Are the Anti-Hillarians Sexist?
And:
When Groups Argue
And:
Ideals in Politics
And:
Cutting 'Em Some Slack Clinton and the Clinton camp have claimed and intimated that sexism is afoot in their loss. A suggestion, probably either false or obvious: Lots of this is about groups, group action, group responsibility, etc. Some anti-Hillarians are sexists, and some of them aren't. Seems a fair bet that at least most of the anti-Hillarian Democrats are not sexist (though I'm sad to say that I don't have a good guess about the Republicans). Clashes like this primary involve conversations/arguments between and among groups, and are, consequently, big and largely amorphous, with undertones, leitmotifs, suggestions unintentional and otherwise. It's almost certain that there is some sexism woven in and out of at least some of the recent discussion/argument. It's also almost certain that it wasn't the major theme. I'd guess it wasn't in the top six or seven, but anywhere in the top ten or twenty would be pretty bad. (I don't know whether eliminating all of it is even a vaguely plausible goal, unfortunately.) Hillary supporters--if they're like most supporters of most political candidates and causes--probably seized on the worst examples of injustice, obsessed on them, let them fester, attributed too much explanatory power to them, and so forth. If things went by the numbers, they went like this: a relatively small subset of the anti-Hillarians said some really bad things. But they stuck with the Hillarians, and came to seem representative of the anti-Hillarian position in general. It's hard to lose, especially in (small 'D') democratic politics. I think this is, in part, because the nature of the losses are so diffuse. It's not like losing in, say, chess, where your loss evolves right in front of your eyes, literally in black and white. In politics, it's all very distant, and occluded. But I think it's harder because what's at issue in such contests has a lot to do with our ideals, and nothing is more important to us or more central to who we are. Even to the extent that it's about policy, ideals are at issue. And that different individuals come to represent different ideals seems so clear as to be virtually uncontroversial. In at least many cases, to reject my candidate is to reject at least some of my central ideals about how our republic should evolve, and about what is most valuable.

(For example, I have to say, I find it fairly disconcerting when it is suggested that Obama strikes many people as somehow defective because he is too "cerebral" or "professorial," and that these things allegedly almost necessarily make one an "elitist." I think it's important to be cerebral, I don't think it makes you elitist, and frankly I'm more than a little freaked out that some of the things that I view as most admirable are apparently viewed as not only valueless but defective by a significant number of my countrymen.) Now, I think the better candidate has won, and I think Clinton lost largely because Obama is a better candidate, and because she ran a vicious and divisive campaign. But I'm just trying to sketch what it tends to look like from the other side. If things go by the numbers, Clinton represents a kind of ideal to many of her supporters--maybe hard-working, long-suffering, resolute. She's accomplished much and endured much--vicious slander from the right wing, the most public of humiliations from her husband. And she came through it. A fair number of women seem to see her as representing important aspects of their lives and hopes. So, one can understand their anger and hurt when a majority of their countrymen (er...countrypeople? countrypersons?) (and their fellow Democrats, no less) seem to judge that Clinton is not only insufficiently inspiring, but downright contemptible. It's roughly equivalent to judging that their lives and hopes are uninspiring, inconsequential, and contemptible.

Now, in fact--at least speaking for most of the Obamites I know--we don't view Hillary negatively in any way that would have such implications for her supporters or their ideals. In fact, most of the Obama folks I know used to be just fine with Clinton. It's just that, first, they really, really admire Obama, and, second, the Clinton campaign got mean and divisive. (Hillarians might deny it, but them's the facts, and on this point I won't cut 'em any slack.) But this entails no contempt for the ideals of average women who have encountered adversity.

Anyway, however angrifying Clinton and her supporters may seem right now, I think they probably deserve some slack, and some reassurance that the rest of us do, in fact, respect them and their ideals, however hard that might be to recognize in the heat of a campaign.