First I’d like to thank Madamab for her excellent interview with Congresswoman Maloney. I am eagerly looking forward to reading her book, and I have not been able to get the idea of the “30% solution” out of my head since reading Madamab’s post “The 30 Percent Solution: Why Democratic Women Are Voting for McCain/Palin”. I think the idea of fighting to have women account for 30% of all elected officials would certainly change this country profoundly, and for the better.
It feels like much of the reform that we seek is evolving from a new brand of feminism that is a reaction to those who would like to define feminism in strictly “progressive” terms. The Democratic Party claims to be the champion of those ideals and promotes the notion that any woman who disagrees is anti-feminist. They want to put a chastity belt on women so that they may never “give up” their vote to a non-Democratic candidate. The reason for this is simple. Perennial losers that they are, the Democratic Party would never win ANY election were it not for their base of women. They can scream all they want that they don’t need women because they have many new voters from both the youth and African American populations. But they are only kidding themselves. Be they “soccer moms”, “security moms”, or this year’s “hockey moms”, women have decided the last several elections, and they will continue to do so in the future. Now it makes more sense why these so called Democratic “feminists” are screaming that Palin, a self described feminist, an accomplished politician, and a working mother would be the worst thing to happen to women since witch burnings, even though she has never tried to inject her personal views on issues like abortion into public policy. The alternative that they champion? A man, Joe Biden, who allowed the most conservative member of the Supreme Court to be appointed at the expense of an African American, female attorney who had the audacity to speak out against the man who was harassing her.
Their biggest, and most frequently used weapon to corral women into voting Democratic is, of course, Roe v. Wade. Women are told that if they don’t vote Democratic they risk losing all control of their reproductive rights. But is there any evidence to back that up? Of course Democrats want to take credit for the fact that abortion is legal. But it was the Supreme Court that did that. They voted 7-2 in the matter which effectively decriminalized abortion. Of the 7 in the majority opinion, 5 were appointed by Republicans, 2 by Democrats. Of the 2 dissenters, 1 was appointed by a Republican and 1 by a Democrat. You do the math:
Concurring Justices and the President who nominated them
Harry Blackmun-Nixon
Warren Burger (Chief Justice)-Nixon
William Douglas-FDR
William Joseph Brennan-Eisenhower
Potter Stewart-Eisenhower
Thurgood Marshall-Johnson
Lewis Powell-Nixon
Dissenters
Byron White-Kennedy
William Rehnquist-Nixon
In fact, there were only 3 justices on the Supreme Court who were nominated by Democrats, and 1 of them opposed the ruling, and not coincidentally he was appointed by Kennedy, the man that Obama aspires to be. So it is clear that while Republicans have absolutely had an agenda of chipping away at the rights of women to choose, Democrats have hardly been putting up a resistance, or doing much of anything at all to oppose it. Except for the women.
In order to reform the Democratic Party, it is essential that promoting women candidates be a major part of that reform. This means supporting women across the political spectrum. Of the two women Justices we have seen on the Supreme Court, both were pro-choice, but as you know O’Connor was nominated by Republican icon Ronald Reagan. The Democratic Party as it stands does not deserve to have the majority of women’s votes, and of course the Republican Party doesn’t deserve them either. In building a new Democratic Party, we must act to put as many women as possible into leadership positions in the party and in elected office. This may even include promoting women who are from other parties. Reaching Maloney’s 30% solution would create a critical mass of women representatives which would make enacting legislation that promotes a true feminist agenda easier to do.
I would humbly submit an addendum to the “solution” as well. I call it the +3%. In addition to working towards the goal of 30% representation of women in elected office, I would suggest trying to reach a 3% goal of electing LGBT people as well. As a member of that community I believe that our best interests in many ways go hand in hand with those of women (not to mention that half of our community is women too!).
There is very little reliable data on the LGBT population in the US, but most commonly accepted figures range from 5-10% of the population. I think a goal of 3% representation would be a good starting point for making our community more visible, and show that we are working in solidarity with women to reform our political system. Sadly our numbers are well below that at this point. Here are some figures that I could find about LGBT representation in general:
From dogcatcher to President, there are over 511,000 elective offices in the United States. Few glbtq persons hold these positions, but their number has significantly increased since the 1970s. …
In 1987 the glbtq movement could claim 20 openly glbtq elected officials in the country. In 1991 that number had risen to 52. By April 1998 there were at least 146 openly glbtq elected officials in 27 states and the District of Columbia, and by 2002 that number had risen to 205 and increased to 245 by November 2003.(emphasis mine)
By my calculations, that means that LGBT representation in 2003 was about .05%, that’s 5 hundredths of 1 percent! I would encourage everyone to promote out LBGT candidates whenever possible. They not only will ensure that politicians don’t just pay lip service to our under-represented community, but they will shore up the women who are elected officials as well, promoting a feminist agenda that is woman friendly, family friendly, and gay friendly.
