The other day, I read a wonderful article in the Washington Post, about how female debaters are often held to different standards from male debaters. The article is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/23/how-could-sexism-hurt-clinton-in-the-debates-these-female-high-school-debaters-know/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.1cf6b04d1616.
Written by Anna Waters, a junior at Northwestern University, it describes in great detail how female debaters, even at the high school and college level, find their performance judged more on their physical appearance and their personality than their male opponents are. Since "power" and "authority" in our culture have long been gendered male, a woman who tries to sound powerful or authoritative is often harshly criticized, whereas a man who exhibits those qualities is praised. You've heard the memes-- he's assertive; she's aggressive. He's determined; she's stubborn. He's decisive; she's bossy. And let's not forget ambition-- a man is complimented for being ambitious, whereas a woman who displays ambition is compared to Lady Macbeth.
So, can a woman be "presidential"? After Hillary Clinton participated in a recent event called the "Commander in Chief Forum," Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus commented that she seemed angry and didn't smile enough. One wonders why any candidate would be expected to be cheerful when discussing matters of war and peace, but evidently Mr. Priebus believes a woman candidate needs to first and foremost make sure she doesn't lose her feminine charm and likeability.
But sad to say, his attitude is still too common-- there have been a number of studies in the business world that have found significant gender disparities: for example, when male managers speak in a way that sounds angry or critical, there's a tendency to either accept it or to rationalize it ("That's just how he is; but he's a really good boss once you get to know him"); but when a woman manager speaks that way, there is a far more negative response, and in some cases, it fuels the perception that she is not an effective manager because she doesn't have good people-skills. This can even lead to a pay gap: women who sound harsh are paid less than men who sound exactly the same way. http://time.com/money/3986479/angry-women-lose-15k-perceived-worth/
Don't get me wrong. Compared to how things were when I was growing up, a time when companies could come right out and say "we don't hire women," and when even the most qualified women were denied equal access to the best-paying jobs, we have made amazing progress. But as I have noted in other blog posts, some things have not changed much at all, including public reaction to strong female politicians. This is not partisan, by the way. Both Republican and Democratic women have been asked questions male politicians would never be asked, including questions about who takes care of their children and what their husband thinks of their political career. And as for First Ladies, woe to the woman who had a career before entering the White House: she is still expected to give it up and spend her time hosting lavish parties (at which time she will be criticized for being ostentatious) or promoting a charitable cause (and if she uses late-night talk shows or social media to promote it, she will be accused of trying to be too much of a celebrity). We still seem to expect First Ladies to "know their place," even if they had high-powered and successful professional lives before.
I don't know whether Hillary Clinton will be able to win a debate with a master showman and entertainer like Donald Trump. I'd like to believe she can, because she knows a lot about policy and has very detailed plans. But based on previous coverage of her, I expect critics to find her "shrill" and to criticize her "lack of warmth." I've never met her so I have no idea whether she is or is not a warm person, but I do know that ever since women entered politics after they got the vote, female candidates have had to walk a fine line between sounding certain but not dogmatic; being prepared but not sounding like a school-teacher giving a lecture; and being forceful without seeming angry. I hope Hillary can keep her balance, but it won't be easy. It would be nice to say that we've moved beyond gendered assumptions about female candidates, but unfortunately, evidence suggests we haven't. So, it will be interesting to see what Hillary's strategy is for winning the debates-- knowing before she goes in that historically, the rules have favored a male style of debating. My hope is that that these upcoming debates won't be about "manliness" versus "warmth." In 2016, we shouldn't still be judging based on 1950s assumptions-- and yet, I fear that we will.
Opinions and commentary about politics, the media, history, religion, and current events.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Monday, September 5, 2016
Liberals and Conservatives-- What Do These Words Even Mean?
The Fall semester is about to begin and I'll be teaching my course in Political Communication; it's a non-partisan exploration of the tactics and techniques politicians (especially presidents) and their campaigns have used to get their message across, then and now. I mentioned this to a couple of my Republican friends on social media, and one immediately tweeted, "And I suppose you'll teach it from the liberal perspective." I assured him that the course thoroughly addresses political figures from all parties, but he did not seem convinced, even when I offered to show him the syllabus and let him see for himself.
