Are we seriously debating whether there’s an element of sexism in American politics? lol.
4 Likes
That’s not what i percieved the debate to be. I think we’re all in agreement on that. I perceived it to be whether the declining progressive support in Warren was due to sexism from specifically progressives, and more specifically, the Sanders campaign.
The argument isn’t even whether there are some sexists who support Sanders, hell Tucker Carlson just defended him. The argument that I hear CNN and others making (including the HRC 2016 campaign - the only women who support Sanders are doing it to meet men),
is that support of Sanders is equivalent to supporting sexism.
Sorry team not sexist, even if Liz did something wrong, her offense was at the level of holding hands with a boy in the market, and some Bernie fans are calling for a punishment at the level of an honor killing. Just the amount of unhinged rage this generated is good evidence of it being gendered in nature. And it’s not clear that she did anything wrong, the worst thing she did is she commented on a private conversation?
5 Likes
It seems like a common problem discussing sexism/racism/etc is the tendency to reduce the terms to some simple binary or some absolute evaluation of personal character. “I supported female candidates before so I’m obviously not sexist,” or “I have black friends so I’m obviously not racist.” This doesn’t work for the reasons you mentioned – subtle biases, prejudices, social norms, etc. don’t really work that way.
It’s easier to recognize how the reductio can be self-serving when it’s people “on the other side” doing it to defend themselves, but I also think it’s important to recognize that this all-too-common conceptualization causes problems not just when used for the purpose of self-defense (“I can’t be sexist, Warren was my #2 choice”) but also sometimes when used reductively to call people out.
Although – and this is why terms like white fragility or male fragility exist – in this case what I’ve personally observed has been several women (and a few men) expressing some reservations about how some Bernie supporters have reacted to the story, while being quite careful to qualify their reservations (“I’m not saying you’re sexist, or Bernie is sexist, but this feels kind of ugly”), but the qualifications haven’t done much to prevent people from reacting defensively as if they are being labeled sexists reductively.
And I do personally think a lot of the reaction is more directly a reflection of partisanship (preference for Bernie) than misogyny. But it seems like a little more awareness about how sexist tropes and implicit bias work wouldn’t go awry. Or a little more self-awareness from people who don’t seem to realize that what they’re saying sounds suspiciously similar to how a Trump-rally-attendee would defend not believing Kavanaugh’s accusers (probably an overstatement, but it’s an example that keeps coming back to me).
3 Likes
And I guess the addendum for me is that people on the left shouldn’t reflexively think that just because we’re on the right side of social justice issues (generally speaking) means we are completely inured from subtle biases or influences, or that we never need to reflect a bit on our reactions to things like this. If you’ve only got a few women around to listen to and most of them are telling you that something feels wrong about it to them, I dunno, it seems worth at least pausing to reflect on. Without intending to say they are automatically right or all women have the same reaction.
3 Likes
Nope we’re not.
1 Like
The trade one is bullshit (they’re actually all bullshit, but the trade talking point is new). Sam Seder (leftist podcaster) had a progressive trade expert on his program before it passed, and she went through point by point what the trade deal does and said on balance she was in favor of it, and the Democrats should take the deal. AFL-CIO leadership supported it (federation representing the majority of unionized labor in America). Bernie Sanders called it a modest improvement, but voted against it because he thinks it will make it harder to have a better trade deal negotiated by himself as President, and also probably because he thinks it’s politically better for him.
Demsoc people constantly talk about the material benefit of working people. Pretty much all knowledgable parties agree that the finalized version of USMCA provides more material benefit to working people than the status quo and is the best possible trade deal that could be negotiated under a Trump admin, McConnell Senate. There is a high chance that the Senate will remain held by McConnell even if the Dem nominee wins the Presidency. Holding out for a better deal (improvements with D Senate could still happen even after this deal passes) is questionable. The case that Warren’s vote (with most unions!) “undermines the progressive movement” is very weak and only holds water if you believe that whatever Sanders chooses is automatically the only option that doesn’t do that.
I really don’t understand how they thought they were gonna get a better deal when they already had been in talks on this for years and dems got a lot of concessions. Like, even if bernie got elected AND he had a dem senate, he has only two years before it flips back to R’s who will pass jack and shit for those two years. Zero percent chance he could’ve gotten a better deal done and through congress by then.
Yeah, I agree that it would be extremely difficult, and would be almost impossible under President Sanders especially, for whom the trade deal will have to come after a thousand other super ambitious legislative fights that he has set as higher priority.
The whole point is the DemSoc haven’t actually done this. Because they realize how much it would hurt vulnerable people. Any internet warrior saying they won’t support dems in meaningful states is simply well off and selfish, not principled.
Note that Bernie Sanders himself has shown no signs of being Bernie or bust, so he probably agrees with the above.
There’s no way any other minor spat like this between any other two candidates generates this kind of rage. Good lord how is this still a thing?
