I made a post yesterday about Hillary Clinton that I regret. Not necessarily for the not-so-obviously intended message that it is time to pick a candidate for the Democratic party to unify around, but for the angry, violent language/metaphors used to suggest that Hillary should defer the presidential nomination to Barack. A good friend of mine sent me a private email expressing his (not-so-surprising) outrage over the tone taken in my post. He pointed me to another blog, written by some mutual friends, questioning the casual misogyny associated with Obama-Clinton comparisons, and it made me think about the way that this political race has been characterized.
The worst part of an election pitting these “new generations” of candidates is that it somehow inevitably boils down to a battle of racism and sexism. Identity politics sucks for everybody, and while it may take on more egregious forms in certain circumstances, it is no less problematic either way.
I will begin by restating that my post was not particularly well thought out, and demonstrates the disturbing problem facing a variety of political and social circles attempting to make sense of this election.
Funny that this blog has the audacity to claim that sexism is more socially acceptable than racism in modern society, while this very same post is littered with fairly overt racial statements about Barack Obama and his supporters.
“Drunk-the-Kool-aid”? Really? Yes, perhaps the argument is that this reference is simple a Jonestown Massacre, blind faith argument. But then again, why is this not used to reference Hillary supporters? Because we have no idea what Obama would be like as a president and Hillary, in her years of Senatorial experience, has provided us such a solid example of how she might lead the country? Are we to infer that Obama supporters simply adhere to a blind faith in this “articulate, clean” black man for no substantive reasons? Or perhaps it is because only good po’ black folks can really enjoy that kool sugary drink. “Hordes of poorly behaved Barack boosters”? Are you kidding me? Hopefully I need not explain the problematic racial tonnage in this phraseology. “Terrified Clintonites”?. As society teaches us, white women should fear the dangerous black man. And apparently, so too should Hillary supporters fear the Barack camp…
This stinks of the same racial undertones that incited my initial, albeit overly violent, angry post about Hillary. I failed, in my brief stint of anger, to reference the actual USA Today article that incited my post, in which Hillary claimed “ Senator Obama’s support among working, hard –working Americans, white Americans is weakening.” Is it just me, or is this a not-so-subtle way of saying that the only hard-working Americans are white? I will say that my roommate Nate certainly works harder than I do, but more generally we may now begin to see a disturbing pattern in the discussion or comparison of the two candidates.
Part of the argument to be uniquely more disappointed with Hillary is that the tone of her campaign is uniquely more negative. While Obama has dedicated himself to maintain a positive campaign on the issues (see Obama’s speech on race), her campaign has openly admitted to using a “kitchen sink” strategy. She plays dirty, and that’s the bottom line. The reason people don’t call for him to bow out is because even in times of apparent defeat he doesn’t take the dirty route. His message has always been one of hope.
Perhaps the (sad) conclusion is that both racism and sexism have become acceptable tools of comparison, brought once again into the immediate media spotlight by this campaign. But to point fingers at the other group without a self-reflexive glance at one’s own camp relflects, in my opinion, a greater ignorance. And certainly, to claim that sexism is somehow more acceptable than racism is, in my opinion, moronic. Any intelligent Hillary supporter will effectively isolate statements and metaphors used in the race to characterize her opposition as misogynistic, just as any intelligent Obama supporter will do the same to seemingly benign statements in opposition to his candidacy. It seems that picking a side in this race means that you face a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don’t scenario.
Well said.
Don’t ever regret a post Erik if it comes from the heart.
This discussion includes multiple outrageous mischaracterizations of my original post, which related and reflected on a story I was told by an acquaintance. I’m willing to concede the idea that casual racism is more socially acceptable than casual sexism, even though there’s no way to evaluate this other than through a profusion of anecdotes (which is not the same thing as evidence). This is in no way relevant to my larger point.
Yet to be answered is my argument about the coded language used to describe Hillary as “ambitious” and “driven,” and my comparison to Biden’s ridiculous comments about Obama.