But his comment got me thinking about what the "liberal perspective," or for that matter, the "conservative perspective" means in today's political discourse. If I mention some positive contributions that liberal politicians have made to this country, am I just another shill for liberalism? I think not, especially since my course also discusses the positive contributions that conservative politicians have made. Believe it or don't, I really try to be historically accurate and fair to the facts. But that's not easy in our current polarized communication environment: unfortunately, some people are quick to throw the words "liberal" and "conservative" around as insults, especially on Facebook and Twitter: "Libtard," "Cuckservative," "DemocRAT," "Re-THUG-lican," and other taunts reminiscent of the schoolyard are seen all-too-often in memes and social media posts. (For the record, I really dislike these particular taunts, and I wish people wouldn't use them.) But when it comes to defining these two polarizing words, I keep thinking of that line from the movie The Princess Bride, the one where Inigo Montoya says, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Politicians on the right love to state that they are "the one true conservative," and they love to paint their opponent as "liberal," which is evidently the worst thing a Republican can be. But there were many times in history when Republicans held positions that are today commonly associated with liberals. In fact, some political commentators have noted that Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon would be drummed out of today's Republican party for their moderate stances on certain issues. Mr. Eisenhower famously warned against the "military-industrial complex"-- a position held by moderates and liberals today, in contrast to how most Republicans want to see even more money given to the Pentagon. President Eisenhower also believed that government could solve problems, as exemplified by his advocacy for the building of the interstate highway system; today's Republicans frequently assert that government IS the problem and they refuse to support projects to improve our crumbling roads and bridges. As for Mr. Nixon, with all his faults, he did expand Social Security, so that more people would be eligible, another position that would be considered liberal today; and he created the Environmental Protection Agency, something that today's Republicans would like to dismantle or curtail. Yet in their day, both President Nixon and President Eisenhower were considered quite conservative.
So, what then is a "conservative" in 2016? Historically, the dictionary has defined it as someone who "holds to traditional attitudes and values," or someone who is "cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." The problem, of course, is that traditions and attitudes can change, whether we want them to or not. Today, women and African-Americans have secured the right to vote; but they didn't have it in previous generations, and sad to say, members of both parties at one time or other have tried to restrict voting rights. Today, there are many men and women who have been divorced; in previous generations, this was considered a deal-breaker for someone wanting to run for president, but today, there are candidates who have not only been divorced once but several times. Politicians are accused of "flip-flopping" when they change their views, but the truth is, most of us do change periodically; adapting to new circumstances is a necessary part of being successful. So, is a conservative someone who wishes life could magically revert to what it was like in the 1950s? That seems like an oversimplification, although some conservatives do seem to long for the "good old days." (I'm not sure what liberals long for-- perhaps a political revolution, like what Bernie Sanders proposed?)
As with every ideology, there are nuances and shades of gray-- not every conservative thinks exactly alike, in other words. Consider the issue of birth control: for many years, conservative Christians (mainly Catholics, but some Protestants too) were successful in their fight against access to contraception, even for married couples. Until the 1965 (!) Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision, purchasing or dispensing contraceptive devices was a criminal offense in certain states. But these days, most Christians I know, as well as a majority who identify as conservatives, are fine about the use of birth control. This includes more than 80% of American Catholics-- even though their church opposes the use of contraceptives, surveys repeatedly show that Catholics tend to ignore that teaching. Unfortunately, some online memes try to assert that Margaret Sanger, who championed greater access to birth control, was actually a racist, a member of the KKK, and someone who wanted to limit the number of black births. As with all too many internet memes, these claims are false, but many conservatives treat them as factual, even as they also support family planning. (Politifact addressed what Sanger actually believed here: http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/ )
As for "liberals" (also sometimes called "progressives"), dictionaries say such a person is "open to new behavior or opinions," someone who is "willing to discard traditional values." But I am not sure it's that simple. Most liberals I know don't just wake up one day and "discard" anything. They gradually move away from views they once held, because they acquire new information that encourages them to change. I'm a good example of that: I used to oppose gay marriage; and to be fair, so did most heterosexuals from all sides of the political spectrum. I came to believe civil unions were a good compromise, but as time passed, I learned more from my gay friends and colleagues about how various discriminatory policies affected their lives; and I came to believe that marriage equality was something worth supporting. Public opinion surveys show that my position on the issue is now the majority view. It's interesting to note that as recently as 2004, only 29% of Americans supported gay marriage, whereas by 2015, 60% of Americans expressed support.
