Hilzoy has written a great post responding to Ferraro’s latest, racist op-ed. Go check it out.
Hilzoy also points to this article by Ta-Nehisi Coates in Slate:
There is peculiar bit of jujitsu that white public figures have employed recently whenever they’re called to account for saying something stupid about black people. When the hard questions start flying, said figure deflects them by claiming that any critical interrogation is tantamount to calling them a racist, which they most assuredly are not.
[List of various racist statements by public figures, who then said it was just crazy to use the “R” word, snipped.]
It gives me no joy to report that Geraldine Ferraro has now applied to join the ranks of the obviously nonracist. I was 8 when she ran for vice president and vaguely aware that a party that would promote a woman for an executive office might be a party that would one day give a kid like me a fair shake. Thus I’ve retched while watching Ferraro beeline to any television studio that would have her, flaunting her rainbow bona fides, and claiming that she’s being attacked “because she’s white” and demonized as a racist. […]
The bar for racism has been raised so high that one need be a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party to qualify. Had John McCain said that Hillary Clinton was only competitive in the presidential race because she was a woman, there’d be no dispute over whether the comment was sexist. And yet when the equivalent is said about a black person, it’s not only not racist, but any criticism of the statement is interpreted as an act of character assassination.
Aaargh!
Ta-Nehisi is one of my must-read bloggers, and the point about the raising of the bar for “racism” is right on target. It’s sucks that he detracted from his article with a single sentence of needless oppression olympics – especially since on his own blog, he’s frequently argued against such comparisons.
He continues:
In some measure, the narrowing of racism is an unfortunate relic of the civil rights movement, when activists got mileage out of dehumanizing racists and portraying them as ultra-violent Southern troglodytes. Whites may have been horrified by the fire hoses and police dogs turned on children, but they could rest easy knowing that neither they nor anyone they’d ever met would do such a thing. But most racism—indeed, the worst racism—is quaint and banal. There’s nothing sensationalistic about redlining or job discrimination.
This is something I’ve seen more often than I can count. People’s logic goes like this:
1) Racists are monsters in their hearts.
2) I know that in my heart, I’m not a monster.
3) Therefore, I can’t be racist.
4) How dare you call me a racist!
You can pretty much replace “racist” with “sexist” or “homophobe” or any sort of bigot, and the above “logic” will continue to be played out in thousands of conversations every day.
For example, I recently read this painful exchange between two great Canadian cartoonists, Dave Sim and Chester Brown. I say it was painful because Sim was at one time an important role model for me. Since then, he’s become a belligerent misogynist, who argues (among other things) that women are intellectually inferior to men.
Brown — a Toronto cartoonist and friend of Sim’s who has stood by Sim for years — argued, as nicely as he possibly could, that Sim’s views meet “the common usage definition” of misogyny. Sim responded:
In other words you think I’m the gender equivalent of a racist. This is what I’ve come to realize: that people genuinely believe that I’m the worst imaginable thing (literally: a non-person, a sub-human) in our society. That being the case the only honorable thing is to withdraw from society completely and limit my contact with society to necessities (my rep at Diamond, people I buy food from). Would you associate with anyone who thought you were a subhuman? […]
RE: Visits to Toronto…Would you associate with anyone you thought were a subhuman?
Hard to imagine a clearer-cut case of “I can’t be a bigot, because I’m not a monster” logic.
Had John McCain said that Hillary Clinton was only competitive in the presidential race because she was a woman, there’d be no dispute over whether the comment was sexist.
There would be a dispute.
The Dems are running two candidates who, while fine people and talented politicians, do not meet the historical bar of what it takes to run for President. If it weren’t for their unique biographies, they wouldn’t be running, unless it was as a practice run. One and two-term white male Congressmen without a single substantial national or executive credential to their name, do not as a general rule get to run for President. Yet, the Democrats are running two naifs.
Look at the Democratic nominee for the past five elections.
John Kerry. 18 years in the Senate. War hero (of sorts).
Al Gore. 8 years in the House, 8 years in the Senate, sitting Vice-President.