Of course the intersections of race, gender, and class must be considered. To look at them in isolation rarely, if ever, makes sense. I never denied the importance of intersectionality; neither did I suggest that Hillary was a good candidate; neither did I suggest that Obama should “wait his turn.”
There’s no disputing the presence of both casual and pernicious sexism and racism in this campaign as well as in the culture at large. And yes, one can read a Kool-Aid reference in any number of ways. “Drunk the Kool-Aid” is clearly a reference to Jonestown. Reading it in other ways can only be understood as reflecting what’s on someone else’s mind, not on mine.
But, we’re pleased your reading Toxic Culture. Come back any time. http://toxicculture.wordpress.com.
As someone who had a hand (albeit minimal) in Erik’s “outrageous mischaracterizations” of your post. I was compelled by your comment to post a rejoinder of sorts.
First of all, I’m not willing to go as far as others who’ve written here in claiming that racism is more acceptable than sexism or vice-versa I think there’s a fair amount of middle ground in claiming that there is more than enough of either to go around. I also agree with you that as anecdotes hardly (if at all) constitute evidence, this is a discussion that goes round and round. So let’s just call the whole thing off.
Now as far as the coded language of “ambitious” and “driven” (particularly when juxtaposed to Biden’s absurd comments) I think there are some very significant distinctions. First, prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries, the Clinton campaign vowed to “throw the kitchen sink” at Obama. “Ambitious” and “Driven” are the polite ways of describing the extreme mud raking that was (and to a much lesser extent is) her campaign strategy. To borrow a claim from you “Reading it in other ways can only be understood as reflecting what’s on someone else’s mind.”
The second crucial distinction pertains to the very ethos of Clinton’s campaign as opposed to Obama’s. As these past few weeks have demonstrated, Hillary’s appeal is now almost exclusively predicated on her willingness to keep going, her tenacity, I’m not entirely sure that being labeled ambitious and driven is something the Clinton camp is trying to dodge. Don’t get me wrong, when NY state GOP chairman William Powers suggested that “Clinton is an angry woman driven by blind political ambition” there’s no question he was just being an asshole. As far as deployments of those terms in different contexts, from different speakers, I’m not entirely sure.
Leaving aside you (or your acquaintances) references to the Obama “hordes” (which are unquestionably offensive) I want to finish with a quick discussion of Kool-Aid, which as Erik pointed out above is indefensible, even in the context Jonestown. Isn’t the premise of the claim that Obama supporters have drunk the Kool-Aid a comment on their abilities to select candidates? Not only does it flat out insult Obama supporters by suggesting they’re unwilling (or unable) to pick a candidate based on critical reflection (Never mind of course, the fact that exit-poll after exit-poll demonstrates that college educated folk seem to prefer Obama), but it also plays right back into Biden’s nasty comments. Of course Obama isn’t attracting any of the voters because of the 728 bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored since 2005 clearly he’s wooed his supporters with smooth talk and his clean looks. Now, maybe this is another outrageous mischaracterization, but I’m pretty sure it was you who compared Obama to Jim Jones.
It was a pleasure checking our your blog and I look forward to much spirited discussion moving forward.
I didn’t get the impression that Kate was saying that Obama supporters were all non-critical-thinkers or that they are blind zombies who lurch from one rally to another. I think she was characterizing the report of some friend of hers. And even if she was saying that SOME Obama supporters have a sort of glassy mania about them, does that really mean that she’s saying that about ALL supporters? Does this absurd ever-thinner slicing of the nuance onion really even merit typing words onto the Internet about? I think Kate is right that “driven” is anti-woman code for “bitch” in some contexts. I also think Nathan is right that the campaign has embraced the label (“determined,” etc.) in some ways, as many working women do. Finally, saying supporters of something have “drunk the Kool-Aid” doesn’t mean that the thing being supported is equal to Jim Jones any more than it means that it is the Kool-Aid Man himself.
Anyway, this is a pretty minor thing to hash over, so maybe we can collabo on some primary mania this summer.