If we look at our history, most Republicans in the 20th century were not aligned with views we would call "liberal"-- for example, Republicans were known for their total support of big business, and of championing policies helpful to corporations. Their conservative factions tended to be socially conservative-- believing America was supposed to be a Christian nation, or demanding that the words "under God" be inserted into the previously secular Pledge of Allegiance. But in fairness, many Democrats back then did not always champion "liberal" views either, and they too had conservative factions. It was conservative southern Democrats (so-called "Dixiecrats") who vehemently opposed integration and stood firm on segregationist policies; these Democrats may have been liberal on a few other issues, but in the early-to-mid 1900s, their attitude on race was one that we can today find in many Republicans. (And yes, I have seen the memes online that claim it was Republicans who were the true supporters of civil rights... but that's not entirely accurate; many northern Democrats were too, and even some from the south... including a Texan named President Lyndon Johnson. It was also not true that every Republican agreed with Abraham Lincoln's efforts to end slavery, nor that every Republican treated the newly-freed blacks fairly. There were heroes and villains in both parties.)
My point is that life is rarely simple, and when it comes to politics, it's rarely binary, except on the internet, where efforts persist to demonstrate that "my side" is good and "your side" is evil. I'd be interested to hear from both liberals and conservatives about what beliefs you hold and how you would like to see those beliefs enacted in our politics. For too long, we've used words to demonize each other, but I'd like to see if in fact there are some areas of interest we share, and I wonder if we can come up with new and more accurate definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," definitions more suitable for a new generation of voters.
But his comment got me thinking about what the "liberal perspective," or for that matter, the "conservative perspective" means in today's political discourse. If I mention some positive contributions that liberal politicians have made to this country, am I just another shill for liberalism? I think not, especially since my course also discusses the positive contributions that conservative politicians have made. Believe it or don't, I really try to be historically accurate and fair to the facts. But that's not easy in our current polarized communication environment: unfortunately, some people are quick to throw the words "liberal" and "conservative" around as insults, especially on Facebook and Twitter: "Libtard," "Cuckservative," "DemocRAT," "Re-THUG-lican," and other taunts reminiscent of the schoolyard are seen all-too-often in memes and social media posts. (For the record, I really dislike these particular taunts, and I wish people wouldn't use them.) But when it comes to defining these two polarizing words, I keep thinking of that line from the movie The Princess Bride, the one where Inigo Montoya says, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Politicians on the right love to state that they are "the one true conservative," and they love to paint their opponent as "liberal," which is evidently the worst thing a Republican can be. But there were many times in history when Republicans held positions that are today commonly associated with liberals. In fact, some political commentators have noted that Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon would be drummed out of today's Republican party for their moderate stances on certain issues. Mr. Eisenhower famously warned against the "military-industrial complex"-- a position held by moderates and liberals today, in contrast to how most Republicans want to see even more money given to the Pentagon. President Eisenhower also believed that government could solve problems, as exemplified by his advocacy for the building of the interstate highway system; today's Republicans frequently assert that government IS the problem and they refuse to support projects to improve our crumbling roads and bridges. As for Mr. Nixon, with all his faults, he did expand Social Security, so that more people would be eligible, another position that would be considered liberal today; and he created the Environmental Protection Agency, something that today's Republicans would like to dismantle or curtail. Yet in their day, both President Nixon and President Eisenhower were considered quite conservative.