Bill Clinton. Two-term governor of a state.
Michael Dukakis. Two-term governor of a state.
Walter Mondale. 12 years in the Senate. Vice-President.
You can go back farther if you like; the nominees don’t get less distinguished.
Do Obama or Hillary have executive branch experience? No. Do they have lengthy Congressional careers? No. Have they been in the military? No. Have they made any substantial record of achievement in the business world? No.
There are two possibilities that I can see. Perhaps you can see others.
1. The Democrats have decided to lower the bar this time around because their popular candidates were members of demographic groups that have been historically under-represented in the executive branch – in other words, they are competitive “only because” of their sex or skin color.
2. The bar has always been “be in the Senate and don’t have a criminal record”, it’s just that in every other election in the history of the US, someone better than that has come along, and this time is just a fantastic statistical fluke.
So the problem y’all Democrats have is that people who state what is obviously true – Hillary is in the running because she is a woman, and Barack is in the running because he is black – have to get into pissing matches over who’s a racist and who’s a sexist.
If you make it sexist and racist to be able to accurately describe reality, you don’t end up changing reality. You just end up marginalizing the value of the labels you assign. If you think I’m sexist because I think that Hillary Clinton is a contender for the presidency in part because of her sex, that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t make me change my mind; it just inclines me to the belief that you’re kind of a dumbass. I know for a fact that you’re not a dumbass, though, so it ends up with me rationalizing this and deciding that your viewpoint on “racism” and “sexism” is just messed up conceptually, and that as a serious person, I don’t have to pay it any attention.
Is that what you want?
Bob, the view you quoted — “Hillary Clinton was only competitive in the presidential race because she was a woman” — and the view you shifted to arguing against by the end of your post — “If you think I’m sexist because I think that Hillary Clinton is a contender for the presidency in part because of her sex” — are not interchangeable.
Any viable candidate for president, is a viable candidate “in part” because of their identity. George W. Bush was a viable Republican candidate, despite his lightweight resume, in part because he was a white man, and in part because his last name is Bush. But he was also viable for other reasons: His policy positions were aligned with a part of the Republican party that was extremely powerful within the party, for example, and Rove did a good job running his campaign.
It’s obvious that Democrats are not prepared to vote for just any black candidate, or just any female candidate. For example, there are several black candidates with short political resumes who have run for president, who haven’t drawn large constituencies. So if your claim is that all it takes to be a viable Democratic contender for President is to be black, and/or female, with a short political resume, then obviously you’re mistaken. Being female is part of Clinton’s appeal (and also partly a disadvantage), just as being black is part of Obama’s appeal (and partly a disadvantage). But it’s certainly not the whole story, as your simplistic analysis implies.
Clinton is perceived as having a lot more experience than you credit her for; you’re not counting her years in the White House as experience, but obviously Democratic voters do. And I think Democratic voters are correct about that, in this case; Clinton, in her husband’s White House (and before that when her husband was Governor), was certainly the equivalent of a cabinet member, and no one would argue that being a member of the White House cabinet for eight years is not relevant experience.
Obama’s short political resume would, I suspect, be more a liability in many past elections. But this year, many Democrats are fed up with the Democratic party’s inability to stand up to Bush, and convinced that the consensus of leading Democratic party figures — in particular, supporting invading Iraq — has been horribly wrong. In this context, Obama’s short political resume (which isn’t the same as a short resume — being a law professor and community organizer is also experience, after all), combined with his initial opposition to invading Iraq, is allowing him to run successfully as an outsider to the Democratic party machine. But other factors — such as the fact that Obama is simply far more skilled at running a campaign on the ground than anyone realized a year ago (I guess that experience as a community organizer is useful) — are also important.
In other words, your analysis is not “accurately describing reality”; your analysis is simplistically ignoring much of reality.
Finally, why should I care whether or not you find my views “serious”? Bob Hayes isn’t a plausible part of a winning electoral coalition for either Obama or Clinton. Nor do I have any plausible chance of convincing you to vote for Obama or Clinton rather than McCain in November.
