An Authentic Woman for U.S. Politics
Mark Lance’s political characterization of Hillary Clinton (“Hill’s Far From Extreme, Even if She’s a Woman,” THE HOYA, Sept. 5, 2008, A3) was accurate, but as a professor who lauds the openness of progressive thought, he seems truly closed to conservative sentiment.
Lance makes a classic liberal mistake in his piece: He searches for a political rationale behind conservative contempt for Hillary; when he finds none, he explains away conservative sentiment in the familiar liberal narrative of deep-seated bigotry, “In a word: sexism.”
Not only is his conclusion as equally close-minded as those of the right-wing talk radio hosts he mocks early in his piece, it illuminates his intellectual disconnect from his “anthropological” specimen. The choice of “anthropological” in Lance’s opening sentence confirms his disconnect from those who does not believe liberal progressivism to be the highest form of intellectual enlightenment.
While his diction provides ample bait for anyone looking to perpetuate an unsophisticated right-left dialog, I would prefer to offer Professor Lance a possible explanation behind conservative disdain for Hillary. An understanding of conservative sentiment will further reveal why so many on the right are drawn to Palin.
As Professor Lance addresses in his piece, Hillary the Feminist is quite an interesting political creation. Hillary’s feminist allegiance is largely based on a rejection of the misogynistic portrayal of Hillary by some on the right: “If they say she’s a Commie Socialist, we must be supporting genuinely progressive ideals by voting for her.”
Politically, however, Hillary defines herself as a conventional masculine politician. Her primary campaign focused on her masculine strength and readiness to rule by contrasting her with what her campaign labeled as a weak and unready junior senator from Illinois.
So while she gladly welcomes the support of female voters, her political career has always defined itself through the masculine paradigm of American politics.
Hillary has succeeded in this model by offering a continuation of the Bill Clinton legacy to Democratic voters. This has led many on the right to dislike what they see as a disingenuous ersatz candidate: A woman who has succeeded not on her own merit and ideas but by tapping into her husband’s successful political machine.
While right-wing talk radio hosts might use misogynistic language when they speak of Hillary, it is over-simplistic and inaccurate to reduce conservative sentiment to simple bigotry. These radio hosts certainly don’t represent the feelings of the majority of Republican voters just as the Michael Moores of the left don’t represent all Democrats.
Moreover, John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate and the excitement among many conservatives that she has brought to the ticket illuminate the fault lines in Lance’s conclusion that it’s all about sexism. On the contrary, many on the right are ecstatic about having the first female on the Republican ticket.
Professor Lance comes across as particularly close-minded when he asserts that there are “virtually no authentically feminist voices … allowed in either party.” While Hillary may not speak to his version of authentic feminism, McCain has included what conservatives deem “authentic” in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Palin offers America a new type of female politician: one who emphasizes her maternal character and shows that masculine strength is not the only facet of effective leadership. She thus brings a powerful yet feminine balance to McCain’s masculine executive strength.
In picking this new type of female politician, the GOP has forced America to rethink the current paradigm of feminist politics.
Conservative female support for Palin further highlights the failure of liberal feminism to identify with the concerns of many women in America. So while Hillary supporters might still pull the lever for Obama this fall, they now have the choice for at least one authentic female voice come November.
Charlie Beller is a sophomore in the College and a member of Georgetown Students for McCain.
HOYA On-the-Go Podcast
NEW! Basketball Preview
Latest Issue
If you think she's "authentic," then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you....
No Hillary supporter with an ounce of principle would vote for McCain just because of Sarah Palin. Palin is the anti-Hillary in almost every way. Voting for the Republican ticket because there's a woman running is just as sexist as it would have been to vote against Hillary because she is a woman. You can't lump Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin together because they're both female. They are political opposites.
For the record, I don't think that the Republican Party's contempt for Hillary had anything to do with her gender. They showed the same contempt for every other Democratic candidate, just as the Democratic Party showed contempt for every Republican candidate. That's politics. But I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Palin is some sort of Clinton-substitute. She's no more authentic than any other politician is, and I don't care how small of a town she grew up in. Being from small-town America doesn't make you authentic--it makes you from small-town America. If authenticity means that you act on your beliefs in every situation regardless of opposition or dissent, a truly authentic person won't last long in politics. A good politician must be able to negotiate, compromise, and settle for mediocre when the alternative is much worse--because, as the Rolling Stones said, you can't always get what you want. I don't think that this "my way or the highway" mentality is admirable at all, but I think that's what a lot of people mean when they say a person is "authentic."
Mark Lance
Charlie:
First, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to my column. I wish more GU students would engage this way. Getting such a debate going is my main goal in writing this. That said, I don't agree with much of what you say, and will explain below why that is. But again, I commend the work you put into this, and your engagement in the issues.
Let's start at the beginning. Your first two paragraphs just make claims about me without any argument or explanation. Actually I endorse some elements of conservative thought. Also, as I've said many in my columns, I'm most certainly not a liberal and don't support the program of the Democrats.
3rd par: I don't "mock" right wing media folks, I quote them and point out the absurdity of their characterizations of CLinton.
5-6: Why "however"? Your 6th paragraph is just what I was arguing and clearly supports the claim that she isn't a genuine feminist.
7-8: Again, not disagreeing with me at all.
9: "While right-wing talk radio hosts might use misogynistic language when they speak of Hillary, it is over-simplistic and inaccurate to reduce conservative sentiment to simple bigotry. These radio hosts certainly don’t represent the feelings of the majority of Republican voters just as the Michael Moores of the left don’t represent all Democrats." So here we get to the point. Did I say they represented all conservatives? Certainly not. THey do, however represent millions. It is the largest segment of US media on several measures. Wildly more support that Michael Moore. ANd I was explaining the feelings of that crowd. NOwhere did I suggest such a silly thing as that "all conservatives" agree.
10: Actually, choosing a woman with right-wing views as way of pandering to American women fits precisely with my argument.
11: The suggestion that Palin is authentically feminist is just silly. It is like me declaring that Ralph Nader is conservative -- because that's what we anarchists mean by conservative.
"Palin offers America a new type of female politician: one who emphasizes her maternal character and shows that masculine strength is not the only facet of effective leadership. She thus brings a powerful yet feminine balance to McCain’s masculine executive strength." Right -- no emphasis on masculinity. Moose huntiing. Pit bulls with lipstick. Please.
The only thing that this selection has forced anyone to reconsider is the level of cynicism that Republicans are willing to engage in.
As for "authentic" I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
Yours,
Mark
İ Like Thehoya thanks youdizi izle haber program indir Şehitler ölmez
Post new comment