Is one obliged to support the Presidential candidacy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton simply because one strongly supports women's rights and the increased participation of women in American politics? If so, would one also be obliged to support a Condoleeza Rice or Ann Coulter presidency because they, too, are women? I don't believe so.
Rather, I believe that those of us who strongly believe in women's equality should apply a four-part Women's Equality Balancing Test, weighing (1) the history of legal exclusion of women from American politics and society as it effects the current political and economic status of women and their families; (2) the need for continued progress toward equality; (3) the contribution that the candidacy and election of a particular woman would make to that progress against (4) any serious countervailing reasons to oppose a woman candidate and to prefer one of her opponents instead. Party loyalty and other political values must be weighed with seriousness along with one's commitment to women's equality. I call these the four areas of inquiry the four prongs of the Women's Equality Balancing Test.
At present, women are woefully underrepresented in American politics, with a corresponding lack of economic advancement that impoverishes women, their children and families. Considering the sad and continuing history of exclusion of women from American political life, first legally and now culturally, those of us who value women's equality of opportunity must weigh opportunities to promote and achieve added political participation by women against countervailing reasons to oppose a particular woman who for a given elective post. For most of us, party loyalties and other political values will be fundamental considerations.
With that in mind, this discussion addresses the Women's Equality Balancing Test, including (1) the history of official and intentional exclusion of women from American politics and the progress of women; (2) the continuing political and economic disenfranchisement of women and their families in the present; (3) the contributions that a candidacy and election of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Condoleeza Rice could make to the amelioration of the political and financial conditions of women and their families in America, and finally (4) the above factors as balanced against countervailing reasons to oppose the election of Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice to the office of President of the United States.
With that, I conclude this diary and prepare to dedicate myself to researching and writing each of the four sections listed above, regarding the historical and continuing disenfranchisement of women as well as the progress that has been made; the political and economic conditions of women and their children in the present as correlated with the ongoing relative lack of political representation in high office; the relative contributions to be made by a Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice presidency; and all of these above factors as weighed and balanced reasons presented for opposing their potential candidacies.
Although I propose a formal framework for this mode of inquiry, yet each of us goes about such balancing daily, implicitly or explicitly, according to his/her own values, as manifested in outward political advocacy, speech and behavior.
Here at DailyKos, it is hoped that by formally assessing each of these four prongs as applied to the relative effects that a Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice presidency would on progressive causes, we can focus with increasing clarity on what is most important to Liberals and Progressives going forward.
Although the failure to weigh and balance the importance of women's participation in politics could lead to an inference that one does not value such participation, or is even hostile to it, yet the profound commitment of DailyKos readers to women's equality is repeatedly vindicated by their willingness to debate and grapple in their own ways with each of the 4-prongs of the Women's Equality Balancing Test.