Damn, you made all the points that I wanted to make, Barry. Aren’t you supposed to be at MOCCA? :-)
Other than the obvious George Bush rebuttal Barry points out, the other problem with this list is that every single one of them LOST the election they ran in – except for Al Gore, who had it stolen from him, so that’s a small comfort. And he ran a shitty campaign, anyway, unable to convince 19% of Democrats to vote for him. (If he had, we would be having different arguments these days.) Many Democrats are waking up to the fact that a butt-load of experience does you no good if you can’t communicate with people, if you can’t organize, if you can’t fight effectively against the media stereotypes and the below-belt tactics of your opponent. Obama still has a bit to prove in that last category, but he is doing quite well with the others.
Consider the fact that Bill Richardson – who has more experience than Clinton and Obama combined AND has the historical ground-breaking ethnic identity as a Latino – did not come anywhere close to getting the nomination. Why? He’s a nice guy, but he can’t deliver a speech worth a damn.
Of course, I agree with what Amp said above, but I also think it’s worth flipping the question around and asking, “Isn’t John McCain only in the position he’s in because he’s a white man?”
Look at the past five Republican nominees.
George W. Bush: White man.
Bob Dole: White man.
George Bush: White man.
Ronald Reagan: White man.
Gerald Ford: White man.
Furthermore, it’s pretty inconceivable to imagine a nonwhite woman in the same situation John McCain is in, since Arizona has never elected anyone nonwhite or female from the 1st congressional district, nor has it ever sent anyone nonwhite or female to the US Senate. Not to mention how extremely unlikely it would be for a woman to be a decorated Vietnam War hero in the first place.
My point is this, then: Treating ‘white male’ as the default, and acting as though Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are where they are because of their race or sex, but that John McCain’s race and sex have nothing to do with his success is, in itself, sexist and racist. It’s acting as though sex and race only matter when they deviate from ‘the norm’, and it defines ‘white male’ as the norm.
—Myca
I’ll add, that this, by Ferrarro, infuriates me:
Um, no you didn’t. You said Obama is lucky to be a black man, and wouldn’t get this far if he were white.
Urgh, why must such an inspirational political figure reduce herself to such disgusting levels of hackdom.
Well, if it’s any comfort Raznor, that Ferraro felt the need to misrepresent her initial stance only goes to show that she knows herself that that stance is indefensible. We know that no one besides Geraldine Ferraro could swallow what Geraldine Ferraro was peddling. Now we know that extends to Geraldine Ferraro herself. Ergo, no one can swallow what she’s peddling. That’s a victory, isn’t it?
Robert, I think this year is a statistical fluke, because I can’t remember the last time two Senators ran against each other for president.
This is the money quote:
That certainly clears things up.
Amp, I took “only” to mean “the deciding additional element that made the difference”, not literally “the only component of any relevance to the equation”. I am 99% certain that’s how Ferraro intended it, and equally certain that’s how most people interpret it.
Maybe Clinton’s spousal experience counts with some people; in truth, that’s never been a factor before, since she’s the first person to make a serious run whose spouse has had more experience than the principal. So I suppose it’s possible you could consider that she is qualified for the office, although I would not agree that real Cabinet-level experience is a substantial qualification for the Presidency, to say nothing of “It’s almost as if she was a cabinet member, except without the actual appointment or vetting or oversight or duties” experience.
Also, you would be surprised about what or who I would be willing to vote for – if one party wasn’t running unacceptable lightweights. I have cast ballots for Democrats in the past, and probably will in the future.
Kevin – The Republicans who beat those Democrats had similarly illustrious resumes.
Thanks for posting this. You’re right, I hate the Oppression Olympics. I guess I didn’t think that by raising making a comparison I was participating because I think you’d be right to call the person sexist. I wasn’t trying to that the flip would not be sexism. Perhaps the “no debate” part got me into trouble. I guess that’s unfortunate because that’s not a crucial part of the point I was pushing. Anyway thanks for the blog-love.