So, what then is a "conservative" in 2016? Historically, the dictionary has defined it as someone who "holds to traditional attitudes and values," or someone who is "cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." The problem, of course, is that traditions and attitudes can change, whether we want them to or not. Today, women and African-Americans have secured the right to vote; but they didn't have it in previous generations, and sad to say, members of both parties at one time or other have tried to restrict voting rights. Today, there are many men and women who have been divorced; in previous generations, this was considered a deal-breaker for someone wanting to run for president, but today, there are candidates who have not only been divorced once but several times. Politicians are accused of "flip-flopping" when they change their views, but the truth is, most of us do change periodically; adapting to new circumstances is a necessary part of being successful. So, is a conservative someone who wishes life could magically revert to what it was like in the 1950s? That seems like an oversimplification, although some conservatives do seem to long for the "good old days." (I'm not sure what liberals long for-- perhaps a political revolution, like what Bernie Sanders proposed?)
As with every ideology, there are nuances and shades of gray-- not every conservative thinks exactly alike, in other words. Consider the issue of birth control: for many years, conservative Christians (mainly Catholics, but some Protestants too) were successful in their fight against access to contraception, even for married couples. Until the 1965 (!) Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision, purchasing or dispensing contraceptive devices was a criminal offense in certain states. But these days, most Christians I know, as well as a majority who identify as conservatives, are fine about the use of birth control. This includes more than 80% of American Catholics-- even though their church opposes the use of contraceptives, surveys repeatedly show that Catholics tend to ignore that teaching. Unfortunately, some online memes try to assert that Margaret Sanger, who championed greater access to birth control, was actually a racist, a member of the KKK, and someone who wanted to limit the number of black births. As with all too many internet memes, these claims are false, but many conservatives treat them as factual, even as they also support family planning. (Politifact addressed what Sanger actually believed here: http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/ )
As for "liberals" (also sometimes called "progressives"), dictionaries say such a person is "open to new behavior or opinions," someone who is "willing to discard traditional values." But I am not sure it's that simple. Most liberals I know don't just wake up one day and "discard" anything. They gradually move away from views they once held, because they acquire new information that encourages them to change. I'm a good example of that: I used to oppose gay marriage; and to be fair, so did most heterosexuals from all sides of the political spectrum. I came to believe civil unions were a good compromise, but as time passed, I learned more from my gay friends and colleagues about how various discriminatory policies affected their lives; and I came to believe that marriage equality was something worth supporting. Public opinion surveys show that my position on the issue is now the majority view. It's interesting to note that as recently as 2004, only 29% of Americans supported gay marriage, whereas by 2015, 60% of Americans expressed support.
If we look at our history, most Republicans in the 20th century were not aligned with views we would call "liberal"-- for example, Republicans were known for their total support of big business, and of championing policies helpful to corporations. Their conservative factions tended to be socially conservative-- believing America was supposed to be a Christian nation, or demanding that the words "under God" be inserted into the previously secular Pledge of Allegiance. But in fairness, many Democrats back then did not always champion "liberal" views either, and they too had conservative factions. It was conservative southern Democrats (so-called "Dixiecrats") who vehemently opposed integration and stood firm on segregationist policies; these Democrats may have been liberal on a few other issues, but in the early-to-mid 1900s, their attitude on race was one that we can today find in many Republicans. (And yes, I have seen the memes online that claim it was Republicans who were the true supporters of civil rights... but that's not entirely accurate; many northern Democrats were too, and even some from the south... including a Texan named President Lyndon Johnson. It was also not true that every Republican agreed with Abraham Lincoln's efforts to end slavery, nor that every Republican treated the newly-freed blacks fairly. There were heroes and villains in both parties.)
My point is that life is rarely simple, and when it comes to politics, it's rarely binary, except on the internet, where efforts persist to demonstrate that "my side" is good and "your side" is evil. I'd be interested to hear from both liberals and conservatives about what beliefs you hold and how you would like to see those beliefs enacted in our politics. For too long, we've used words to demonize each other, but I'd like to see if in fact there are some areas of interest we share, and I wonder if we can come up with new and more accurate definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," definitions more suitable for a new generation of voters.