Today, after finishing The Terror Dream by Susan Faludi, I've decided that this race is about gender - more than most people know. For this reason, I'm voting for the person best fit to wage that war - Hillary Clinton. I live in New York, and so will be casting my ballot for her on 2/5.
Because I'm writing a book about talk radio and publishing a peer reviewed article about gay-baiting in US political elections, I spend a lot of time paying attention to both the pop sides and the mainstream aspects of our nation's political discussions. What seems to emerge quite often is an oblique distinction between the parties as male and female. Lakoff argues that Democrats should embrace the distinction. I don't know what I think of that argument specifically, but I know what Republicans think of that. They certainly don't see the feminine democrat as anything to fear. Hence, references to Edwards as the "Breck Girl," and socialism as a "nanny state."
After reading Faludi's book, however, I've come to realize that we stand to lose far more by continuing to frame our political arguments in the same old way - by trying to out-male the alpha-party republicans. First of all, none of our candidates is willing to do it. An alpha-democrat in my opinion would try to strengthen unions, protect markets, address income discrepancies, address healthcare, and face national debt issues head on - that is rhetorically in public forums. Because most democratic candidates suck so badly (that is, they've abandoned so much of what it means to be a New Deal Democrat), what we actually end up getting is milquetoast corporate-friendly pukes, e.g., Bill Clinton).
Second, Gloria Steinem's piece in the NYT was spot on! If any woman ran for president with Obama's or Edward's resume, she'd be absolute toast. That needs to be addressed. That is just fucking wrong!
Third, that Clinton has taken a lot of corporate money, I'm led to say, "So what?" Of course she has. Because she's been a public servant and a mother for so long, she didn't get to amass Edwards wealth. And let's face it, Obama's collection of small contributions are a luxury that Clinton doesn't have because people are willing to look well past his lack of experience to avoid a Clinton candidacy. She shouldn't have to whore herself for corporate money, but our system necessitates it. Cut her some slack.
And what has come to be totally ass-twisted about the Republican version of masculinity is that it actually is a nut-snipped version of manhood. "Trust your country" Guiliani says. Fuck you! Answer questions! Have some balls and face your public! Asking you questions doesn't mean we don't adore you, precious Rudy. Since when did being a man mean not reading books, being stupid, and juvenile, and spending the college fund on a Hemi? I don't get it. The feminine has been recoded as smart, and deliberate - just about everything masculinity has been since the Renaissance. I say, "Run with it." If Clinton's being a woman means she's careful, thoughtful, literate, and can listen - I want that.
Supporting Clinton has far-reaching policy implications, if only understood in very oblique ways. Bush and the fuck-Nazi's shitting on our country right now have been waging a war against the feminine since the moment they arrived. I'm supporting Clinton because that war needs to end. I'm supporting Clinton because the spread of "democracy" advocated by Bush has worked to silence women, or maintain their "place" in traditional roles. I've been particularly moved to support Clinton because of the shitty treatment of the "Jersey Girls," the 9/11 widows attacked and torn to shreds by intolerant non-thinkers like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and various Republican office-holders.
None of this means that I don't like the other candidates. I've been a fan of Edward's populism since '04, but I've changed my mind. By the way, I'm a man who used to be a Republican - I outed myself as a Dem. 6 years ago. Today, I couldn't be more Democratic than I am.