This is very true. Or someone will pull a reversal and instead or after the “How dare you call me a racist/sexist/homophobe”, “you’re the racist/sexist/homophobe”. That’s another popular one as is its satellite, “you’re racist/sexist and you don’t sound like what my perception of your [insert demographic group or groups] is or should be because of course, you are after all representing your [insert demographic group or groups] every time you say something.
This issue came up yesterday at a conference I attended and led to some good discussions.
Yeah, very disappointing behavior on her part given that her vice-presidency candidacy was very inspirational at the time. But then again, if you look very closely at her political career, her comments shouldn’t be all that surprising at all.
That’s always what I thought as well, and what I got from reading commentary on it; this is one of the first places that I recall seeing someone suggest it mean literally the only thing. Amp, have you always had that reading, or have you developed that recently?
In terms of:
Quick! You over there! Yes, you!
What do YOU picture when I tell you I spoke with a racist homophobic sexist bigot today?
Seriously. What do you think? Not “what do you think, after carefully considering the context,” but what image comes into your mind?
The members of this BB are probably one of the groups MOST likely to believe that a large number of people can correctly be classified as being ____ist, and that being somewhat _____ist and/or having said ____ist beliefs doesn’t make you a “bad person….”
How many of you hear “racist homophobic sexist bigot” and DON’T think of an asshole? Would you invite her to a party? Would you join her for lunch? How many folks here would–or do–match their actions to their words?
How many folks here, having admitted that they have ____ist tendencies (plenty of people here have done so in one context or another) would feel comfortable being described that way? “I’d like to introduce you to Amp next week at lunch. He’s a ____ist. Are you free at 1:30?”
Left hand, meet right hand.
If you want people to stop treating the ____ist label like an accusation of severe misconduct, you have to start acting like the ___ist label describes someone who has made a major mistake. Conversely, if you start treating “_____ist” like it’s no big deal then, well, you can’t use it to condemn people any more.
But you can’t simultaneously use a word as an insult, and expect people not to give a shit when they get the label.
You just can’t. It makes no sense.
And incidentally, that is logical, not “logical.”
The Dems are running two candidates who, while fine people and talented politicians, do not meet the historical bar of what it takes to run for President.
Apart from the already mentioned George Bush example, what about JFK? Two term senator with no other experience, wasn’t he? Dan Quayle (admittedly he didn’t get far as a presidential candidate, but he was elected VP.)
JFK had six years in the House, then his Senate terms, and was a WWII hero. (An apparently undeserved reputation, but nobody knew that then.) George Bush was the governor of Texas. Dan Quayle had two terms in the House, two terms in the Senate – and he didn’t run for President.
And, by the way, Dan Quayle was widely regarded as being too inexperienced to be Vice-President, and Bush came under a fair amount of fire for selecting him to run for VP. Quayle was savagely mocked for his inexperience and lack of qualifications, with editorial cartoonists often portraying him as an infant or a young child.
At the time he was being portrayed as a naif, Dan Quayle had 12 years of experience in the Congress – compared to Hillary’s 7, and Barack Obama’s whopping 3.
George Bush was the governor of Texas
Governor of Texas is a complete non-position. It’s like being the president in a country with a PM: completely ornamental. Obama was a state senator before becoming a US senator, making his experience similar to that of Kennedy’s (and Quayle’s.) I am unaware of any way in which being a war hero qualifies you for an administrative position. Arguably, the opposite: a war hero doesn’t need a high tolerance for frustration and ability to work with people. He just needs to be able to kill on command.
Regardless of the merits of the conventional wisdom on candidate qualification, Dianne, being the governor of a state is considered a qualification.
Your statement regarding war heroes is ignorant and insulting, and I will not address it.
Re experience of past presidents/presidential candidates: Is there any obvious correlation between experience and success in the presidency? If so, is executive experience more important than legislative or does it not matter? If no correlation exists, then Obama and Clinton’s experience or lack thereof is of no importance. (I’m not saying there is none…just asking the question at this point.)
Regardless of the merits of the conventional wisdom on candidate qualification, Dianne, being the governor of a state is considered a qualification.
