If Sarah Palin promises appeal to women and independents, it will be less for her ideas and successes, than for her gender and her hitherto unfulfilled promise. As a commenter at “Yes to Democracy” pointed out, McCain had two strategies going into this week: either continue to harp on Obama’s inexperience, or exploit the wedge in the Democratic Party left by Hillary’s loss. By choosing a running mate whose only experience, thus far, is serving as mayor to a town of 7,000 and winning a closely fought gubernatorial election, McCain has opted to do the latter.
Playing to their newfound (only remaining) talking point, McCain updated his site with an attempt to cast the economy as a “woman’s issue,” and Governor Palin couched her acceptance fully in terms of her gender, in a shameless attempt to appeal to Democrats feeling “left out”:
I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign, it was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.
But it would be a mistake for American women to confuse Palin’s nomination with a vindication of a feminine political agenda. Picking Palin is rather an attempt to exploit women’s deep-seated disappointment at the loss of Hilary, than an actual attempt to build a more gender-neutral and egalitarian American government. All signs suggest that Governor Palin is a deeply, deeply conservative candidate, opposed to abortion in all cases.
And she’s a creationist. If there is surefire way to signal “ideology & paternalism over reason” louder than creationism, I have yet to find it.
In short, American women, when you see Sarah Palin, don’t think Hillary Clinton. Think Phyllis Schlafly, the anti-feminist woman. Don’t fall for patriarchal values dressed up in a pantsuit. Only when viewed emotionally, rather than rationally, does Palin suggest anything else.
Update: more on Palin & creationism, global warming denialism, and her unforgivable support for radical right-winger Pat Buchanan. This is not a moderate. SPREAD THE WORD.
Stumble It!
37 responses so far ↓
1 Progressive Conservative // Aug 29, 2008 at 2:15 pm
That post doesn’t pass the sniff test Ames. Distorting the facts is an understatement here. You’re supposed to be better than that…
1) By choosing a running mate whose only experience, thus far, is serving as mayor to a town of 7,000 and winning a closely fought gubernatorial election…
Palin has been governor of Alaska for 2 years. You make it sound like she just got elected.
2)And she’s a creationist.
From the article you quoted:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.”
To suggest she is a creationist is a real stretch.
2 Ames // Aug 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm
She’s a “teach the controversy” creationist - it’s essentially the same thing, stemming from a misunderstanding of science and a need to see poor science “affirmative action’d” to the forefront. It’s either that, or an attempt to straddle the lines to appeal to everyone without ever taking a stand on the issue. Both are culpable; both play into the creationist theme of distorting science for political purposes.
As for her 2 years as governor, yes. But 2 years is not a lot. You’re right that it’s not fair though to pretend it hasn’t happened.
3 Progressive Conservative // Aug 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm
She’s saying, “acknowledge the debate.” I don’t like it but as a science teacher I would welcome the chance to explain why ID isn’t science…not to just dismiss a questioning student.
2 years is more executive experience than a lot of Presidents have had.
4 Ames // Aug 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm
It’s also less experience than Obama HAS.
Read between the lines: this is the same thing that creationists have tried before, trying to frame as a controversy something that is no such thing. Affirmatively “teach both” - her words - is different than “accept questions.”
5 Progressive Conservative // Aug 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm
She specifically says she wouldn’t support adding it to the curriculum. You’re reaching Ames.
6 Lauren // Aug 29, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Palin is definitely dangerous. I believe there was some pandering to those sour-puss “Hillary Didn’t Get VP So I’m Voting McCain” Dems (maybe the media is making a bigger show if them than needed and there aren’t really all that many, I dunno…), but women need to know that this woman is no friend to women’s rights. I mean, she’s been endorsed by the Eagle Forum. Red flag right there, huh?
7 Ames // Aug 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Look at her ties to dominionist theology: the Assemblies of God, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Rodney Howard-Browne’s Revival Ministries. At best, she’s waffling on the issue, which is NOT what we need after Bush.
8 Ian // Aug 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Anyone who dilutes a biology curriculum with ID or evolution is dangerous, as both are not science, no matter what label you want to give her. I’m struck how much McCain is pandering to the Republican base. Besides blowing the experience question out of the water, it denies the notion “let’s all work together” notion, and emphasizes how the Republicans want four more years of the same.
9 Ames // Aug 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Dear heaven, Lauren, is she eagle forum endorsed? that’s the kiss of death.
10 Ian // Aug 29, 2008 at 3:45 pm
The quotes says: “Teach both [ID and evolution]. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.” That equals IDer/creationist to me.