As with the so called feminist advocacy groups like NOW and NARAL, the biggest gay Advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, has chosen to shamelessly throw their lot in with the Obamaphiles. Sadly, they all are selling out the people for whom they say they are advocating in order to saddle up to the gravy train that they think an Obama administration will provide. The HRC endorsing Obama, even though he has people like Douglas Kmiec in his campaign, is like the idea of the Anti-Defamation League supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (laughable, right?). So why are so many gays and lesbians in the tank for Obama? So much so that they would be willing to put up with that kind of association? Because our lack of representation makes us vulnerable to the same kind of shell game the Democratic party has been playing with women for years. By swinging the carrot in front of us but never letting us have a bite, we remain transfixed, sure in the notion that once they’ve taken care of more pressing issues, the Democrats will someday turn to us. Well I’ve been waiting for 20 years and I’m DAMN tired of it.
I say that we vote for LGBT candidates whenever we can. In fact I found a site which is sort of a clearinghouse for such candidates. It’s called the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, and although they endorsed Obama too, they do provide access to who is running for office from County Clerk to US Senator. I’ve already found somebody in my area who I would like to send a contribution to in order to get us closer to that 3% mark. Her name is Julia Boseman:
Boseman has remained a strong advocate for LGBT legislation. She co-sponsored legislation that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT people in the General Assembly of North Carolina. The legislation did not pass, but Julia continues to discuss the issue with the Governor who is considering an executive order. She also pushed for an anti-bullying bill that included sexual orientation.
To find somebody in your area, you can use a handy state-by-state tool the Victory Fund has set up here. If we are going to reform our party we are going to need to forge strong alliances amongst groups who have until now been given only cursory lip service. Women and LGBT people are natural allies in this fight. Let’s help both groups get a foot in the door when it comes to elected representation.
Cross posted at FDR-For Democratic Reform
Filed under: Gender Equity, Politics | Tagged: FDR, feminism, For Democratic Reform, LGBT rights, reform
gary how about 6%?
and where do I get one of those “post-feminist” bumper stickers??
lol….I like the “talk hockey to me” sticker!
Oooo, oooo, oooooo, I must have that “post-…….” bumper sticker.
Great post, garych
Fabulous bumper sticker!
Great post, but Gary, the Republican Party then was very different from the Republican Party, today.
The Republicans have purged liberals and moderates from their Party, except for a few-and token-New England Senators.
Isn’t it amazing t realize that there is not one African-American Republican Congressman?
that would be to realize. How I wish my cats didn’t insist on standing between me and the computer screen and you had a preview feature.
Gary I am very much in favor of a 33% Solution. No one should be kept from having a voice in a country that pretends to be all about democracy.
Unfortunately, as you noted, many, most of the organizations that should be empowering women and the Gay community pledge allegiance to a party that only pays lip service to our issues until they get our votes and then we are ignored until the next election.
Sue, the Republican Party was indeed a different party that it is today. And the Democratic Party of today is doing the same things that the Republicans did. The Republican brand is badly tarnished. The Democratic Leadership is trying to, and have a real good start, on tarnishing their party too.
Corruption doesn’t start with an “R” or a “D”, it starts with a C. Enabling corruption just because it’s in our party will destroy the Democratic brand too. The Democratic Party is all ready perceived as a bunch of wimps. Corrupt Wimps is hardly a brand I’d want to buy.
SS: the Democratic party seems determined to purge true liberals and moderates from its ranks. How is it any better than its rival? Also, the Dems talk the talk re women, but are hardly walking the walk. In fact, they seem bent on demonizing women this year, witness Hillary and Sarah Palin. In terms of producing women leaders – and respecting them, the Repubs are walking the walk.
sweet sue, that’ is exactly my point. the republican party was different then, and the dem party is not the party it once was either, that’s why we need reform
we have to escape the frame that the media has drawn that if you’re not one, you’re the other. By criticizing one party, that doesn’t mean that you are automatically in the other camp. I tried to be clear that the alternative is not the Repubs, it is reforming our own party.
Gary – I love this idea. Great, great post, and thanks for the kudos!
RD, it’s not a new brand of feminism at all. The second wave started the same way. Leftist, centrist and conservative women of all colors advocating for the rights of ALL WOMEN.
I really like how this election brought forth the principles of feminism and democracy so clearly.
