Most liberals probably think of feminism as a progressive political movement concerned with promoting core democratic values like equal rights, peace, and social justice. The evidence for this claim has always been thin, and it has been thinning throughout the course of this historic Democratic primary campaign as one prominent feminist after another has abandoned their long-held political principles to support Hillary Clinton's gender-based campaign.
This blatant act of in-group solidarity triumphing over reason, has irked me for quite some time. [Do people really think its any more justified to vote for a women because she's a woman, than it is to vote for a man because he's a man?] But I was never actually pissed off....until today.
Yesterday, news broke of an interview Geraldine Ferraro gave to a small California paper on March 7, in which she said the following:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any colour) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
The [predictable] media furore surrounding these remarks then elicited this very bizarre, but very telling response from Ms. Ferraro:
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"[SIC]
Now, let us dispense with the standard "Is this racist? / Is this not racist?" questions, and really focus on the quite stunning claims made here.
Claim 1. Obama is winning because he's black.
A. This claim has always seemed a bit bizarre to me. Yes, there are undoubtedly a great number of people who vote for Obama because he is black. African Americans and the highly educated would fall especially into this category, and I personally know a few of each who have done just that. Surely, however, there are also people who are voting against Obama because he is black. Poor whites and hispanics would be the suspects here. And yeah, I know a few of these folks as well.
You can't possibly make the charge that Obama is benefiting from his race unless you know which of the above effects is greater. And given people's reluctance to talk about racism in opinion polls, hard data is hard to come by. The best we can do is to look at the exit polls using surrogate variables like race, income, or education. And here the evidence is mixed. Surely Obama won South Carolina, Georgia, and Missisippi because of his race. But he probably lost Southeastern Ohio and Southwest Texas for the same reason.
B. Even if the net effect of Obama's race was a positive for him, it would still have to be compared to the net effect of Clinton's gender. And here, two statistics really stand out. 57 percent of the Democratic primary electorate is female. And 13 percent is black. Even accounting for Obama's sky-high margins in the African-American community, Clinton has a much larger potential base of in-group support. This was the reason why Clinton was (despite Gloria Steinhem's protestations) considered such a frontrunner for most of this campaign. Again, hard statistics are difficult on this question, but this much we can say: To claim that the net effect of Obama's race outweighs the net effect of Clinton's gender requires evidence we don't have and would be unlikely in any case given the size of their respective in-group bases.
C. Ms. Ferraro's assertion is incredibly dismissive of the many other reasons why people would vote for Obama, including his dovish position on the war, his youth, his newness to Washington, his apparent intelligence, his superior oratory, his message of hope, his message of change, and ,perhaps most crucially, the fact that his campaign actually organized a 50 state delegate strategy, while Clinton didn't even bother to show up in much of the country.
D. Finally, Obama has taken great pains not to run as the "black candidate." But even if he did, how is that any different than running as the "woman candidate"? Is voting for a black man because he is black any more unsavoury than voting for a woman because she's a woman? Apparently Geraldine Ferraro thinks so. In her endorsement press release, Ferraro was more than clear about why she endorsed Hillary Clinton. She endorsed Hillary because Hillary is a woman. How is that different from America endorsing Obama because Obama is black?
Claim 2. Obama wouldn't be winning if he were a woman.
This is quite a strange claim to be making given that Hillary Clinton herself has racked up quite a respectable score running, quite necessarily ,as a woman. It seems much of America (including this dairy's author) is ready to vote for a woman president. And a Ms. Barack Obama may legitimately be more appealing than Ms. Clinton. Imagine Barack Obama as a woman. Young. Good looking. Intelligent. A gifted speaker. I think she'd give Hillary a run for her money. Black or white.
Claim 3. Pointing Out the Logical Errors in the Claims 1 and 2 is "Racist Against Whites"
A. This claim is absurd on its face. First, Ferraro declares that Obama is untouchable because any criticism you make of him, he deflects with a cry of racism. Then, Ferraro deflects criticism of this declaration with a cry of racism.
B. I invite anyone to give me one example where Obama actually deflected criticism of his policy proposals specifically or his candidacy generally by crying race.
This is a manifestly illogical argument, which puts it in good company with the two above. Nothing Geraldine Ferraro said in that interview or has said since has made any rational sense whatsoever, which begs the question - why is she saying any of it?
Some will say it is an accident. An old woman who's off her rocker. But I think this is more likely part of a deliberate strategy to scare up the votes of those famous white racists and feminists of all colours in Pennsylvania.
When Ferraro is saying things like "That's racists against whites", she is clearly trying to start a race war in the Democratic party between lower-income whites (who are quite numerous in Pennsylvania) and blacks (who Clinton has already written off). Using a high profile surrogate like Ferraro ensures press coverage, and has the added benefit of appealing to older women who remember Ferraro's candidacy.
Obama will win the big cities and the college towns. For Hillary Clinton, the road to the White House runs through the part of Alabama that's in between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Going racial against Obama is her only shot at the huge victory she needs. And feminist "progressives" like Geraldine Ferrero are more than happy to be Hillary's foot soilders in this ugly, racist war. So long as a woman ends up in the White House, anything is justifiable. Even dividing our party and our nation along racial lines is OK, so long as it inspires a little six year old girl somewhere to reach for the stars.
Shame on Hillary Clinton. Shame on Geraldine Ferraro. And shame on the Steinham/Ferraro branch of feminism which subordinates means to ends, and embraces racism in the name of women's liberation.