This has been asked a few times lately, but it's hard to answer given that I'm still supporting Hillary for the Democratic nominee. I do see that the mountain is steep, so I am not ignoring the question, but rather, giving it serious thought. Before I can answer it, I need to more fully understand why I feel so strongly.
Truth is, I'm not ready to get on board with Obama if Hillary does not get the nomination. I, too, am having a political identity crisis, wondering whether the Democratic Party is the right place for me anymore. I have not declared that I'm voting for McCain, but I'd be lying to say I haven't seriously thought about it. Trying to find a way down off that cliff, I am looking at all my options. Right about now I'm wishing for a third party comprised of socially liberal/fiscally conservative (not neocon) ideals.
Let me say this: On behalf of Hillary and her supporters I feel marginalized and bullied. (Not at a personal level: when I've written something here I've tried not to be insulting or too inflammatory and, as a result, I've received civil replies from people who disagree with me. But I see/read a lot and in my gut (Stephen Colbert would be proud) there is something larger going on.
There are multiple causes of this wreck, and so far I have only some of them identified:
First, there is a discourse disconnect here. There are some fairly aggressive folks who fling demands for logic/math/proof left and right. Yet it frequently seems to me that the challenge for "proof" is more about obfuscation and deflecting people's opinions by tangling them up in arguments about minutiae than about having a discussion. This is effective if your goal is to shut people down, but it is not effective if your goal is to persuade. In fact, it hardens opposition by infuriating people. People don't need for you to agree with everything they say, but they do need to feel that their points of view are considered respectfully. (They need to be right sometimes, too, especially considering that they ARE right sometimes--and not just once in a blue moon.)
I realize that angry HRC supporters have been disrespectful, too, often slinging pejoratives when stuck in the middle of a silly "prove it" battle for the umpteenth time, and BO supporters are not all about logic, either; they use plenty of pejoratives.
What we've got going on is an adult version of, "Did not," "Did too," "Huh uh," "Yeah huh," with one side unable to resist grinding their (arguably unfair) advantage in in every way imaginable (from bloggers here to Edwards/Obama managing to steal the media thunder after HRC's WV landslide victory).
HRC supporters will not give up before the nomination process is finished, and it's not a pro forma exercise. And if the end result is not what they wish, why does anyone think they would all want to stay and play if the other team's idea of a good time is giving `em perpetual noogies? There's not much left to do then, but take their vote and go home. Right now HRC supporters are being excoriated for telling the truth: that they're mad or distressed enough to defect. But excoriation is not the answer. That may shut 'em up while propelling them (quietly) toward the voting booth to do the unthinkable.
How did we get here? There is an incredible amount of emotion tied up in this primary. Remember, for many HRC supporters, the prospect of an amazingly talented and energetic woman as POTUS for the first time is deeply, deeply meaningful (finally, after what, 200+ years, and not getting the vote until 1920). To have that candidate trashed by the media and by Democrats and by aggressive BO campaign tactics and supporters (and occasionally by BO, too) and then be told that we'd better get on board is fairly unrealistic.
Throw in the opinion (of many) that a fair amount of the trashing has its roots in sexism. I think that a comment by Fuzzy Dunlop is fundamental to understanding this:
"What I think it comes down to with many of my fellow HRC supporters, especially women, is the following: They just experienced a long process in which a more qualified woman was passed over for a promotion in favor of a man who is arguably unqualified for this job (by historical standards). She lost for many reasons, among which was the thumb of an appallingly sexist media firmly on the scale during the critical period of the campaign, between NV and Super Tuesday.
The whole experience mirrors to some degree patterns of sexism in our society that women struggle against every day - better qualified women losing out on jobs, lots of overt and more subtle sexist messaging from the media. I think a lot of people feel that getting behind Obama means implicitly condoning that kind of sexism that runs rampant in society, and they are simply refusing to do so."
What we've got here is a collision of "logic" (sometimes it really is logic, but often not) and deep emotion.
[Let me say that we ALL need both logic and emotion. I refer you to a very interesting book called "Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain" by Antonio Damasio. In it he finds that "[e]motions are not a luxury, they are essential to rational thinking," by looking at some interesting evidence: individuals (even very intelligent individuals) whose brain damage left them devoid of emotion but otherwise completely intact intellectually. Unfortunately, without emotion, these people are not able to make rational decisions and are, consequently, unable to lead normal, successful lives.]
Another collision: the first viable woman candidate versus the first viable black candidate. And yikes, running against each other in the same party. It required/requires an enormous amount of tact and, what some of you have always known and others are harshly learning, politics-as-usual ain't about tact. Why didn't Dem elites/leaders have the sense to recognize what would happen when these two trucks barreled toward each other in the same lane? I still find myself wistfully thinking that if Obama had waited America could have had them both, and now at best might get one--inevitably disappointing a huge swath of the Party, and--maybe neither.
Worse, maybe they knew but didn't care: I can't help wondering if bickering Dem elites have squandered this historic opportunity for the foreseeable future. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2008/05/18/as_clinton_chances_wane_ol d_slights_come_due/
This doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to see a president of color--I certainly would. African Americans are voting for BO in droves and I don't have the slightest problem with that, whether for qualification or racial reasons or both. Of course they want to see a capable person like themselves occupy the highest office in the land, who wouldn't?
But hearing, "Aw gee, you'll get another woman one day soon--and better than this yucky one. What if we throw in some other woman for VP?" does not help. It's patronizing.
One thing that will eventually help is some serious effort to repair the damage done to Hillary's reputation (and Bill's too). Let me be clear here. This is not about being part of an HRC cult: the symbolism of her first-woman candidacy means that many of HRC's supporters are personally invested and, consequently, take the trashing very personally. I don't know how the party's going to do it. The hits on her have been so visceral that a sudden "It turns out we do admire her after all, yes indeed, what a scrapper!" sounds mighty insincere.
I know that meanness is par for the course in politics, but the problem is, this is not a par for the course primary. And sure, I realize that the Clinton campaign played rough on occasion. However, the combined poison of Repub talking points/the media/AND other Dems took on the proportions of a swarm of killer bees. (And speaking of deadly, here's another interesting read: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/l ifestyle/chi-fempower-0518may18,0,433371 4.column )
Ironically, Hillary and Bill, as seasoned politicians, may be able to deal with this better than her supporters can.
In the meantime, I'm still thinking, and if I can figure anything out I'll let you know. Meanwhile, I can't give up the dream...
Another good read that explains the depth of feeling:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/l
ifestyle/chi-fempower-0518may18,0,433371
4.column
|
|
|
Permalink :: 204 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
