When I got an email this afternoon from The Nation, one of the pieces listed was this one by the long-time and well-known feminist writer Katha Pollitt, which is subtitled “It’s not his focus on the economy—it’s that he doesn’t seem to understand that the economy is structured by gender and race.”
I did not immediately write about it, and wondered whether calling attention to it might just engender some of the nastiness that has been too frequent on this site as the primary has continued.
As I have seen those supporting Clinton get challenged constantly, as I was earlier today in my diary about a Charles M. Blow column, all but accusing me of hypocrisy in repeating what he wrote while supporting Clinton, I thought perhaps a person of the stature of Pollitt might help some who do not support Clinton understand why someone of undoubted liberal credentials might choose not to support Bernie.
She does have a paragraph on electability:
Why didn’t Bernie get me? Well, there’s electability: I just don’t believe Americans are ready for a 74-year-old self-described socialist with a long far-left CV who would raise their taxes by quite a lot. By the time the Republicans got finished with him, he’d be the love child of Rosa Luxemburg and the Ayatollah Khomeini, and then it’s hello, President Trump. There’s the question, too, of how much Bernie could actually accomplish. Would he make an effective president, as I think Hillary will—all the more so now that she’s been forced to see that a significant part of the Democratic electorate is to her left?
But that is not her main reason. As she puts it simply, Bernie didn’t ask for my vote.
And part of why I wanted to be sure people saw this piece is because I think her explanation is important for many people, even as my reasons do not totally overlap with hers.
She is well aware of his voting record, and what she calls the “boilerplate” on issues on his website. Part of the paragraph where she gets into her concerns includes these words:
But there’s a difference between someone who votes the right way, and someone who introduces legislation and champions the issue. He never convinced me that gender issues, specifically the persistent subordination of women in every area of life, were of much concern to him. There were all those little tells. Pooh-poohing Planned Parenthood and NARAL as “establishment” when he didn’t get their endorsement. Arguing for parental leave because it allows a new mother “to stay home and bond with her baby” instead of as something that benefits fathers as well, and something that women need in order to work and advance on the job.
At the end of that paragraph, she is very blunt:
Is there a word for someone whose entitlement is so vast, so deep, so historically embedded, and so unconscious it includes the belief that they got where they are by a resolute devotion to fair play? It’s not reassuring that his senior campaign staff, like his long-time political inner circle, is almost entirely white and male.
On an issue that matters to women — and to those men who are feminists — Pollitt explains why supporting equal pay, while good, is insufficient:
Equal pay is great, but if women and men are funneled into different kinds of work by race and gender, with men’s jobs valued more because men are valued more, and if women are hobbled economically by doing most of the domestic labor and having to contend with prejudice against working mothers to boot, equal pay alone doesn’t solve the problem.
One key part of her criticism can be found in these words:
At 74, you are who you are. Bernie is a traditional class-based leftist for whom feminism is a distraction. Abortion, as he told Rolling Stone, is a “social issue.” Women’s mental and physical health, their economic survival, their ability to determine the shape of their own lives as men do, is a social issue? The clear implication is that reproductive rights (like guns and LGBT rights, which he mentions in the same breath) are secondary considerations, impediments to winning broad support for his populist economic proposals.
There are things Sanders has accomplished in this campaign that Pollitt acknowledges, but which for her are insufficient:
He’s changed the debate within the Democratic Party by showing that millions of voters want more than incremental, technocratic tinkering with growing inequality. For that, I’m grateful. But when it comes to dealing with the Republicans in November, I don’t think Bernie gets the awful reality we’re facing. Hillary does.
As I noted, my reasons do not fully overlap with those of Pollitt. I do think her piece, which contains some additional forceful statements, provides a clear example of why for some of us — who are long-dedicated to progressive and liberal causes — choose to support Clinton over Sanders.
Please note — this is not posted as a “bash Bernie” piece. So many times people have challenged me not understanding why someone like me can possibly support Cllnton over Sanders. For me there are lots of reasons, starting with electability to be sure. I have other reasons, which some who criticize or even attack me choose to ignore. That is their privilege.
I am just a school teacher who writes online, and sometimes some people pay attention to what I have to say.
Katha Pollitt is a major voice. She offers her reasons in the pages of a magazine which is fully dedicated to supporting Sanders, as is another writer there, Joan Walsh. It is to the magazine’s credit that it publishes and features the opinions of writers who disagree with the position of the publisher.
For the record, I posted this for informational purposes.
I expect some will appreciate it, others will not. So be it.
I do not intend to engage in dialog. I have explained why I posted it. If you disagree with the contents, your argument is with Pollitt, you can follow the link to the original, and offer your criticisms directly to her there.
You can of course also respond to them here. Just don’t wait around for a response from Pollitt — or from me.
Have a good evening.