![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigou[unlocked once I felt more confident that I'd managed to avoid unintentional inflammatory speech]
No matter where you stand in the political spectrum, there's no doubt that right now, as Americans, we really are seeing our world change. I remember visiting a friend, hanging out in his room when we heard his roommate yelling for us to get into the living room. There, we watched a live news feed of the citizens of Berlin pulling down the Wall. I felt like my legs had gone out from under me. To see something that had existed my entire life, crumbling under the force of people willing to say: no more. Amazing. Awesome. Breathtaking.
At the start of the Democratic primary, as the potential nominees dwindled down to two, at times it no longer mattered whether I agreed with both or neither or even the political positions. It was the simple fact that a major party, one of the major parties, could have a black man and a woman neck-and-neck. One way or another, this country would no longer be the same. No longer just white men lined up on the ballot sheet to command our highest offices. For the first time in my life, there was the potential, that the potential of "anyone can be president" would become, finally, an actuality.
In that sense, I find myself marveling at McCain's pick of VP. No matter how you look at it, one way or another, in November, this world I know will no longer be the same. That children across this country -- and those watching us from across borders and oceans -- will see that when this country tosses around the ideal of "any citizen could one day be president" that it's not hollow, it's true. Anyone, black, white, male, female, could achieve a high office of this land.
That said, over the past few days I've also found myself increasingly frustrated, but the only way to express that is to divide the politics from the personal. I mean: imagine, for a moment, that you agree closely enough with McCain that he has your vote. (And therefore, note, that there is no need in comments to say whether or not you actually would, why or why not, because this is hypothetical and therefore a post sans electoral politics, got that, so do please censor your editorializing: partisan politics are not relevant to this post.) Okay, so you have in your head a McCain who you agree with, or at least to the degree required that you'd find him a comfortable fit. Now, add in that he's selected a woman as his running mate, whose positions may swing to the left or right of the presidential nominee but are still somewhat close enough to your own that you can figure that it's not such a bad match. It's okay. It's acceptable.
Now that you have that in your head, you're in the mindset I've been in while I've turned this selection over in my head... and maybe you'll see why I've realized that the choice made -- though not for reasons of politics, or for reasons of party lines -- is downright insulting.
See, we may not have a lot of women in the upper echelons of the two major parties, but we do still have women who are both powerful and impressive. If the selection has a coldly political side of capturing women's votes, and therefore a woman candidate is the preference, there are certainly women to choose regardless of your party affiliation. I've arbitrarily set 2006 or later as "junior politico" level -- that's 18 months or fewer at the national level -- since we'd want someone experienced, right? This is the second-most-powerful position in the free world we're trying to fill, so we want a solid and capable resume. Even disregarding freshmen or widow-appointee politicos, we still have:
From the Senate, there's
From the House, there's:
Governer? That adds in:
That's 37 choices if you swing towards Democrat, and 20 choices if you swing towards Republican.
That's a lot of choices.
That's a lot of experienced, ground-breaking, incredible women.
Which is where my basic sense of offense comes in: if there are this many amazing women from among the ranks of experienced politicos, why pick a woman whose greatest political experience amounts to six years as the mayor of a very small town, and not even a full term served yet as governor?
I'm not saying being a mayor isn't a tough job; I'm sure it is, and I know for certain that it can be even tougher in a small town where you're rubbing shoulders with everyone on a daily basis and everyone really does know everyone. But it still seems like... well, I just have trouble being all that impressed when I also know the town in question has fewer residents than the entire student body + staff of my high school. At the university I attended, not counting the other three classes, postgrads, staff or faculty -- just the graduating class was larger than that small town, by 2K heads. CP currently attends a university with its own zip code and a population ten times the size of that small town. (You want management skills? Be the dean of that university.) I'm not saying a small town background is bad, or that it's less adequate than something with more sizeable numbers. I think it'd work perfectly fine for a starting point, and it has, for many folks. But I'd like to see a bit more, something that shows you may have begun in a place where pretty much everyone knows you, but that you reached past that to bigger things.