Great bumper stickers, Gary.
I agree with you 100% about criticizing where needed, regardless of party. I care less about Dodd or Frank or whoever as a Dem than I do about his actions. How would we judge these actions on a Republican?
So what if I’ve been a loyal Dem, I’m not a hypocrite.
CNN Credibility Factor
CNN Poll Vs. CNN Spin on Presidential Debate
Buried way, way down at the bottom of the story — hopefully, one surmises, past the point where anyone would read — is the following:
The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate. Of the debate-watchers questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents.
I’m far from being a polling expert, but this is obviously a slanted poll. A 14-point split between Republican and Democrat respondents? And what percentage of those “independents” were leaners for Obama?
http://countusout.wordpress.com/
The Republican brand is badly tarnished. The Democratic Leadership is trying to, and have a real good start, on tarnishing their party too.
kenoshaMarge, I cannot argue with you there.
You and gary have some very good points.
The Democrats have been breaking my heart for the better part of a decade, now.
However, if push comes to shove, I’ll take their brand of weak willed corruption over the Republicans and their crooked cronyism and rapacious, greedy social Darwinism.
Some choice, huh?
sweetsue, we don’t have to settle for either.
gary, that’s why I come here. To hear ideas from you and riverdaughter, madamab and all the regulars.
donna: the second wave may have started with good intentions, but then they became the original “feminazis.” Rush doesn’t know the half of it. I remember going to meetings where I was chastised for continuing to shave my legs and pits (it objectifies women). And those poor women who continued to “sleep with the enemy,” were endlessly told that they were undermining the cause.
I’ve been receiving numerous e-mails lately from self-described feminists telling me that no real femisnist could vote for Palin and the arguments they used brought me right back to the restrictions of the 70s.
(disclaimer: I am a proud second wave feminist who is not so proud of some of the tactics used in the name of advancing the rights of women.)
Regency,
Thanks for sharing the Clintons’ statement on Paul Newman’s passing. Newman was one of the best.
I was madly in love with those Blue eyes. I’m so sad to see him go.
Within the past few months I’m beginning to wonder if the Dems really are any better than the Repubs.
Dems may own the AA voting bloc, but I’m very uncomfortable with our marketing to keep it there. It is vile to call the Repubs the white party, and to throw r*cism charges at them all the time. Maybe this primary has taught me how unfair that is.
Also, was selecting a black man part of the payoff to keep the AA bloc in the Dem party? The threats of Brazile et al the past few years make me wonder.
Lastly, the collapse of Fannie/Freddie doesn’t pass the sniff test to me. It may sound like a CT, but I wonder if FM/FM delivered houses to many unqualified minorities, the CBC took credit for it back home, got re-elected, handed AA votes to Dems, FM/FM handed money to Dems, and Dems overlooked any problems. I got a bad feeling about this……
And I don’t care if they are Dems, or even “good” Dems, if there’s corruption, people have got to start paying the price, and I don’t mean taxpayers.
Gary, I’m all for it.
If anyone thinks I’m over the line, I’ll have to respond later. I’m off to dinner & see Burn After Reading with friends….
Sophie, the beginning of any movement brings out extremism but it is not representative of the whole movement.
The saying a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle is extreme now but at the time was necessary to make a point.
gary, great post. I, too, have been fascinated with the 30% article and agree that we need lots more LGBT representation as well. BTW, I let the HRC know that they’ll never see another penny from me. They are now dead to me, just like Emily’s List, NOW, etc., etc.
I agree about adding the GLBT community to the mix. As an out and proud gay Latino, I think that our issues are quite similar to those of women. The patriarchal system is stacked against women and against GLBT’ers. (moreso against the former than the latter).
Great post and great information about the 30% solution. Although I am TOTALLY empathetic to the cause of women, my vote will be written in for Hillary. I feel that she is the ULTIMATE woman in politics. I can’t wait to work for her and vote for her in 2012.
Not just a man but her boss. And there was more than just Anita Hill making that claim; however, after seeing what happened to the first witness (Hill) the one schedule to testify after her refused to testify and another one never showed up.
Racism was brought up then, but since Ms. Hill was a black lawyer, that charge certainly lacked credibility so they attacked her credibility as a woman “being used” by racists while heaping praise upon poor Thomas for having to go through the ordeal. Then they tried to rewrite history by applying the usual insults…woman scorned…using her “feminine wiles” to get her way…I’m sure you can name the rest without thinking. Reminds me of someone else who uses racism and sexism against women to have his way. That’s right, O-B-A-M-A.
donnadarko Said:
The saying a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle is extreme now but at the time was necessary to make a point.
