Take The Nation. The current issue, a 'double issue,' has a double cover: turn it one way, it's Feminist-Socialists for Hillary, the other way they choose Bernie. Just for the record Liza Featherstone (Commonwealth School '87) wins that debate on Bernie's behalf--but the question remains. How much value is there, as Suzanna Walters insists, in breaking that glass ceiling and electing a female President? And not just any female--not Sarah Palin, not Carly Fiorina--but a vaguely progressive one? Yes, Hillary has made a lot of pronouncements for women's rights, even if she supported her husband's dreadful welfare 'reform' and takes a tepid stance on the minimum wage. She is, as Katha Pollitt argues in the same issue, "a Democrat," faint praise but praise nonetheless. And the truth remains that every girl and woman in America would feel a bit more ownership of the political process if Hillary wins the oval office. But is that enough?
I'm more persuaded by the argument that Sanders's core issues--fighting inequality, reducing the power of large financial institutions, investing in infrastructure, education, and clean energy--are 'women's issues' inasmuch as they would produce a broader prosperity, particularly for working people. Context: the biggest problem facing women in America is poverty, unequal pay, limited access to resources of all kinds. That's not to deny the importance of more specific 'identity' issues: women's health, rape and sexual abuse, and gender discrimination of all sorts. Clinton may well have these issues closer to her heart, simply because she is female, though I expect Sanders shares nearly every policy-related position.
But the 'revolution' Bernie is promoting is much bigger and more inclusive. Politics not dominated by Super-PACs will be more accessible to every woman who isn't a mega-millionaire. A higher minimum wage, free secondary education, fair share taxation--these reforms will address the fact that woman are more economically precarious than men. And Bernie's universal health proposal will guarantee that huge deductibles don't undermine the intentions of Obamacare--for women, men, young adults, children, everybody. The case for a 'first woman President' is real, but pales in the face of these more universal issues.
My biggest reservation concerns electability. Would I rather see Clinton win, if the alternative is Trump, Cruz, or any of the rest of that sorry lot? You bet. Would I feel stupid if Sanders won the nomination, but lost to one of those deplorable Republicans in November? Maybe--but I question the logic that sees Clinton as inevitably more electable. I think Bernie's rock-solid integrity and outsider status might insulate him from the most vitriolic negatives that will dog Hillary through this campaign. Does he bring other negatives--the fearsome S-word most of all--into play? For sure. Which candidate is most vulnerable to a billion-dollar (thank you, Citizens United) hate campaign? Not clear, but the primaries will give us a lot more information about elecatbility.
In sum, my plan is to vote for Bernie because I totally admire his high-minded way of doing business, and he has the best ideas. Isn't that a rational basis for choice?
(Of course the 'electability' question shades heavily into the 'Black and Latino voters' question--which I'll turn to in my next post.)
No comments:
Post a Comment