That brings me to the second part that I find uncomfortable: the repetition -- and by those of the candidate's own party, no less -- that the current position is in some part due to being the "at least it's not that other guy" candidate. A relative landslide in an election is one thing, but viewed in the light of sweeping out a previous politico whose approval ratings were in the negatives... well, uhm. Again, not that this is bad in and of itself, but... I'd prefer to see a full term followed by being re-elected. I'd like to see the position filled wasn't because of chance or political circumstances, but because the governor did a good enough job that his/her constituency wanted him/her back.
My point is that it's not like a junior politico -- who, in the words of a fellow party-member, has held office for "about two minutes" -- is the only choice. Look at that list above, from the House, from the Senate, from the Governor's mansions from Hawaii to Connecticut. There are a lot of options, certainly far more than when I first-ever registered to vote. There have got to be women on that list who have significant political experience, who check off the "small town origin" box and yet also have "run with the big dogs" time as well, who have brokered deals on the national level and have had to work both partisan and bipartisan structures to achieve their goals, who have been elected and proven themselves and been re-elected. Of those thirty-seven women, or those twenty women, there's got to be someone in there who satisfies whatever political party lines you (or this hypothetical presidential nominee) may prefer, but who have also been vetted thoroughly not just by a group of information-digging assistants but also by their own constituency.
That's why I find such a choice -- of a junior, unvetted, relatively unproven governor -- so offensive. It's like hiring a new CIO for your company and passing over all the women with long experience and full resumes and picking the greenest mid-level manager instead. Why? What the hell does that achieve?
And that's why, when I see the soundbite of the VP-selection crowing that her selection will shatter the glass ceiling, I want to just shake my head. No, darling, you're not going to shatter the glass ceiling. If anything, you risk crystallizing it to the point that it's four fricking feet thick. That's the danger of a token, that's the danger of an inexperienced token, and that's what has me so goddamned pissed off.
Because under the selection, I can't help but think: if you pick a woman who hasn't proven she can do the job, who has no experience doing the job, who may not flail under pressure but upon being vetted is revealed as a far-less-than-adequate (by whatever means or measurement), you know what's going to happen? It's this, plain and simple: you're going to become a walking example of why women shouldn't hold that office. Geraldine Ferraro and her taxes was one thing, but I can't recall anyone getting on Ferraro's case about her actual proven track record being inadequate... in this case? Totally inadequate. Totally setting up the situation for failure -- now, or later -- and opening the door to a boatload of people nodding their all-knowing heads and saying, see, that's why we've never elected a woman for VP or P, because look at that, they can't handle it.
I can't see any reason to pick a running mate with so little experience, so many potential back-story issues, so little time in the public eye, than if on some level you don't really want her -- or her fellow female politicos -- to look good, to succeed? What other message could I possibly get out of this? If you really want to satisfy that "woman on the ballot" requirement, and you really want to succeed, wouldn't you make the effort to pick a running mate who you know for certain won't go down in flames? There are scandals and controversies around nearly every damn politician I can name; it's part of the game. No one is ever going to please everyone, all the time: but at least those politicos with long-standing histories and broad influence have backstories already settled. Sure, you could snark about Hutchinson's scandal over improper use of her office but that case was acquited. It's done. You may fuss over whether Boxer should have been penalized more during the House banking scandal, but it's over now, and the dust has settled. The major skeletons have already been paraded down Main Street; there would be few surprises, and the fewer suprises, the more the person in question is armed against attacks. Opening the public eye to the life of someone who has not had such perusal -- and in fact is the object of an ongoing investigation -- is setting that person up, not just for failure but for potential humiliation at the same time.
And worst of all is that when we're talking about a category -- woman, or person of color -- which has historically been shut out of the white-boy-club, the danger is a hundred times more: oh, see, we were right. A woman can't do this. A black man can't do this. And the glass ceiling slams down harder, gets thicker, reinforced with the knowing nods of a hundred thousand bigots the country over who relax in their certainty that this proves it, y'know, that it's not a place for a woman.
