• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    katiebird on Serial: I think I figured it…
    katiebird on Serial: I think I figured it…
    katiebird on Serial: I think I figured it…
    strangelybrown on Serial: I think I figured it…
    riverdaughter on Serial: I think I figured it…
    elliesmom on Serial: I think I figured it…
    katiebird on All Roads Lead to Jay
    riverdaughter on All Roads Lead to Jay
    katiebird on All Roads Lead to Jay
    katiebird on All Roads Lead to Jay
    katiebird on Getting a jump on Serial,
    riverdaughter on Getting a jump on Serial,
    katiebird on Getting a jump on Serial,
    katiebird on Getting a jump on Serial,
    riverdaughter on Getting a jump on Serial,
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Joe Biden John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare occupy wall street OccupyWallStreet Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    April 2012
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar   May »
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    2930  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • Hey girl
      Carole King with the song she wrote for Freddie Scott:
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • A word on Abenomics, QE and doing Stimulus right
      Quantitative Easing, to put it simply, no matter what form you do it in, is only marginally effective. Most of the money goes to the rich, you may or may not get a technical win in GDP, and in many cases the money may flow out of the country. If you want to improve the [...]
  • Top Posts

Why don’t more women ask the Democrats “What’s in it for us?”

Melissa McKewn at Shakesville wrote a brilliant post four years ago that is even more relevant today.  At the time, the Clintonistas and other deeply concerned feminists were troubled by the use of misogyny by both political parties but particularly the Democrats and even more particularly, the Obama campaign.  Oh, you thought it was only the PUMAs that got poo flung at them?  No, indeedy.  It was any woman that had the temerity to speak up.  Anyone who threatened to harsh Obama’s mellow was accused of being traitors, whiners, insignificant, stupid, and bringing catastrophe on the whole country.

We’re going through the same thing again this year.  The past four years have been a disaster for women.  It hasn’t been Christmas and Easter and New Years for women under this version of Democrats.  It’s been more like Halloween.  If you weren’t paying attention last time to the myriad ways that Obama bowed and scraped at the feet of evangelicals to get their votes, then the Bart Stupak amendment might have been your wake up call.  Or maybe it was the retention of the Bush Administration’s conscience rule.  Or maybe Rick Warren’s sexist, homophobic version of prosperity based Christianity pissed you off during the inauguration.  Whatever it was, you figured out you had been screwed after it was too late to do anything about it.

But now that you know, what are your options going forward?  Well, read Melissa’s post from four years ago that she republished a couple of days ago.  It’s basically the same thing I’ve been saying for four years.  You have the option to walk away.  Also, Roe is dead, ladies.  We didn’t fight for equality first and now, we’re back to the pre-Roe days where states could make their own rules.  Pretty soon, abortions will only be available in a handful of coastal states, just like it was in the years immediately preceding Roe.  And there are already 5 votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.  Kennedy will vote to eliminate it when the time comes.  So, there is really no compelling reason to pay any attention to the Democrats’ argument about Roe and the court.  They might get more traction if they focused on the rights of workers or inequality in general or voting rights but, you know, that’s just not this version of the Democratic party’s thing.

One thing is for sure: if you don’t wring some concessions and explicit promises and sincere preliminary steps from the Democrats, and Obama in particular, BEFORE the election, you’re sure as hell going to get the shaft afterwards because the Democrats’ concern with your welfare extends only as far as getting your vote.  Once they have that and get the power they want, you’re history to them.  Don’t make it so easy.

Oh, sure, the party will start to incite panic.  “What are you dooooooing?!?  Don’t you know that there is an election this year?  Why are you bringing up your rights now?  You’re being selfish, stupid, old, unpleasant, unattractive.  You’re collaborating with the Republicans, you’re a Tea Partier, you like that dunce Sarah Palin.  If we don’t win it will be all your fault.”  That is a guilt trip, my friends.  That’s the sound of people who suddenly realize that the urgency on their part does not constitute an emergency on yours.  Oh my god! You might actually *believe* in that stuff about bodily autonomy and agency and complete equality under the law.  It will be very inconvenient for them to stop what they are doing to either pacify you or cater to you.  I recommend that you make the Democrats kiss your asses.  Forget about Republicans.  They’re a lost cause.

Here’s how Melissa puts it (but go read the whole thing):

Forward movement for women can happen even in dictatorships, and can be reversed even in democracies—because women’s equality is inextricably linked to so many other cultural variables, like religiosity. To presume that greater democracy will de facto mean increased equality for women is to tacitly buy into Bush’s line about freedom magically emanating from any country deemed a functional democracy. It just doesn’t work that way. A democratically-elected conservative American theocracy would, for example, be anathema to feminism/womanism.

I have many good and important and personal reasons for not wanting the US to become any less democratic than it is now—not least of which is because those agitating for increased authoritarian control of government are simultaneously agitating for increased control of women’s bodies. I also have many good and important and personal reasons for fighting for my equality. Some of those good and important and personal reasons overlap. Some of them don’t. 

The important point here is that, while most USian FWs are undoubtedly interested in voting for the most democratic candidate, it is wrong to reflexively conflate “more democratic” with “more feminist” (even though that’s historically a safe bet). FWs may, in fact, for reasons outlines above, have to votecounter to feminist/womanist principles to vote for the most democratic candidate of the two major parties. That is not a small thing, and it should not be treated as though it is.