11 FCD // Aug 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I will never understand why creationism has been allowed to persist into modernity. It is the most ridiculous shit ever.
If she has any ties whatsoever to dominionist groups, then that needs to be the focal point of attack against Palin. That will turn off people in a big way, even many who consider themselves christian.
12 Steve // Aug 29, 2008 at 6:15 pm
FCD, it’s the necessary evil of the 1st Amendment. In order to be of any use protecting speech and thought that’s worthy of protection, it has to be completely content neutral and protect things unworthy of protection. If there a way to selectively target deserving thoughts for forceful extirpation I’d be all for it, but given the chance of the wrong people having power and suppressing beneficial speech rather than detrimental speech… not to mention, other countries have been guinea pigs for it. If the People’s Republic can’t succeed at stamping out thought that needs to get stamped out, what makes you think trying could ever work in America - especially when we’re dealing with ideas that have already ruined far more minds than Falun Gong will ever reach.
13 Progressive Conservative // Aug 29, 2008 at 6:26 pm
While ID may dominate the blogosphere, the fact is that outside of liberal circles, it doesn’t get much airplay. I certainly think ID efforts are dumb and futile, but if the thin evidence Ames is presenting is all the Left has, I’m very comfortable with Palin weathering the ’storm’.
Keep in mind that Bush has openly supported teaching ID in schools and nothing much has come of it. It’s just not a big deal, even if some of us think it’s horrible.
14 Gotchaye // Aug 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I’m generally in agreement with you on Palin, Ames, but I don’t like the way you characterize her gender. I don’t mean to imply anything about your views, but I do think you’ve used some unfortunate language and phrasing. It’s very easy for a liberal, who understands himself as having the best interests of historically oppressed groups at heart, to view members of those groups who disagree with his agenda as traitors to their race/gender and/or, if they’re in office, as affirmative action picks, but the first is downright poisonous and the second is somewhat hypocritical.
If Palin’s speech was shameless pandering, then so was much of what Clinton said throughout the primaries about her gender, and so is much of what has been said and is being said about Obama’s race. At the Democratic convention, we just heard a great deal about how important it was that a woman nearly got nominated and how a black man was nominated. It hardly looks like pandering next to the identity politics games that the Democrats have been playing for the last few months or the God talk that permeates both campaigns.
Yes, “it would be a mistake for American women to confuse Palin’s nomination with a vindication of a feminine political agenda”, but it was equally a mistake to confuse Clinton’s gender with a feminist political agenda, which was a much more widespread error (not saying that she didn’t have a feminist political agenda). The assumption and expectation of ‘authenticity’ that we have of politicians from historically oppressed groups is itself a very harmful form of racism/sexism. And we should be charitable and ought not to write off a candidate for being helped out by some sort of affirmative action. That Palin was chosen in part because of her gender is not a good reason by itself to think that she is not a worthy choice, although it does cast unavoidable suspicion on her (a problem, unfortunately, with all affirmative action).
And it remains a fact that, were McCain to win, Palin would be the first woman to serve as Vice President and that would be a major milestone for women. The whole point of women’s suffrage is to give women the social and political rights that men have long enjoyed, and the right to be taken as an individual who makes independent political decisions is one of the most important. I don’t expect women’s groups to celebrate a McCain win because of this - they, just like Palin, have their own political views - but everyone should recognize such a victory as a big deal for women as a political group, and as just as big a deal for women as Obama winning with Clinton as his VP would have been.
15 Steve // Aug 29, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Gotchaye, I strongly disagree with you that “everyone should recognize such a victory as a big deal for women as a political group, and as just as big a deal for women as Obama winning with Clinton as his VP would have been.” That’s embracing tokenism. What should it matter to members of a group, be it women or some ethnic minority, that a member of the group attains office? Absolutely nothing different than it would matter if someone outside the group attains that office. If the group member works for policies that benefit the majority of the group, they’re completely interchangeable with any non-member politician who would have done that. If the group member works against policies that benefit the majority of the group (or for policies that do harm - let’s cover all the boxes in the active/passive matrix) they’re completely interchangeable with any non-member politician who would have done that. This “victory for women” is a big deal solely in symbolic terms, and symbolism is nothing. Substance is everything, and a woman becoming vice president will have no material effect on the 150-million-odd-women who aren’t that specific woman. Now, it could be that her policy preferences are measurably better for 70 or 80 million women than any of McCain’s male potential VP picks would have been - which is the one thing that could have made this a victory for women - but that’s not very likely.