I don't like the fact that the first token on the scene has to be that much better, that much stronger, that much smarter than the white-boy-network, but I won't deny that it is the way it works. If you're going to break that barrier, you do have to be stronger, smarter, better. You do have to do every single thing the status quo can do, and do it better, and do it backwards and in high heels. It's tiresome. It's wearying. It's difficult. It can be frustrating and sometimes heart-breaking and often soul-taking. But that's how the ceiling gets broken, that's the standard you've got to meet if you're going to break that barrier hard enough and wide enough for anyone to follow you.
In watching the newsfeed videos, I'd like to think that the reason attendees booed Palin's mention of Clinton was because Clinton is ideologically opposed in every possible way to Palin's political positions. But after thinking about it, I don't think that's really the reason. I do think that we are a better people than that, that we can recognize another person's contribution and inherent value despite disagreeing with them -- but I think in this case, the disapproval wasn't because Palin may have been implying she somehow stood with Clinton. I think it was because, on some undercurrent level we can't always articulate, that the audience was letting Palin know that what she may see as "being another woman following in the break-the-ceiling footsteps of an experienced Senator" is, to that audience, not her purpose, and that they're not interested in her trying to lay that veneer over it.
Maybe this junior, mid-level manager, inexperienced politico jumped at the chance to take a national role on the idealistic, hopeful grounds that she, too, could cut a swathe through the old-boy barriers just like Hillary Clinton and Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Nancy Pelosi and Condoleeza Rice and all the rest. And I wouldn't be surprised if some part of that, a very human part I'd say, also thought: and to do it while standing up for one's personal/familial values that aren't so moderate -- or, in a less positive sense, so compromised sold-out -- as the experienced politicos who've had to bend to consitituency and party demands. Wow, to stand in the ranks of those who made history, and to do it while remaining true to your values, what a chance! ...right?
That's why, of anyone on the stage right now, I do feel sorriest for this young (relatively speaking) inexperienced person who isn't even sure what the vice-presidential position is, for this person who's never stood before a bank of reporters and had to remember that if you say "China" and not "mainland China" that you could be creating a boatload of diplomatic waves that it'll take a lot of talking and a lot of apologizing to work your way out from under -- and that such a tiny gaffe is nothing compared to the risks of opening your mouth and speaking foolishly to show how little prepared you are versus keeping your mouth shut and proving only that you don't have an answer at all. And I feel especially sorry for anyone so little prepared for the level of criticism, critique, and study as the person who may stand one step away from the most powerful position in the free world.
The grilling you get in a state-wide election for governor is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to having your personal and private life dragged out in front of the world, yes, the entire world, and it can hardly be anything but a brutal shock. It takes a very tough skin, an incredibly thick skin, to wade through the political waters and not find some of the exchanges hurtful on a personal level, and that skin doesn't come overnight, and that toughness is one I ascribe -- from personal experience, even, and a lot of worldly observation in the nation's capital -- to having years of scar tissue behind you to be able to remain unflappable in the face of unending, merciless observation.
Maybe it's possible that, all other things being equal, this particular selection has a toughness of her own. Maybe it's possible that she could learn fast enough, quick enough, to hit the ground running. But that miscalculation in her very first speech tells me that on some level, what she thinks she can provide -- and what she's expected to provide or is expected to fulfill -- are two different things, enough that I wouldn't be surprised if her confidence in measuring her role isn't shaken to some degree (and that degree then being compounded by the knowledge that every single news station in the country is potentially replaying the moment, over and over). A politician misjudging a crowd so thoroughly as to be strongly booed is a pretty bad misjudgment, when you think about it, and it'd shake anyone.
I don't know why this governor was selected over any other applicants, male or female. If it's to get the female vote, I find it offensive and insulting that the campaign-dogs assume voters would be just peachy with an inexperienced, currently-under-investigation, unproven junior politico from an often-ignored, less-populated, state purely because of gender. That's not good enough, not when there are so many experienced and powerful and impressive women on both sides of the partisan line. If it's to get the religious vote, again, it's still offensive and insulting because again, there are plenty of experienced and capable and proven politicos -- male and female -- who could fill the position and do it well: do these campaign-runners really believe that we're such dupes as to consider all candidates interchangeable so long as that single requirement is satisfied?
We're talking about a running mate who's not just running for VP but must also be considered as potential presidential material, given the main nominee would be the oldest-ever first-time president and has battled several cases of cancer. In that case, any wise choice is one that must doubly prove his/her abilities not just to serve as the veep but also the potential prez. Do I really want someone in that position who was chosen solely, or predominantly, on the basis of his/her gender? Or someone chosen solely, or predominantly, on the basis of his/her religious values? There are too many other excellent choices currently out there for me to accept that this would be all-or-nothing: the option does exist for me to be able to say, for anyone to say, that I could choose gender, religion, and experience -- with the certainty that given the circumstances of this particular election, experience should come first. Some kind of experience, on a national level.
So why choose someone unknown, unproven, and expose them to the dogs and risk such monumental failure -- unless you just didn't care? Unless all they're doing is keeping the spot warm, providing some kind of symbolic value? And if they get ripped apart in the process, humiliated or just plain ravaged by the constant unending unmerciless prying, so what?
Sorry, honey. Maybe you think you've managed to grab the brass ring and in doing so you're hauling yourself up to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the trailblazing women of our generation and those before us. But you're not, and you haven't. Nothing I see indicates that you are ready for it, not now. Maybe in ten years. Maybe in five. But not now, and the idealism, perhaps even some bit of arrogance, to believe that you could may be blinding you to the fact that what you think you're providing -- and the role you really fill -- are not at all the same.
Worse yet, the harder and farther you fall, the more you're going to be proof for every Tom, Dick and misogynist Harry who wants to argue that women shouldn't hold such roles. Are you ready for that? Are you truly ready? Do you really think you can learn fast enough to handle the international demands of the vice-presidency and hold up under the doubled pressure of being a woman in that position?
So, I would like to believe that this could be a moment in our history that changes so much. I would like to be less cynical. But I'm also old enough and seen enough that I can't deny the cynicism that asks: why pick this young woman, inexperienced, unknown, unproven? It seems like such a political ploy, a purely calculating move of identity politics, with no real care nor concern for what our wide-open, youtube-rampant, blog-heavy, fast-forward world will do in the process. It does nothing but make me pity this woman who's going to get it with both barrels... and it completely turns me off of the nominee who chose her -- and that's regardless of the fact that in this hypothetical situation that this hypothetical-McCain is one with whom I agree down the board.
The nail in the coffin? Look at the picture of the nominee and the veep pick: the older gentleman, a decade older than my own father, and the attractive young woman who could be my older sister, who could be the nominee's own daughter. Look at the massive disparity in their ages, in their experience, in their power, in their influence. Look at the contrast. Then look at the comment made by one of the nominee's own staff, shortly after the selection was announced:
"She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years," according to Charlie Black.
Am I the only one who finds that not just incredibly demeaning -- but also a truly disturbing visual?
No matter where you stand in the political spectrum, there's no doubt that right now, as Americans, we really are seeing our world change. I remember visiting a friend, hanging out in his room when we heard his roommate yelling for us to get into the living room. There, we watched a live news feed of the citizens of Berlin pulling down the Wall. I felt like my legs had gone out from under me. To see something that had existed my entire life, crumbling under the force of people willing to say: no more. Amazing. Awesome. Breathtaking.
At the start of the Democratic primary, as the potential nominees dwindled down to two, at times it no longer mattered whether I agreed with both or neither or even the political positions. It was the simple fact that a major party, one of the major parties, could have a black man and a woman neck-and-neck. One way or another, this country would no longer be the same. No longer just white men lined up on the ballot sheet to command our highest offices. For the first time in my life, there was the potential, that the potential of "anyone can be president" would become, finally, an actuality.