I would remind Democrats that what happened to Jon Corzine in NJ could very well happen to Obama.  Corzine as a governor was meh.  He did nothing to reform the highly regressive property tax system here.  He conducted a study and basically threw up his hands and said, “Well, what do you want me to do about it?”  Then he gave away our delegate votes to Obama at the convention.  Um, Obama didn’t win NJ.  Not even close.  Hillary won it by 10 points.  In general, Corzine looked like a Wall Street banker and governed pretty much the same way.  Democrats here are still smarting from his loss to Chris Christie.  It really shouldn’t come as a surprise though.  NJ has a history of electing Republican governors.  But that election should have been Corzine’s because, let’s face it, Christie isn’t a moderate Republican that would suit New Jersey’s tastes otherwise.  He’s  kind of crude, loud, a bully, a sexist asshole and definitely out to please his rich friends.  There’s no expectation that he will reform the property tax system, only that he will strangle local governments from growing.  And voters knew that going in.  He’s been a disaster for New Jersey.

But Corzine lost anyway even though he was the favored Democrat in 2009 in a year when Democrats should have had an easy run.  The local Democrats think it was a Christie revolution.  I disagree.  There was a third party candidate on the ballot that year.  His name was Chris Daggett, an independent, and judging from his debate performances, one of which I was able to attend in person, he was the best candidate we had.  Of course, the two major parties have a strangle hold on the ballots and every ballot in every county is different, so Daggett’s name wasn’t easy to locate.  You want to know how it turned out.  Here are the results?

Candidate Chris Christie Jon Corzine Chris Daggett
Party Republican Democratic Independent
Running mate Kim Guadagno Loretta Weinberg Frank Esposito
Popular vote 1,174,445 1,087,731 139,579
Percentage 48.5% 44.9% 5.8%

You’d think the Democrats would have learned their lesson but apparently they haven’t.  It doesn’t take much of a defection to flip a race to your opponent.  And right now, there are a lot of women who are angry enough at the passivity of the Democrats and their arrogant attitude towards the voters that it might be better for US to take our votes elsewhere or split our ticket or not vote at all.

So, you gotta ask yourselves, Democrats, will November 6, 2012 be your lucky day?


About these ads

15 Responses

  1. At least, when we have a Repub in the White House, the Dems make an attempt to fight against the craziness. With Obama as President, not so much.

    • Pretty much. Split your ticket and vote for someone to the left of the Democrats.

      • Yes. That sends the clear message (and might tip a balance).

        Still, that’s what the Nader vote did in 2000. And look how that turned out.

        • Nader did not take Gore’s votes. Gore did not earn them…If Obama wants to win, he needs to earn the votes.

          • Sorry T, not true. Nader told supporters that he would not campaign in swing states if they would help him get on state ballots and support him financially. Then he went ahead and campaigned in Florida. He also lied his ass off about Gore as did the Green party. Exit polls in Florida show that 10s of thousands of Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot.

        • Um, guys? Al Gore actually won. The final vote count proved it. And he won on his merits, not at someone else’s expense.
          The problem was the Supreme Court and the government of Florida. And what have the Democrats learned from that experience? They have learned how to cheat and disenfranchise their own voters.
          Frankly, I don’t see what the appeal was with Ralph Nader. And I think those voters were very premature back in 2000. The parties were not the same. Now, there’s barely a chink of sunlight separating mitt Romney’s potential policies from Obama’s.
          But there’s nothing to be gained *at all* by rolling over and playing dead for the Democrats just because they chose to not run a primary challenger to Barack Obama. That leaves his policies unchallenged and we risk losing no matter who we vote for. You can only gain this year if you hold the Democrats to a higher standard.

        • My point is simply that by voting third party because Obama is too far right, I’m taking a chance of the Republicans getting the White House — and look how that turned out last time. 9/11, Iraq war, etc. No one was worried about ‘smart terrorism’ before 2001 (except Clinton and Gore) A Republican got in and fouled things up in a way no one could have imagined back in 2000. Who knows what Romney may foul up?

          Sorry if there are typos. There’s a big black pop-up obscuring the screen, saying ‘Follow “The Confluence” ‘.

          • Oh! I think that popup happens when the pointer is hanging over a link. Try moving your mouse and see if it disappears. It’s some wordpress setting that I thought we’d turned off.

          • Well, this morning the pop-up is down to a small black square in the bottom righthand corner. No matter where I move the cursor.

  2. That’s a great point on Dagget, RD. Thanks.

  3. It does no good for women to demand equality from the Democrats or Republicans. They are deaf to women’s concerns.

    • women don’t have to demand equality from anyone. We just have to join forces. There’s more of us than them.

      • tru dat. :)

        • Yes, but we don’t seem to be able to present a united front when a throwaway comment by a woman pundit can result in women being at each others’ throats for days.

          We can’t even get women on the left to stick together.

          • The Romney campaign exploited it well.

            Rosen’s point was that Mitt shouldn’t refer questions on workplace issues to his rich wife who had never had a job.

            ‘Ann Romney’ immediately JOINED Twitter so she could post a dishonest soundbyte implying that Rosen had attacked ALL SAHM or motherhood itself, and the campaign promoted that meme in other media.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: