Gender, civil rights and hope

In this presidential election, the mass media (mainstream and blogosphere alike) are focusing on the race versus gender card in the Democratic contest. May I start out by stating that this discussion is nothing but a days worth of manure from an industrial hog farm. Black men and women are voting for Clinton and white men and women are voting for Obama and vice versa. Have we not yet learned that people cannot always be reduced to their demographics?

I would also like to make it clear that feminism, or the effort to secure equal and equitable rights and opportunities for women to live and work in society free from discrimination and fear, is a civil rights concern. I do not claim to be a "feminist", at least not in the burn-your-bra, all-men-are-oppressors form. But the overall goals of feminism to allow women to choose to go to school, to play sports, to work in any field they choose, to choose whether or not to get married and to whom, or whether or not to have children and how, to vote, to travel and even check into a hotel without a husband are exactly the same goals that non-whites and other marginalized groups have sought. The feminism versus civil rights discussion is another truckload of chicken litter that serves no one but people who profit from divisiveness.

For me, this also isn't about substance versus charisma. I am a policy wonk. There's nothing I appreciate more than a well crafted policy. The books on my Amazon wishlist are policy books. I regularly seek out critical evaluations of policies in areas that I don't even work in just out of curiousity (guess what - Amber Alerts don't work).

The reason why Clinton is losing favor with people is not because she's all steak and Obama is all sizzle, as some have implied. This assertion is simply offensive. Obama has substantive policy proposals as well, some of which I don't entirely agree with and some of Clinton's proposals need either more work or a reality check. Also, Clinton does have her own charm. She's a powerful person who has survived personal and political attacks for most of her public life. There's a steadiness, steeliness, and a level-headedness that I might otherwise find attractive in a presidential candidate in these times. And despite everything I say below, if she is the nominee, I will vote for her.

With that said, Clinton's problems are in part related to her messaging. Obama's message about hope is attractive right now because people in this country are suffering or they are in a position to legitimately fear suffering in the very near future. Clinton has summarily dismissed this message as worthy of public discussion. That very dismissal is what makes her unattractive to me. I read somewhere that if you take away people's hope, you may be taking away the only thing they have. By dismissing the importance of hope in this day of economic insecurity and war you are dismissing the nature of humanity.

Even as someone who believes very strongly in the role of policy wonks and the technocracy in politics, I believe even more strongly that policy decisions should be made based on values that recognize people's essential humanity. We can't get decent immigration laws passed because our leadership has failed to see immigrants has human beings who deserve the same opportunities to work, go to school, play sports, live in a safe community, and do all of those other things that civil rights activists have fought for. We can't seem to put enough money in our urban schools for the same reason. We can't even get the president or the CIA to say that torture is wrong (not just illegal) because "terrorists" are apparently not human beings. Clinton's failure to see the importance of hope in society tells me that she does not necessarily see the humanity in the policies that she fights so hard for.