In that sense, I find myself marveling at McCain's pick of VP. No matter how you look at it, one way or another, in November, this world I know will no longer be the same. That children across this country -- and those watching us from across borders and oceans -- will see that when this country tosses around the ideal of "any citizen could one day be president" that it's not hollow, it's true. Anyone, black, white, male, female, could achieve a high office of this land.
That said, over the past few days I've also found myself increasingly frustrated, but the only way to express that is to divide the politics from the personal. I mean: imagine, for a moment, that you agree closely enough with McCain that he has your vote. (And therefore, note, that there is no need in comments to say whether or not you actually would, why or why not, because this is hypothetical and therefore a post sans electoral politics, got that, so do please censor your editorializing: partisan politics are not relevant to this post.) Okay, so you have in your head a McCain who you agree with, or at least to the degree required that you'd find him a comfortable fit. Now, add in that he's selected a woman as his running mate, whose positions may swing to the left or right of the presidential nominee but are still somewhat close enough to your own that you can figure that it's not such a bad match. It's okay. It's acceptable.
Now that you have that in your head, you're in the mindset I've been in while I've turned this selection over in my head... and maybe you'll see why I've realized that the choice made -- though not for reasons of politics, or for reasons of party lines -- is downright insulting.
See, we may not have a lot of women in the upper echelons of the two major parties, but we do still have women who are both powerful and impressive. If the selection has a coldly political side of capturing women's votes, and therefore a woman candidate is the preference, there are certainly women to choose regardless of your party affiliation. I've arbitrarily set 2006 or later as "junior politico" level -- that's 18 months or fewer at the national level -- since we'd want someone experienced, right? This is the second-most-powerful position in the free world we're trying to fill, so we want a solid and capable resume. Even disregarding freshmen or widow-appointee politicos, we still have:
From the Senate, there's
- Barbara Boxer (D)
Barbara Mikulski (D)
Blanche Lincoln (D)
Debbie Stabenow (D)
Dianne Feinstein (D)
Elizabeth Dole (R)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)
Lisa Murkowski (R)
Maria Cantwell (D)
Mary Landrieu (D)
Olympia Snowe (R)
Patty Murray (D)
Susan Collins (R)
From the House, there's:
- Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
Donna M.C. Christensen (D-VI)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Kay Granger (R-TX)
Darlene Hooley (D-OR)
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Heather Wilson (R-NM)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Judith Borg Biggert (R-IL)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Susan A. Davis (D-CA)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Hilda Solis (D-CA)
Diane Watson (D-CA)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU)
Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL)
Candice Miller (R-MI)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
Melissa Bean (D-IL)
Thelma Drake (R-VA)
Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL)
Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
Governer? That adds in:
- Ruth Ann Minner-D
Linda Lingle-R
Jennifer Granholm-D
Janet Napolitano-D
Kathleen Sebelius-D
M. Jodi Rell-R
Christine Gregoire-D
That's 37 choices if you swing towards Democrat, and 20 choices if you swing towards Republican.
That's a lot of choices.
That's a lot of experienced, ground-breaking, incredible women.
Which is where my basic sense of offense comes in: if there are this many amazing women from among the ranks of experienced politicos, why pick a woman whose greatest political experience amounts to six years as the mayor of a very small town, and not even a full term served yet as governor?
I'm not saying being a mayor isn't a tough job; I'm sure it is, and I know for certain that it can be even tougher in a small town where you're rubbing shoulders with everyone on a daily basis and everyone really does know everyone. But it still seems like... well, I just have trouble being all that impressed when I also know the town in question has fewer residents than the entire student body + staff of my high school. At the university I attended, not counting the other three classes, postgrads, staff or faculty -- just the graduating class was larger than that small town, by 2K heads. CP currently attends a university with its own zip code and a population ten times the size of that small town. (You want management skills? Be the dean of that university.) I'm not saying a small town background is bad, or that it's less adequate than something with more sizeable numbers. I think it'd work perfectly fine for a starting point, and it has, for many folks. But I'd like to see a bit more, something that shows you may have begun in a place where pretty much everyone knows you, but that you reached past that to bigger things.
That brings me to the second part that I find uncomfortable: the repetition -- and by those of the candidate's own party, no less -- that the current position is in some part due to being the "at least it's not that other guy" candidate. A relative landslide in an election is one thing, but viewed in the light of sweeping out a previous politico whose approval ratings were in the negatives... well, uhm. Again, not that this is bad in and of itself, but... I'd prefer to see a full term followed by being re-elected. I'd like to see the position filled wasn't because of chance or political circumstances, but because the governor did a good enough job that his/her constituency wanted him/her back.
My point is that it's not like a junior politico -- who, in the words of a fellow party-member, has held office for "about two minutes" -- is the only choice. Look at that list above, from the House, from the Senate, from the Governor's mansions from Hawaii to Connecticut. There are a lot of options, certainly far more than when I first-ever registered to vote. There have got to be women on that list who have significant political experience, who check off the "small town origin" box and yet also have "run with the big dogs" time as well, who have brokered deals on the national level and have had to work both partisan and bipartisan structures to achieve their goals, who have been elected and proven themselves and been re-elected. Of those thirty-seven women, or those twenty women, there's got to be someone in there who satisfies whatever political party lines you (or this hypothetical presidential nominee) may prefer, but who have also been vetted thoroughly not just by a group of information-digging assistants but also by their own constituency.
That's why I find such a choice -- of a junior, unvetted, relatively unproven governor -- so offensive. It's like hiring a new CIO for your company and passing over all the women with long experience and full resumes and picking the greenest mid-level manager instead. Why? What the hell does that achieve?
And that's why, when I see the soundbite of the VP-selection crowing that her selection will shatter the glass ceiling, I want to just shake my head. No, darling, you're not going to shatter the glass ceiling. If anything, you risk crystallizing it to the point that it's four fricking feet thick. That's the danger of a token, that's the danger of an inexperienced token, and that's what has me so goddamned pissed off.
Because under the selection, I can't help but think: if you pick a woman who hasn't proven she can do the job, who has no experience doing the job, who may not flail under pressure but upon being vetted is revealed as a far-less-than-adequate (by whatever means or measurement), you know what's going to happen? It's this, plain and simple: you're going to become a walking example of why women shouldn't hold that office. Geraldine Ferraro and her taxes was one thing, but I can't recall anyone getting on Ferraro's case about her actual proven track record being inadequate... in this case? Totally inadequate. Totally setting up the situation for failure -- now, or later -- and opening the door to a boatload of people nodding their all-knowing heads and saying, see, that's why we've never elected a woman for VP or P, because look at that, they can't handle it.
I can't see any reason to pick a running mate with so little experience, so many potential back-story issues, so little time in the public eye, than if on some level you don't really want her -- or her fellow female politicos -- to look good, to succeed? What other message could I possibly get out of this? If you really want to satisfy that "woman on the ballot" requirement, and you really want to succeed, wouldn't you make the effort to pick a running mate who you know for certain won't go down in flames? There are scandals and controversies around nearly every damn politician I can name; it's part of the game. No one is ever going to please everyone, all the time: but at least those politicos with long-standing histories and broad influence have backstories already settled. Sure, you could snark about Hutchinson's scandal over improper use of her office but that case was acquited. It's done. You may fuss over whether Boxer should have been penalized more during the House banking scandal, but it's over now, and the dust has settled. The major skeletons have already been paraded down Main Street; there would be few surprises, and the fewer suprises, the more the person in question is armed against attacks. Opening the public eye to the life of someone who has not had such perusal -- and in fact is the object of an ongoing investigation -- is setting that person up, not just for failure but for potential humiliation at the same time.
And worst of all is that when we're talking about a category -- woman, or person of color -- which has historically been shut out of the white-boy-club, the danger is a hundred times more: oh, see, we were right. A woman can't do this. A black man can't do this. And the glass ceiling slams down harder, gets thicker, reinforced with the knowing nods of a hundred thousand bigots the country over who relax in their certainty that this proves it, y'know, that it's not a place for a woman.
