Gender and Politics: Followup

Seeing the following in Slate (in, of all things, an article explaining why it's righteous for liberals to vote for Obama just because he's black) helped me clarify some of why I think it was important to bring up the issues my previous post:

(The conservative brand identity also doesn't have much room for opposition to sexism, another legitimate source of liberal guilt. But Hillary Clinton's problems, it seems to me, stem less from sexism than from Clintonism.)

Um, what?

Nobody is calling other presidential candidates bitchy, catty, shrill, or emasculating. Nobody is opening an article in a leading national newspaper with a comment on how much skin the other candidates are showing. Nobody is producing novelty nutcrackers modeled after other candidates (and displaying them prominently in places I run errands). Let me guess -- could cultural perceptions of gender be at work here?

Yes, there are a lot of reasons not to vote for Hillary that aren't sexist. If I didn't think so, I would have voted for her myself. But to say that her gender isn't a liability in her political career is an attitude both obtuse and harmful.

A lot of older feminists who voted for Clinton seem to think that young people who voted for Obama are naive about the issues of sexism Clinton and other women in politics face -- but that's not true of all of us. And a lot of young men who voted for Obama seem to think that their legitimate, non-gender-related reasons for disliking Clinton mean their perceptions are totally untainted by sexist cultural mores -- but that can't be true, either. People who support these two candidates are fighting when they should be uniting -- uniting against racism AND sexism.

Gender and Politics

Like many peolpe my age, I voted for Obama this year. But while I didn't vote for the female candidate, it's not because I think we've reached some sort of post-feminist utopia. I'm not choosing any candidate based solely on demographic factors, but I don't think these factors are irrelevant to the effects a candidate's election will have or the way a candidate is presented and perceived.

I've heard some of my male peers say that Clinton "wasn't a good feminist candidate" because she gained political power partly through her association with her husband; I've also heard them say that it doesn't matter whether we elect a woman president, because there are already female governors, senators, and world leaders in other countries. But I think it does matter -- I think there's a lot to be gained in terms of public perception from having a woman elected president of the United States. We still live in a country where men shout "Iron my shirt!" at an accomplished professional woman -- if they think that's funny, they don't get it, and the day we do elect a woman president is one day closer to people like that "getting it".

The New York Times describes some ways in which Clinton's gender may have affected the race:

Mrs. Clinton’s supporters point to a nagging series of slights: the fixation on her clothes, even her cleavage; chronic criticism that her voice is shrill; calls for her to exit the race; and most of all, the male commentators in the news media who, they argue, were consistently tougher on her than on Mr. Obama.

The reasons I have for voting for Obama don't make me blind to these factors -- I very much do think that Clinton's campaign has been presented differently because of her gender and that she's had to contend with obstacles and perceptions that are never an issue for a male politician. This primary has been framed as a divisive, either-or situation, but it's a false choice. Obama supporters and Clinton supporters are painted as people with no common ground, when in fact most of us agree about a great deal. Just because I ended up preferring Obama doesn't mean that I don't recognize the challenges Clinton has endured solely because of her gender or that I don't see the value in having a woman president for the sake of having a woman president.

Economics

It's hard to graduate from the University of Chicago without getting just a little indoctrinated in the virtues of the free market. While I'm not a libertarian or much of a small-government advocate (I tend to think government-funded programs are a good thing), it does bug me when people think free trade should be restricted for humanitarian reasons.

This blog post from some UChicago economists points out that both Wal-Mart and trade with China drive the prices of basic goods lower than they would otherwise be. While there are plenty of things to dislike about Wal-Mart and its effects on local economies, it's actually beneficial to the poorest people in the communities, who are effectively less poor when prices go down and their purchasing power goes up. The goods may be shoddy, but their availability is a boon to people who can't afford higher-quality versions. The same argument in reverse applies to working conditions (both in Wal-Mart and in developing countries that are producing cheap goods) -- the jobs may be low-quality and low-pay, but they're the best options available to these workers (if Wal-Mart's employees could find better jobs, they would).

Voting for Barack Obama

Tomorrow, I'm voting for Barack Obama. I'm thrilled that in this year's Democratic primary, I get to choose between two candidates who are intelligent, competent, competitive against Republican candidates, and committed to issues that I care about. In the general election, I'll enthusiastically support whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination.

That said, I'm behind Obama. As xkcd points out, Obama's technology policy is a well-informed articulation of the steps government will need to take in the near future to preserve the open internet and leverage existing and new technology for the benefit of our entire society -- as far as I can tell, Clinton has no comparable plan.

And: style matters.
There's that old chestnut, electability in the general election; if Clinton ends up running against McCain, she'll have to quickly switch tactics from her current platform of "experience", and the irrational personal animosity that some voters have toward her could hurt, whoever the opponent.

But more importantly, style matters even after the election is won.
If Barack Obama becomes our next president, not only can he help bring a respectful, cooperative tone to the divisive status quo of American politics, but his charismatic style will multiply his influence far beyond the legislation he enacts. His enthusiasm is contagious; more than any other candidate, he has a chance to dampen political cynicism and engage large numbers of ordinary citizens to participate in democracy. An Obama presidency would encourage and inspire citizens to mobilize, participate, and act -- and enthusiastic citizens can accoumplish a lot.