She would be the first woman to serve as Vice President. That isn’t going to materially alter the quality-of-life of any other woman, except perhaps a few of her relatives, and so… so what?
16 Gotchaye // Aug 29, 2008 at 7:39 pm
And so it’s a big deal, and an important milestone. I’m not saying that someone ought to vote for Palin because she’s a woman - I think the rest of my post makes that clear, and makes clear that I reject tokenism. But symbols have real value; there’s a reason that we remember ‘firsts’, and to reduce everything to material effects is obviously to ignore the way that people actually function.
I have no problem with you saying that it doesn’t matter if we ever elect a female President or Vice President, but there are a lot of people who felt that Clinton winning would be an important achievement for women (even compared to Obama, who had virtually identical policies). My point is less that everyone ought to find something to like in a McCain win now and more that those people who do find value in symbols can now find something to like in it. But everyone should recognize that her election would be a milestone, regardless of how much value one places on such milestones.
17 Gotchaye // Aug 29, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Ah, to clarify - when I said that this was a big deal for “women as a political group”, I meant ‘as a political group’ to signal that I was speaking about history and historical value. As I went on to explain, it’s important that we refuse to look at real women as merely members of a political group.
18 Progressive Conservative // Aug 29, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I do find the immediate criticism of palin as not representing her gender properly as unfortunately more of the same tired Democratic tactics. Blacks who have dared to run as Republicans have been openly slandered by the Left (Michael Steele). Both powell and Rice were called traitors for their roles as Sec. of State under Bush. Gays were blamed for Kerry’s loss in 2004. Clinton was praised for her historic run and Palin is now called a token for getting one step closer to the White House.
Why the double-standard? Are we to only celebrate milestones of race and gender when they are on the Left?
19 Steve // Aug 29, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“Are we to only celebrate milestones of race and gender when they are on the Left?”
Well, since the alternative to the Left is something that often simply should not be, the answer to your question is in a word, “Yes.”
That said, I don’t think Clinton or Obama deserved celebration for their “historic run”, only for their policies. Which, let’s face it, in both cases leave things to be desired. As I explained to Gotchaye, I don’t think symbolism or milestones are important to begin with. Yes, many people care about them, that’s a flaw of human psychology that needs fixing, not participating in. Symbolism and milestones distract people from things that matter.
20 let them eat BORG cake // Aug 30, 2008 at 2:40 am
“Why the double-standard? Are we to only celebrate milestones of race and gender when they are on the Left?”
celebrate turncoats? aka, “uncle tom made it to houseslave, lets boogie.”
so… would anyone expect MS mag to have published articles by the Coulter(s) of their era? (rhetorical question pointing toward the misperceived “double standard”)
OTOH… “celebrating” (noting) “minority advancement” seems a bit shallow (to me, too), but there’s also undeniable history in “minorities” being held back. unfortunately, even the “liberals” who remain “liberal” yet “succeed” in politics are well over 50% ASSIMILATED.
21 Collin // Aug 30, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Ames, please tell me you just phrased that title wrong.
You do realize that Palin is not the “First Female VP Nomination” of a major party, right? You do realize that that was Geraldine Ferraro, right?
22 Chris // Aug 30, 2008 at 6:55 pm
“It’s also less experience than Obama HAS.”
No, Palin has more executive experience than Obama.
Besides running for office, it is hard to figure out what Obama’s experience actually might be.
23 Ames // Aug 30, 2008 at 7:18 pm
She has more executive experience, but what does she know of international affairs, or even of national politics? Suburban homeowners’ association conflagration =/= Sino/Russian nuclear crisis.
And four years in the Senate, plus time on the Foreign Relations Committee, puts Obama head and shoulders above Palin.
24 Progressive Conservative // Aug 30, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Collin - good point. I believe Ames has indeed forgotten Mrs. Ferraro. Although, to be fair, I believe he might have still been in diapers or incubating in the womb when Ferraro made history with Mondale.
25 Ames // Aug 30, 2008 at 7:38 pm
So was Collin :)
But yes, I did forget her…
26 Collin // Aug 31, 2008 at 1:20 am
“Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations” concentrators don’t get the “it happened before I can remember” excuse.
Palin praised Ferraro in her acceptance speech, which I guess Ames did not watch.
Perhaps he was too busy filling my facebook news feed with negative Palin links, like a man who secretly takes Palin’s crossover appeal quite seriously.
She’s already appealing to the base. Listen to Rush Limbaugh or, better yet, don’t and take my word for it.