I don't like the fact that the first token on the scene has to be that much better, that much stronger, that much smarter than the white-boy-network, but I won't deny that it is the way it works. If you're going to break that barrier, you do have to be stronger, smarter, better. You do have to do every single thing the status quo can do, and do it better, and do it backwards and in high heels. It's tiresome. It's wearying. It's difficult. It can be frustrating and sometimes heart-breaking and often soul-taking. But that's how the ceiling gets broken, that's the standard you've got to meet if you're going to break that barrier hard enough and wide enough for anyone to follow you.
In watching the newsfeed videos, I'd like to think that the reason attendees booed Palin's mention of Clinton was because Clinton is ideologically opposed in every possible way to Palin's political positions. But after thinking about it, I don't think that's really the reason. I do think that we are a better people than that, that we can recognize another person's contribution and inherent value despite disagreeing with them -- but I think in this case, the disapproval wasn't because Palin may have been implying she somehow stood with Clinton. I think it was because, on some undercurrent level we can't always articulate, that the audience was letting Palin know that what she may see as "being another woman following in the break-the-ceiling footsteps of an experienced Senator" is, to that audience, not her purpose, and that they're not interested in her trying to lay that veneer over it.
Maybe this junior, mid-level manager, inexperienced politico jumped at the chance to take a national role on the idealistic, hopeful grounds that she, too, could cut a swathe through the old-boy barriers just like Hillary Clinton and Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Nancy Pelosi and Condoleeza Rice and all the rest. And I wouldn't be surprised if some part of that, a very human part I'd say, also thought: and to do it while standing up for one's personal/familial values that aren't so moderate -- or, in a less positive sense, so compromised sold-out -- as the experienced politicos who've had to bend to consitituency and party demands. Wow, to stand in the ranks of those who made history, and to do it while remaining true to your values, what a chance! ...right?
That's why, of anyone on the stage right now, I do feel sorriest for this young (relatively speaking) inexperienced person who isn't even sure what the vice-presidential position is, for this person who's never stood before a bank of reporters and had to remember that if you say "China" and not "mainland China" that you could be creating a boatload of diplomatic waves that it'll take a lot of talking and a lot of apologizing to work your way out from under -- and that such a tiny gaffe is nothing compared to the risks of opening your mouth and speaking foolishly to show how little prepared you are versus keeping your mouth shut and proving only that you don't have an answer at all. And I feel especially sorry for anyone so little prepared for the level of criticism, critique, and study as the person who may stand one step away from the most powerful position in the free world.
The grilling you get in a state-wide election for governor is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to having your personal and private life dragged out in front of the world, yes, the entire world, and it can hardly be anything but a brutal shock. It takes a very tough skin, an incredibly thick skin, to wade through the political waters and not find some of the exchanges hurtful on a personal level, and that skin doesn't come overnight, and that toughness is one I ascribe -- from personal experience, even, and a lot of worldly observation in the nation's capital -- to having years of scar tissue behind you to be able to remain unflappable in the face of unending, merciless observation.
Maybe it's possible that, all other things being equal, this particular selection has a toughness of her own. Maybe it's possible that she could learn fast enough, quick enough, to hit the ground running. But that miscalculation in her very first speech tells me that on some level, what she thinks she can provide -- and what she's expected to provide or is expected to fulfill -- are two different things, enough that I wouldn't be surprised if her confidence in measuring her role isn't shaken to some degree (and that degree then being compounded by the knowledge that every single news station in the country is potentially replaying the moment, over and over). A politician misjudging a crowd so thoroughly as to be strongly booed is a pretty bad misjudgment, when you think about it, and it'd shake anyone.
I don't know why this governor was selected over any other applicants, male or female. If it's to get the female vote, I find it offensive and insulting that the campaign-dogs assume voters would be just peachy with an inexperienced, currently-under-investigation, unproven junior politico from an often-ignored, less-populated, state purely because of gender. That's not good enough, not when there are so many experienced and powerful and impressive women on both sides of the partisan line. If it's to get the religious vote, again, it's still offensive and insulting because again, there are plenty of experienced and capable and proven politicos -- male and female -- who could fill the position and do it well: do these campaign-runners really believe that we're such dupes as to consider all candidates interchangeable so long as that single requirement is satisfied?