I was onboard with that, Donna. I just thought it was incredibly restrictive. Of course I stayed with the movement, but look around–when more than half of women won’t call themselves feminists because of that, it shows that demanding conformity is not a good strategy. I like the PUMA ideal of “a loose coalition with one thing in common…”
txpolitico67 Said:
As an out and proud gay Latino, I think that our issues are quite similar to those of women.
TX: there are studies that back up your observation. Most of the antigay sentiment is misogynistic at its root.
Hillary 27 september
Clinton Hails Senate Approval of Relief for Homeowners Facing Soaring Home Heating Oil Prices
Urges Action on Her Legislation to Help Middle Class Families
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today welcomed Senate approval of a measure to provide relief for homeowners struggling with the soaring cost of home heating oil. The Senate voted to fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) at a level of $5.1 billion as part of the Continuing Resolution that will keep the government running until March. The Bush Administration has severely underfunded LIHEAP, which helps low income families pay their utility bills, and has proposed additional cuts, even as energy prices have skyrocketed. Senator Clinton has repeatedly called for greater support for LIHEAP and this week introduced legislation to offer home heating relief to middle class families as well.
“With winter coming, too many families are facing a chilling choice between paying their utility bill or buying essentials such as medicine or groceries. Prices are rising so fast, there just isn’t enough money in many family budgets to keep pace. That is why we need to offer real relief on home heating oil. Fully funding LIHEAP is a major step forward and will make a real difference to those most vulnerable to high energy costs – low income families and seniors across New York and the nation. We also need to do more to help middle class families feeling the squeeze from energy prices and so many other economic pressures. I have offered legislation to do that and I urge my colleagues to support it,” Senator Clinton said.
Senator Clinton has introduced the Home Energy Affordability Tax Relief (HEATR) Act to provide direct financial assistance in the form of a refundable tax credit for low-income and middle-class homeowners and renters. The bill is a companion to legislation introduced by Congressman John McHugh in the House of Representatives. (See: http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=303614)
The House has already passed the increased LIHEAP funding, so the measure will now go to the President to be signed into law. The measure would increase federal heating assistance to New York to about $550 million, an
increase of $250 million over last year’s funding levels.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=303774&&
Eventually, males won’t be needed any more so the saying is just a hundred millenia ahead of its time.
Hillary 26 september
Senator Clinton and Congresswoman Waters Commemorate 10th Anniversary of Minority AIDS Initiative
Call for Renewed Commitment to Address Devastating Impact of HIV and AIDS on Minority Communities
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-35) have introduced resolutions – S. Con. Res. 103 and H. Con. Res. 426 respectively – to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Minority AIDS Initiative.
“Recent CDC figures show clearly the devastating impact HIV continues to have on minority communities, with new infections among black and Hispanic populations at unacceptably high levels. We must ensure that prevention efforts are reaching at-risk populations and we cannot ignore disparities in treatment and care,” said Senator Clinton. “This resolution serves as a call to recommit ourselves to doing all that we can to combat stigma, improve awareness, and take the necessary steps to reverse and halt the spread of HIV and AIDS in our communities of color.”
“The Minority AIDS Initiative has unquestionably saved lives, especially within America’s minority communities, which are disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS. While we commemorate the 10th anniversary of this important initiative, we realize that the AIDS epidemic continues to take a heavy toll. We must continue to target funds for treatment and prevention to minority communities,” said Congresswoman Waters.
Congresswoman Waters led efforts within the U.S. House of Representatives to establish the Minority AIDS Initiative during her tenure as Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), realizing that the AIDS epidemic was increasingly affecting the nation’s ethnic and racial minority communities. She currently chairs the CBC AIDS Task Force and has continued her efforts to expand the Minority AIDS Initiative and increase funding for it.
Senator Clinton has been a vocal advocate of the need for prevention, testing and early treatment in order to combat the AIDS epidemic in the United States. She has led the push to increase appropriations for domestic AIDS funding in the Senate, encompassing prevention and treatment efforts at multiple agencies. She introduced the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which will allow low-income individuals with HIV to access Medicaid before they become ill.
The Minority AIDS Initiative received an initial appropriation of $156 million in fiscal year 1999 and currently is funded at approximately $400 million per year.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=303746&&
I’d like me one of those signs too! And found another good one – to explain the kids:
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/finally-got-it/
Regency – It is so sad that Paul Newman died. What a great actor. I am still pissed that after being nominated so many times, he only won one Oscar. RIP
[...] Reform and the 30% (+3%) Solution [...]
[...] Reform and the 30% (+3%) solution [...]