And, for what it’s worth, my scientific studies show that my girlfriend is now an ex-Hillary McCain-Palin supporter. I didn’t put her up to it; she’s smarter than I am.
27 Ames // Aug 31, 2008 at 1:28 am
:) I read a transcript of the speech (I had class), and I knew Ferraro’s name, but I forgot to include her in the post. D’oh.
I don’t take Palin’s crossover appeal seriously. Known for what she truly is - a hyper-conservative anti-feminist woman - she’d have no crossover appeal except as a gimmick. I do take the appearance of her crossover appeal, an appearance that I feel I must disabuse the public of, VERY seriously. Hence the facebooking.
How does your girlfriend feel about birth control pills, condoms, and abortions in the case of rape? Would it interest her to know that Palin opposes all three? *Ahem* I make no implications with the latter about anything other than the relevance of those issues to most women.
28 Ames // Aug 31, 2008 at 1:33 am
Ah, and I REALLY would think that the essentialism point would resonate with women.
29 Progressive Conservative // Aug 31, 2008 at 10:48 am
Again anectdotally but I have heard from four different female family members who said they are now reconsidering their support of Obama. My wife said she also heard the same from several female friends last night.
There are a lot of women who are going to have a lot of trouble going in the voting booth and pulling the lever against a woman. It would be no different for blacks if the GOP was running someone of color.
The point is that with independents drifting over to the GOP, Obama really can’t afford to lose anyone else. Palin is going to peel off some women. No amount of Democrat spin can stop that completely.
Another thing to keep in mind Ames. I know you think abortion is a pivotal issue for women and Palin’s opposition will turnoff women, but polling data demonstrates that independent voters tend to be more conservative than Obama on abortion.
30 Oneiroi // Aug 31, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I would also say that they are more liberal than Palin though…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
We’ll wait and see, but I’m hoping people won’t change their politics/beliefs for a vote on gender.
31 Collin // Sep 3, 2008 at 1:07 am
How does your girlfriend feel about birth control pills, condoms, and abortions in the case of rape? . . . I make no implications with the latter about anything other than the relevance of those issues to most women.
LMAO. That was easily the most hideously awkward thing I’ve seen on this blog, Ames.
I put that bit about my gf in there to comment on whether a trend is perceptibly happening. Not to open a debate on the underlying merits. PC picked up on this distinction and responded in kind with some observations.
You took it as an opportunity to persuade someone you’ve never met, over the internet, through her obviously unsympathetic boyfriend. And in a way that directly implicates my own sexual practices. Amazing.
Please try to separate your own irrepressible opinion on the underlying merit of an issue from your discussion of it at a larger sociological level. Yes, ideally my gf would have had to listen to you before making her decision. But she didn’t go to Princeton for nothing. She’s taking into account things not even I can appreciate.
32 Collin // Sep 3, 2008 at 1:10 am
The last sentence was supposed to read “She’s taking into account things that only she can understand.”
33 Ames // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:55 am
Yeah, I phrased that ridiculously poorly. I assure you the intent was not to do what you accuse me of - I tried to disclaim that intent explicitly, but it was 1:30 in the morning and I obviously failed. I didn’t mean to imply anything personal, and for that I apologize but note my intent to avoid that implication :). I wasn’t tryign to convince her through you - I just legitimately want to know how Hillary women reconcile themselves to Palin’s theocratic background, one totally opposed to everything Hillary stands for. For the life of me I can’t understand it.
34 Progressive Conservative // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:40 am
I just legitimately want to know how Hillary women reconcile themselves to Palin’s theocratic background, one totally opposed to everything Hillary stands for. For the life of me I can’t understand it.
Ames, you act as though Hillary’s entire career is based on the right to terminate a pregnancy. It’s not. As much as I disagree with her, she’s not that one-dimensional. The reason why Obama is now losing women to Palin at a decent clip is because you all just don’t get it. You think all women care about is abortion. Give them a little more credit than that.
35 Ames // Sep 3, 2008 at 12:15 pm
PC, it’s not that I think all women are genetically programmer to be pro choice; it’s that i’m surprised to hear democrats voting for a rabidly conservative woman just because of her biology. Luckily it seems to be a fairly isolated phenomenon; polling suggests women think less of her than men, and it’s only falling.
36 Human // Sep 21, 2008 at 12:12 am
Er, Ames, one quibble - with the title of this post.
“the First Female VP Nomination” was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.
37 Ames // Sep 21, 2008 at 12:21 am
Yeah, I realized my failure after I posted it. D’oh.
Leave a Comment