We're talking about a running mate who's not just running for VP but must also be considered as potential presidential material, given the main nominee would be the oldest-ever first-time president and has battled several cases of cancer. In that case, any wise choice is one that must doubly prove his/her abilities not just to serve as the veep but also the potential prez. Do I really want someone in that position who was chosen solely, or predominantly, on the basis of his/her gender? Or someone chosen solely, or predominantly, on the basis of his/her religious values? There are too many other excellent choices currently out there for me to accept that this would be all-or-nothing: the option does exist for me to be able to say, for anyone to say, that I could choose gender, religion, and experience -- with the certainty that given the circumstances of this particular election, experience should come first. Some kind of experience, on a national level.
So why choose someone unknown, unproven, and expose them to the dogs and risk such monumental failure -- unless you just didn't care? Unless all they're doing is keeping the spot warm, providing some kind of symbolic value? And if they get ripped apart in the process, humiliated or just plain ravaged by the constant unending unmerciless prying, so what?
Sorry, honey. Maybe you think you've managed to grab the brass ring and in doing so you're hauling yourself up to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the trailblazing women of our generation and those before us. But you're not, and you haven't. Nothing I see indicates that you are ready for it, not now. Maybe in ten years. Maybe in five. But not now, and the idealism, perhaps even some bit of arrogance, to believe that you could may be blinding you to the fact that what you think you're providing -- and the role you really fill -- are not at all the same.
Worse yet, the harder and farther you fall, the more you're going to be proof for every Tom, Dick and misogynist Harry who wants to argue that women shouldn't hold such roles. Are you ready for that? Are you truly ready? Do you really think you can learn fast enough to handle the international demands of the vice-presidency and hold up under the doubled pressure of being a woman in that position?
So, I would like to believe that this could be a moment in our history that changes so much. I would like to be less cynical. But I'm also old enough and seen enough that I can't deny the cynicism that asks: why pick this young woman, inexperienced, unknown, unproven? It seems like such a political ploy, a purely calculating move of identity politics, with no real care nor concern for what our wide-open, youtube-rampant, blog-heavy, fast-forward world will do in the process. It does nothing but make me pity this woman who's going to get it with both barrels... and it completely turns me off of the nominee who chose her -- and that's regardless of the fact that in this hypothetical situation that this hypothetical-McCain is one with whom I agree down the board.
The nail in the coffin? Look at the picture of the nominee and the veep pick: the older gentleman, a decade older than my own father, and the attractive young woman who could be my older sister, who could be the nominee's own daughter. Look at the massive disparity in their ages, in their experience, in their power, in their influence. Look at the contrast. Then look at the comment made by one of the nominee's own staff, shortly after the selection was announced:
"She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years," according to Charlie Black.
Am I the only one who finds that not just incredibly demeaning -- but also a truly disturbing visual?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2 Sep 2008 04:57 pm (UTC)I took the lists straight off Wiki's list of women in national-level political positions, so there's a fair chance it's not entirely accurate. That said, there are also plenty of women (as Tharain above mentioned) who are not currently holding political office but have significant years of experience who could also be considered, and probably would've been just as much a surprise to those not really paying attention -- and yet also would have come with a lot of credentials and a history with the media and a major track record.
McCain has his own track record of going for the trophy wife, but I'm willing to let that be his personal issue and not really my concern. It becomes my concern, though, when I get the sense that he's also using that trophy-wife-radar as the means to pick his VP. That's just not what I call intelligent criteria for a political decision. It can work in your private life, if that's what gets you up in the morning. That's not how good govt should work.
no subject
Date: 3 Sep 2008 01:12 am (UTC)I vote on issues first, the person themselves second. I don't get how people twist things up in their heads, to do it the other way around. I know they do it, but I don't get the logic.
Trophy wife, trophy VP pick...nice patern there John.