Gary-excellent post. Do the Dems have a group similar to the Log Cabin Repubs? If there a group for women? Or is everyone just supposed to be assimilated into the larger group.
Ugh, it seems obvious to me that the way things are going right now Obama will win this election. And maybe this is not how I should be thinking about this, but it means no Clinton in 2012 an no one with an actual clue to start putting our country back together again…I think Sarah Palin is going to have a bad night at the debate. I just read the article Fareed Zakharia wrote about Palin and her unreadiness displayed through her interviews in which she spouts off gibberish talking points, and I sadly agreed with every word…maybe Mitt would have been better choice for Mac after all…
about BO and MO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIenDGSAdPA
did this made it here yet?!!!!!
Remember she is going up against the King of Gaffs, Joe Biden. He recently said that clean coal is not acceptable even though that is Obama’s stance AND he said that when the stock market crashed in ‘29 FDR didn’t go on television and say “WHATEVER THE HECK BUSH SAID” (Sorry, forget). FDR was not in office then and, of course, there was no TV.
How can Biden make such mistakes, especially the on e on clean coal. Palin is hammered for not knowing what McCain’s voting record on regulation has been for 26 years (who does?) but Biden does not know – or will not accept – Obama’s positions? And they thought Clinton would be a problem…..
Missouri “Truth Squads” To Protect Obama Campaign
Who’s hear about Gov. Blunts statement from Missouri. The Obama camp has gone too far. He is not a happy man.
Missouri Gov. Blunt: Obama needs to grow up
Palin should watch some videos of Hillary debating. She has to show passion for what she believes in. I haven’t watched any of her interviews. I am really not that interested in her but I hope she does well.
above video
“The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”
St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch have been threatening citizens not to post negative character ‘attacks’ about Barack (?) Obama. That includes negative information about ’soft money operations.’
…………………………..
Count me in. GLTB rights are human rights.
Hey all – if you want to lighten up a little, I have a new play posted.
JJ-Zakharia is a great read but his whole focus is foreign policy and that certainly isn’t her strong suit. I would be more than happy for the VP to go back to attending funerals and the like. The Cheney vice presidency model is one that I don’t want to repeat.
Palin has her weak points but her strongest appeal is that she’s not part of the DC power-mad crowd. I think she sincerely wants to work for the people and isn’t in it for herself.
I agree that she probably isn’t going to do too well in the debate butt I don’t know how important that is anyway.
Thanks for the Hillary cites, Downticket!
And thank you, Gary, for this post. I’m totally down with the 30% Solution. I’m going to be a single-issue voter from here on out.
I think you might like to do some due diligence on that 5-10% range. This sort of number got its start from the Masters and Johnston sexual behavior survey and analysis, and is heavily skewed to those incline to indulge in and report experimental and unusual sexual behavior. Objective surveys and genetic principles come up with a figure more in the 1.1 to 1.8% range.
Of course the political clout associated with the larger number is very attractive to those concerned, and they are loud and vociferous in maintaining its “everybody knows” status. But it’s false, nonetheless.
Corr: “those inclined”
Sorry this is off topic but
Scandalous:
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem
Informative and scandalous:
“Thank you Regency”
The sharing of Senator & President Clinton’s statement about
the passing of Paul Newman was beautiful.
Brian, as i stated in my post, there are no reliable figures, but I stand by the 5-10% figure. If you’re going to say something is false, you should at least provide a link to back up your assertion. I find your useage of “experimental” and “unusual” sexual behavior telling. being gay is not about behavior. The best numbers, of course, would come from polls that quantify the number of people who self-identify as gay. And even that number would be artificially low due to cultural restraints on speaking about sexual orientation. according to HHS
I would guess that the actual number is about twice that. where’s your data coming from?
I’m all for adding the 3% to the 30% solution. It is unbelievable that, during these times, there is still no reliable estimate of the size of the LGBT population.
Good post, Gary not RD.
Just to correct an inaccuracy in your post, the Victory Fund has not endorsed Sen. Obama’s campaign. It only supports openly LGBT candidates and Obama therefore doesn’t qualify.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/28/family-told-obama-not-wear-soldier-sons-bracelet-where-media
the me too braclet just blew up in Obama’s face!
justpointin’ , don’t play semantics with me. They may not “officially” endorse him, but when this is prominently linked on t heir home page, don’t tell me they don’t support him. In fact Michelle Obama is lying about DADT. Obama has said that he needs to “study” the issue, which is Obama speak for “fuck that”
Not to mention that there is NO mention on t heir site about Obama’s involvement with the vile Mr. Kmiec. They should be ashamed of themselves…as should the Human Rights Campaign