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s sexism. A lot of 2016 Bernie supporters saw someone in Warren who was for similar policies but could also maybe draw in groups who weren’t as militantly progressive. Her polling over the summer forced them to abandon their idealism for pragmatism, thinking Warren had the better chance to win. When the polling turned the other way they went back to Bernie. I think there’s a lot of self-resentment for the initial betrayal and the easiest way to cope with that is to take it out on Warren.
That might not be entirely correct but the one thing I’m sure about is that the response is emotional.
That has more to do with the fact that she’s a supposed progressive and is taking a shot at the only other progressive and in turn helping the centrist.
Like if Klob/Kamala/Tulsi took a shot like this at Bernie people wouldn’t care. But when its your supposed biggest ally and someone who’s supposed to want to help the progressive agenda it becomes a much bigger deal.
2 Likes
We don’t need theoretical examples, most of us are old enough to remember Gore v. Bush. Al Gore was a thoroughly uninspiring centrist Democrat on everything except climate change and W was a legacy folksy religious Republican/conservative. Then there was the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, who, while not quite at Bernie’s level, ran on a pretty progressive platform:
Nader campaigned against the pervasiveness of corporate power and spoke on the need for campaign finance reform. His campaign also addressed problems with the two party system, voter fraud, environmental justice, universal healthcare, affordable housing, free education including college, workers’ rights and increasing the minimum wage to a living wage. He also focused on the three-strikes rule, exoneration for prisoners for drug related non-violent crimes, legalization of commercial hemp and a shift in tax policies to place the burden more heavily on corporations than on the middle and lower classes. He opposed pollution credits and giveaways of publicly owned assets.
Good stuff, certainly better than whatever Gore was running on. So Nader got about 100,000 votes in Florida, and Gore lost the state to Bush by 500 votes, and the election. I’ll cut paste the “Spoiler controversy” section of the wiki in full:
Spoiler controversy
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore’s defeat. Nader disputes that he helped Bush to win.[54][55][56] A 2003 study found that Nader’s candidacy was a critical factor in Bush’s victory.[57] A 2004 study found that Nader voters had the profile of likely voters with a preference for Democratic candidates.[58] They were therefore likely to vote and to do so for Gore over Bush in the absence of Nader’s candidacy.[58]
A study by Harvard Professor B.C. Burden in 2005 showed Nader did “play a pivotal role in determining who would become president following the 2000 election”, but that:
Contrary to Democrats’ complaints, Nader was not intentionally trying to throw the election. A spoiler strategy would have caused him to focus disproportionately on the most competitive states and markets with the hopes of being a key player in the outcome. There is no evidence that his appearances responded to closeness. He did, apparently, pursue voter support, however, in a quest to receive 5% of the popular vote.[59]
However, Jonathan Chait of The American Prospect and The New Republic notes that Nader did indeed focus on swing states disproportionately during the waning days of the campaign, and by doing so jeopardized his own chances of achieving the 5% of the vote he was aiming for.
Then there was the debate within the Nader campaign over where to travel in the waning days of the campaign. Some Nader advisers urged him to spend his time in uncontested states such as New York and California. These states – where liberals and leftists could entertain the thought of voting Nader without fear of aiding Bush – offered the richest harvest of potential votes. But, Martin writes, Nader – who emerges from this account as the house radical of his own campaign – insisted on spending the final days of the campaign on a whirlwind tour of battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Florida. In other words, he chose to go where the votes were scarcest, jeopardizing his own chances of winning 5 percent of the vote, which he needed to gain federal funds in 2004.[60]
When Nader, in a letter to environmentalists, attacked Gore for “his role as broker of environmental voters for corporate cash,” and “the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician,” and what he called a string of broken promises to the environmental movement, Sierra Club president Carl Pope sent an open letter to Nader, dated 27 October 2000, defending Al Gore’s environmental record and calling Nader’s strategy “irresponsible.”[61] He wrote:
You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge … Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.
1 Like
You guys want so badly for this to be an identity politics thing. Why is that?
1 Like
I know this is rhetorical but they can’t win on policy so they have to try and manufacture a reason.
Honestly I think this super extreme identity politics hurts the progressive movement more than anything. This shit frustrates the hell out of normal people and it undermines legit and serious sexism/racism.
My take is that the decision for some people to turn on Warren wasn’t motivated by sexism, but once they decided she was the enemy, their methods of attacking her sometimes fell into easily accessible sexist pathways. Or, if it wasn’t sexism, then they were at least informed by male privilege.
It’s similar to how there were white people who turned on Obama for non-racist reasons (or, at least, non-racist in their minds), but once they decided they were against Obama, they adopted racist arguments because those were the easiest ones to grasp. (see: the availability heuristic). And their easy to grasp because racism and sexism permeate our society.
3 Likes
I realize this is no great loss but if whoever is modding this site is going to let wellnamed post here then please delete my account
2 Likes
Who is well named?