Considered, perhaps, but being the governor of Texas gives a person virtually no real executive experience. The constitution of Texas was written explicitly to avoid giving the government any power. It’s a lousy constitution and has been amended 400+ times. It’s not Bush’s fault that being the governor of Texas gave him no real experience in how to run a government, but it didn’t. I wouldn’t argue that Ann Richards was wildly experienced based on her experience as a governor of Texas either.
Robert, since you’re talking about “the conventional wisdom,” does that mean that you’re making an electability argument? Or are you talking about your own opinion of what matters?
I agree the bit about war heroes was wrong; people generally become war heroes not for killing, but for putting themselves at risk regardless of if they killed anyone. (I have no idea if McCain ever killed anyone, but he’s a war hero because he was at risk of harm in a war, and in fact suffered considerably.)
I agree the bit about war heroes was wrong; people generally become war heroes not for killing, but for putting themselves at risk regardless of if they killed anyone.
Robert and Amp: I apologize for going overboard. This is probably not the time and place to go into it, but the whole concept of a “war hero” squicks me a bit. Yes, people heroically risk themselves in wars, sometimes even put themselves at risk to try to save the lives of civilians on “the other side” or even enemy soldiers, but they aren’t generally the ones who get rewarded for their actions. Who is considered more of a war hero: the pilot of the Enola Gay who destroyed a city or Hugh Thompson who saved many lives at My Lai? (Not who do you consider a hero, but rather who is generally considered more of a hero?) I don’t deny that many people act in heroic ways during wars, but war rewards the wrong people for doing the wrong things and the less people consider experience in a war a good thing, the better, in my opinion.
Incidentally, I did not mean it as a slam against McCain. To tell the truth, I had…um, forgotten about McCain completely. He’s so much not in the news lately.
I’m making a comparison of what the historical standard has been, in order to debunk the notion that saying Clinton or Obama’s current status is owing to their gender or race is sexist/racist.
I should note, by the way, that I do agree there’s been a fair amount of racism and sexism towards each candidate; I even agree to some extent about point made about the raising of the bar for what’s considered racist/sexist (and I come down where Sailorman does; decide what being a racist/sexist signifies, and stick with it – it’s either an endemic problem we all have and we all have to work on, in which case the “he’s a racist!” accusations need to stop, or decide it’s a personal moral failing of horribleness, in which case the bar does need to be set pretty high). I just don’t agree that noticing the affirmative-action in play is sexist/racist. White men with careers similar to these candidates’, have not been viable candidates historically. It isn’t sexist/racist to acknowledge that.
I realise this has already been apologised for, but I still want to react. It is, quite simply, the most extraordinarily ignorant thing I have seen in a long time. Even more extraordinary is that the person who said it is a generally sensible person.
If a soldier were to opine that a cancer surgeon doesn’t need a high tolerance for frustration and the ability to work with people, he just needs a steady hand and not to faint at the sight of blood, I expect your response would be along the lines that they were talking out of their
assfield of competence.It does me too, but I don’t see that as an excuse for disparaging those to whom the label is applied.
Amp said, “You can pretty much replace “racist” with “sexist” or “homophobe” or any sort of bigot, and the above “logic” will continue to be played out in thousands of conversations every day.”
I think as a general statement this is true, but the resistance to the “racist label among whites” seems to be much stronger than the resistance to the homophobe or sexist labels. There seems to be something about the ideology of contemporary racism that makes the label very difficult to place.
I fairly routinely observe that people are quicker to laugh off the sexist or homophobe label. I guess the level of guilt about these labels is different. We rarely talk about heterosexual guilt or male guilt, but discussing white guilt is fairly routine.
Rachel, racists in the US used to hang black men up and murder them in gangs for fun. It’s not unusual to expect anyone to resist a label that is identified with that group of people.
