Too provocative of a title? I’ll let you be the judge, but it calls attention to the unending rhetorical frenzy engendered by the Democratic primary race. The latest example came at a fundraising concert for Hillary Clinton put on by Sir Elton John. Some of his comments caught the attention of the media quickly.
“I never cease to be amazed at the misogynist attitude of some of the people in this country,” he said. “I say to hell with them.”
This was yet another reference to the all too common meme that anyone not supporting or disagreeing with Hillary Clinton is biased against women. So if that is fair game, then clearly we should be able to say that Sir Elton’s lack of support for Barack Obama means he’s a racist, yes? Both arguments fall on their face under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
The problem we seem to have in the commentariat class is that we all decry accusations of either racism or sexism when they are levied at us, but many seem to give at least a tentative nod when such accusations are levied at supporters of the other candidate. As I browsed some of the responses to this event, for example, I noticed Diane Dees at The Democratic Daily posing one of the usual questions.
And bloggers and those who comment on blogs have already begun screaming that not wanting to vote for Hillary does not equal misogyny. Whoever said it did?
Well, Diane, let me think for a moment here. Oh yes, I seem to recall a very recent article about Cokie Roberts and some comments she made. It included the following:
I am not here to say whether superdelegates should or should not be the deciding factor, but I am here to say that, once again, we are being told that it is essential not to give the appearance of racism, but it does not seem to matter if those involved in the process give the appearance of sexism and/or misogyny.
…The Roberts’ rhetoric is no different from the rhetoric of almost all politicians, elected officials, writers, and commentators: Racism is a blot on the society, while sexism and misogyny are “less important” issues, and therefore do not merit the same amount of attention, if indeed, they merit any at all.
That was posted by … let me think now… oh, that’s right. It was written by Diane Dees at The Democratic Daily less than a week ago.
This situation also speaks to the “double reverse” version of these claims, where we find assumptions that while opponents of Barack Obama must be racists his supporters must be supporting him because he is black. (As opposed to thinking he is simply the better of the two candidates to take the nomination.) I support Senator Obama, but I am also quite clearly a member of the MOWG class. (That would be “Middle-class Old White Guys” as opposed to the ROWGs, or “Rich Old White Guys” club.) Surely, even in the midst of the silly season, we can leave this behind.
The point is that while racism and misogyny clearly still exist in pockets around our country, they hardly seem to be the prevalent, driving force in our major political campaigns. Otherwise it would be quite difficult to explain the growing numbers of minorities and women filling the ranks of Congress and state governments. There is virtually no daylight to be found between the policy positions of Clinton and Obama and the race truly has become a contest between two opposing cults of personality. Supporters on both sides, however, would be wise to steer clear of (and condemn, Ms. Clinton) these types of blanket accusations when used in their support.
(EDITED because the first post failed to include the second to last paragraph from my original draft.)