and race issues is almost reductive, maybe even counterproductive. I think the discussion might have begun with the Clinton camp feeling the pressure that HRC isn"t necessarily a shoo in.

Whatever the outcome, I don"t doubt the capacity of either Clinton or Obama to accomplish the job with aplomb.

I think we are ready for a Woman. I think we are ready for an African American Man.

We do need a change, and soon, however abstract the concept and its .

The system, unfortunately, isn"t going to change. It"s the same story with different players: you still need to be a millionaire to become a viable candidate in this ridiculous system. And what happens when Bloomberg gets into it? (Remember 2000?).

We are headed into a recession. Just remember that when our beloved democrat gets into office, they"ll be blamed for this, and Iraq. This is politics as usual. And the finger pointing will begin¦

Still, as an idealist and too frequently disgruntled participant in the process, I support Obama. I look forward to seeing a dynamic member of my generation getting a chance to run things.

Maybe the conscience of the country after the calamitous years of Bush can begin to be healed. On the other hand, we"ll forget this competition soon enough when more skeletons of the Bush administration start falling out of closets.

All best.

[ElaineVigneault]

Great article.
One quibble, though. You wrote:
"these women know that confrontational political labels [...] aren't productive"

From what I've seen on young women's political blogs, they seem to think 'confrontational political labels' are highly productive. And I think they're correct. Labels are effective at gaining votes and directing action.

Whether these labels are ethical or not, that's debatable. Certainly, labels like 'anti-choice' and 'anti-peace' are fine. They accurately describe positions. But the vitriol spewed out by most progressive blogs is indistinguishable from that spewed by the Christofascist and conservative blogs.

Steinem was wrong, but her tactics aren't at all uncommon. It's just the targets that change.

Personally, it makes me want to opt out of the process entirely. There's got to be a better way than this.

[duboisist]

Dr. King
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680204.000_Drum_Major_Instinct.html

[mounthood]

I'm still undecided between Obama and Clinton. But if she becomes portrayed as primarily a feminist candidate I, as a 75-yr-old male, will feel alienated and will never vote for her. We need a uniter and a leader into the future -- not someone fighting last generation's battles. His or her gender or race are insignificant.