An average, middle-class white person of the sort I work with, who wouldn’t dream of openly discriminating and certainly is sure that they would never THEMSELVES do anything sexist, racist or bigoted – but who has a tendency to make comments like ‘geez, why do they have to CALL it marriage?’ or ‘Obama is so well-spoken’ or ‘ well of course there aren’t a lot of girls in the science, look at my daughter, she hates math.’
The flip side of the I’m-not-a-monster argument is that if I choose to assume that anyone prejudiced does so intentionally because they are a monster, I can, quite conveniently, protect myself from ever having to consider whether or not I have any bigoted tendencies.
Robert, you say:
“Do Obama or Hillary have executive branch experience? No. Do they have lengthy Congressional careers? No. Have they been in the military? No. Have they made any substantial record of achievement in the business world?”
Those are your standards, but I fail to see how they are good standards at all. Having experience as senators or governors hardly qualifies anybody to be president. The world is full of assholes with a long political experience. What should qualify anybody to be president (assuming anybody has the right) is the quality of their proposals.
About the others, I find them pitfull. Being in the military not only should not qualify anybody to be president…it should be looked upon with suspicion (specially the war monger mentality of “military heroe” types). Having achieved anything in the buisness world, in our capitalist state sponsored system -and being close to politics at the same time- should call our suspicion too.
I applaud you. though in all seriousness, i think you’re rare. And indeed, i was referring to a random group of people, most of whom I know at least reasonably well and none of which would fall into the “monster” category.
Do you think you’re representative? I have known a lot of people across a wide range of the political spectrum, and IMO when most people hear “racist homophobic sexist bigot” they don’t think of someone who’s not an asshole, much less of that sweet 80-year-old neighbor whose driveway they shovel in the winter.
Yes, absolutely. My point is that this is an entirely understandable way to react and taht it can be avoided. I don’t think it’s necessarily an issue of protection per se as much as it is a crucial semantics issue taht makes it impossible to discuss the topic safely.
So long as there are a significant group of people who believe that the “racist” label applies primarily to monsters with no moral character,* I sure as hell am not going to acknowledge being a racist in public. There’s too much risk. Sure, i may mean “don’t do enough to counteract my white privilege,” or “…in the context of critical race analysis,” but they don’t know that.
In order for people to have self evaluation, they need to have a label which they can apply internally. They need to have that label, ideally, also match the external issues, and be one which they are not embarrassed to have attached.
And on that note, what do you think of the ‘would you be comfortable being described that way’ question? Do you disagree that the vast majority of people would not be comfortable being described as racist?** If so, it would be unsurprising atht they wouldn’t apply the label internally.
*which I believe to be the case. Do you disagree?
** an interesting question: The next 100 people you meet, who don’t yet know your sex, are going to be told either ____ is a racist” or “____ is a sexist.” Which one would you expect to be least socially damaging? I’d say that “racist” is more socially damaging by far.
I wish more people would stand up and say this. I’ll admit it – I have a misogynistic streak a mile long – really, most guys who’ve been in a string of utterly miserable relationships tend to develop some dim views of women in general. But I realize it’s just my personal experiences creating some nasty stereotypes in my mind, and I know it doesn’t make me a wife-beating, woman-hating monster. It’s just something I have to pay attention to before I start forming judgmental thoughts about ladies.
And yes, Obama is very well-spoken, by ANY standard, not just “he’s a black dude who isn’t a mushmouthed gansta”.
Oh, and “this painful exchange” is a dead link.
edit: nm, it healed.
And yeah, I’ve been looking into getting my hands on Sim’s first books. At what volume does he go off the deep end that I should avoid?
Sergio – I am not defending the standards (although I would, in another context). I am pointing out that they are the historical standards of the party, and the current candidates do not meet them, and that it is therefore reasonable to examine other factors in play.
Amp:
Clinton, in her husband’s White House (and before that when her husband was Governor), was certainly the equivalent of a cabinet member,
That’s non-obvious. She had never gone through Senate examination and confirmation, had no specific portfolio of responsibilities and was not accountable to either the Congress or the public for her actions. She also had no particularly sizable staff to supervise (consider just how many people work for the State Department or the DoD or the other Cabinet executive departments). The best you can say for Hillary in Bill’s WH was that she was a senior advisor.
Dianne:
The constitution of Texas was written explicitly to avoid giving the government any power.
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.
Also; I ask whether it’s explicitly designed to deny power to the government overall, or simply to ensure that it’s concentrated in the city and county governments as much as possible?
Who is considered more of a war hero: the pilot of the Enola Gay who destroyed a city or Hugh Thompson who saved many lives at My Lai?
While the pilot of the Enola Gay is notable for commanding the air crew that dropped the first atomic bomb, I’m unaware of him being considered a hero by anyone. OTOH, here is a man who has been recently recognized as a war hero, and the only person he killed was himself. A fighter doesn’t have to kill anyone to be considered a hero.
He could have been the only person to survive the blast; instead, he chose to be the only person to be killed by it.
I’d like to know more about John McCain’s actions during the fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal in ’67. You can Google “Forrestal fire”, but the short version is that in 1967, while hosting air missions against North Vietnam, an electrical fault coupled with error and neglect caused a missle to launch from a fighter while it was still on the flight deck of the Forrestal. It hit one of the planes waiting to be launched. It caught on fire. The fire started setting off the bombs on the planes. Hundreds of people were killed or injured, and the ship was out of service for months. John McCain was in one of the planes that was engulfed in flames; he escaped by opening the cockpit and climbing down the nose and the nose probe. I’d imagine he was involved in the fire-fighting effort as well. There were many heroes that day to keep that fire from spreading and sending the Forrestal to the bottom with all hands; 164 of them died doing it.
Sergio:
Having experience as senators or governors hardly qualifies anybody to be president. The world is full of assholes with a long political experience. What should qualify anybody to be president (assuming anybody has the right) is the quality of their proposals.
While it’s true that the world is full of assholes with long political experience, it’s also full of well-meaning folks with high-minded principles that haven’t got the executive abilities to manage their way out of a wet paper bag and thus have no hope of getting any of their principles actually enacted as legislation or executive policies. The idea being presented is that political experience is highly desirable to be a President, not that it’s sufficient in itself.
All:
Part of your problem with people denying that they are “homophobic” is that people who are otherwise unfamiliar with the term presume it means the same thing as all other “-phobic” terms do, and figure that they don’t qualify because they don’t have an unreasonable fear of gays. Should they then find out the rhetorical game being played with the term they discredit the users.
Once again Sailorman beats me to the punch:
In brief, Sailorman observes that we have at least two definitions of the word ____ist: one positive and one normative. As quoted, Ferraro (and politicians generally?) refer to the normative usage: “_____ist” is an insulting epithet. In contrast, here Amp refers to the positive usage: “____ist” merely describes someone’s attributes, no different than the word “nearsighted.”
I have regularly opined on the harm done by stigmatizing terms such as “racist.” Perhaps stigma – guilt, shame, etc. – are necessary components to cultural change. But they are not without cost. You can well imagine how willing people will be to join a “national dialog about race” if they anticipate being flogged for their troubles.
He doesn’t really go off the deep end until after “Guys.”
Also, to get a real idea if you like his work, it’s a good idea to start with volume 2, “High Society,” rather than volume 1.
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.
Whether it is a bug or a feature, the fact remains–and it is a fact acknowledged in 8th grade Texas history/government classes, not a “liberal conspiracy” thing–that the governor has little power and therefore the governor of Texas gains little experience in governing from his/her position. Furthermore, ever voter in Texas knows that perfectly well. Yet Texas went for Bush big time. Twice. This suggests that the average voter, whoever he/she may be, doesn’t really give a squat about experience and would rather go for…whatever Bush’s appeal was supposed to be. (Sorry, but I’ve never really been sure what that appeal was. Even people I know who voted for him–twice–mumble about “better than the alternative” when asked.)
Obama isn’t the probable nominee for the Democrats because he’s black. Some people may v0te for him because of his race. Others may vote against him because of his race. Others don’t care. But he’s winning because his message resonnates with voters (at least Democratic primary voters), he’s an excellent speaker, and he hasn’t done anything mind bogglingly stupid that would make people back away from him (see Clinton’s remarks.)
Also; I ask whether it’s explicitly designed to deny power to the government overall, or simply to ensure that it’s concentrated in the city and county governments as much as possible?
Most cities in Texas are minimally governed as well. Which is why Texas frequently comes in #48 or 49 in education, health, water quality, etc. The standard teaching in Texas is that the governmental organization with the most power in Texas is the Texas Railroad Commission. Why the TRC? One of the things they regulate is oil. If Bush had been head of the TRC for 5 years, I’d agree that he had some real experience governing. But as governor? Not so much.
“Arguably, the opposite: a war hero doesn’t need a high tolerance for frustration and ability to work with people. ”
Sadly ignorant perception of the realities of working in large, complex organizations – probably more complex that any in civilian life – but I can’t blame you too much for this, since the misperception is so common.
“Who is considered more of a war hero: the pilot of the Enola Gay who destroyed a city or Hugh Thompson who saved many lives at My Lai? ”
Considering that the bombing of Hiroshima saved hundreds of thousands more lives than thompson’s actions at My lai ever possibly could, you make the call. What was heroic about Thompson was not just the lives he saved, but the way he did it, against his own people. That does take real courage.
RonF,
“unreasonable fear ” – no, the problem is people’s illiteracy, when they think that “phobia” means fear. There is no single equivalent inEnglsih. “Hydrophobia” does not mean fear of water. “Fear and loathing” comes a lot closer.
“Clinton, in her husband’s White House (and before that when her husband was Governor), was certainly the equivalent of a cabinet member,”
Unless she was confirmed after Senate hearings, that puts Clinton (actual) on about the same level, though nowhere to the same degree, as Bush II when it comes to respect for the Constitution. It’s about as bad as Reagan consulting Nancy, who consulted her astrologer.
RonF said, “All: Part of your problem with people denying that they are “homophobic” is that people who are otherwise unfamiliar with the term presume it means the same thing as all other “-phobic” terms do, and figure that they don’t qualify because they don’t have an unreasonable fear of gays.”
In my own view heterosexism is a better a broader term, but I’m just using the terms that were given above.
Robert said, “Rachel, racists in the US used to hang black men up and murder them in gangs for fun. It’s not unusual to expect anyone to resist a label that is identified with that group of people.”
And you don’t think that equally violent behaviors have been carried out in the name of sexism or homophobia/heterosexism? Witch burnings, anti-gay murders, and many incidents of domestic violence.
There is a tendency, as your comment reveals, to allow sexism and heterosexism/homophobia to include a broader set of attitudes, behaviors and institutional arrangements, where as racism is reserved for only the most violent behaviors.
BTW-Some of my best friends are racists. :) I mean that.
He doesn’t really go off the deep end until after “Guys.”
Eh. Depends on how
neuroticsensitive you are, probably. I started getting misogyny hinkies about his work halfway through “Jaka’s Story,” myself. And I thought “Reads” was where he went off the deep end.I agree, however, that “High Society” is the best place to start.
(We now return you to your actual topic.)
Oh, I agree. I didn’t mean to imply that there was nothing misogynistic about “Jaka’s Story” and “Guys” — there is. (Especially in “Guys.”)
But, frankly, there’s misogyny in TONS of ordinary, mainstream books, movies, and TV shows, including stuff that many feminists I know enjoy. Sim’s stuff didn’t “go off the deep end” — that is, go totally batshit with woman-hating — until after “Guys,” imo.
I never made it to “Guys.” The Woman Is A Sucking Void stuff in “Reads” was where I quit.
Oh, Elkins, you’re just jealous that you don’t have the inner creative light the way we men do.
Oh, tha’s right — “Reads” comes before “Guys.”
So let me revise my advice — read as far as “Jaka’s Story,” or maybe “Melmoth.” After that, Sim goes over the edge with misogyny, and much of it becomes unreadable.
Thanks. Will definitely get my hands on a copy of High Society soon then.