So, a little more than a month has past since my last entry. I have had a few people ask me recently if I had given up blogging, but I assured them that I was merely taking a hiatus. Really, I could not think about anything funny to write about. I guess February just was not a particularly funny month for me.
There is something that I have been thinking about lately, however. Now I realize that I probably follow politics more closely than some. It is like my Super Bowl, if you will. Only is more like the Olympics, with the every four years thing and all.
I truly believe that politics, with the issues that get addressed in a campaign season and the political conservations that occur in large and small settings, offer a very candid picture of where we are socially in this country . And the picture is slightly dismal.
Due to the dynamics of the individuals that are left in this presidential race, two of the oldest "isms" have been given a chance to get some fresh air: racism and sexism. Perhaps it is the case that one or both of these two "isms" will be a critical factor in the outcome of the election in November, much like homophobia was conjured up to Bush's advantage in 2004.
Now, I am not talking about racism in the form that most people are familiar with. One thing this election cycle has revealed so far is how racism in this country has shifted. The Democratic Party is currently in the position to select either the first female or African American nominee for President. An African American presidential nominee would not have been socially possible 30 years ago. Now, Obama's ethnicity is almost an advantage for his campaign because part of his appeal to young voters is the symbolic nature of what his presidency would say about the success of the civil rights movement.
Meanwhile one of the primary issues on the campaign trail, at least for the Republicans, is the issue of illegal immigration. Regardless of how much they may try to come at this issue from the standpoint of national security, there is simply no denying the fact that an element of racism rears its ugly head in this debate. This is obvious in the way that they approach solutions to this immigration problem. The immigrants themselves should be punished, jailed, fined, deported, and then sent to the back of the line.
Now given the economic realities of what is driving this mass pilgrimage, these undocumented workers are not doing anything that any other rational human being would do given their situation. Providing basic necessities to their families in Mexico and Central America trumps U.S Immigration Law in their eyes, and there is never a shortage of employers that are willing to fly under the radar to help alleviate their labor costs. So, it is really hard to buy into this whole argument that these immigrants are in some way destroying America. If you want to attack the problem you don't need to build a fence. You need to punish the people with the power and the money that are creating the environment ripe for undocumented workers to come here. To do it the other way around is to draw a line between "us" and "them." The debate is framed in terms of the "patriotic Americans who defend the foundations of this country and its borders" and the "people who come over here for a free handout and a suckle on Lady Liberty's teet." I don't know about you, but I have never met an illegal immigrant that was "well off" or was living the high life. It's fucking hard work. Give them a break!
Here is the point. Racism against African Americans is not only much less prevalent than in the past, it is also met with harsh consequences when it happens. Remember Don Imus, anyone? But, a racist sediment against Latinos seems to be on the rise, and is useful to certain politicians trying to push "wedge issues." Granted, it is not blatant racism in the way blacks in the South were treated for generations. That kind of racism is no longer acceptable, and that in an of itself indicates major progress. But, politicians need to actually tackle the cause of this immigration and the current realities that fuel it, rather than pander to whatever fucked up part of the human brain evolved to be afraid of that which is different.
Another reality that the current political campaigns reveal about American social life in 2008 is that sexism is far more acceptable than racism. If Hillary Clinton was a man, which some might argue that she secretly is (which ironically underscores my exact point), she would have had the nomination in the bag long ago. The Clintons are adored by Democrats and reviled by Republicans. But, the reality is that...she is a WOMAN! Oh my God! We can't have a woman running the country! What is going to happen during those days when her hormones cause her to act crazy towards other world leaders! And she cries on the campaign trail! She showed how weak she really was when she took back that cheating husband of hers! Bitch. Jesus Christ, does it get more Lifetime movie than this shit?
These are the most common reasons, or protests, I hear from people that hate Hillary Clinton. Now, in their defense they have hated her since the dawn of time. They did not like her in the 90s and now that she is clearly the woman who has come the closest to the presidency in American history, she is certainly something to be feared.
Now there are plenty of reasons to like or to dislike Hillary's campaign and the thought of another Clinton presidency. (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Am I seeing a pattern?) You can have problems with her heath care plan, or her position on NAFTA, or her vote to authorize the war, but her gender is not a legitimate attack. It would be great to see her judged primarily by the ideas in her head rather than the plumbing between her legs. She is an intelligent, independent, outspoken firecracker, and society is not yet at a point were they can handle all that from a woman.
This sexism has its historical roots even deeper than American racism. Remember what the Bible says about women? Sit down, shut up, and ask a man later on. For generations in Western culture women were the property of their husbands. In parts of the world today, women have to endure the cutting of their clitoris because their sexuality does not belong to them. It belongs to their husband, but not the other way around. It is this ugly tradition that creates the deep seeded fear so many people have about women in leadership. One needs only to look at the success of female leadership in Great Britain, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, and India to see that the world does not stop spinning on its axis because a man is lead by or take orders from a woman.
But the basic argument against Hillary Clinton from on the far right that oppose her comes down to just this. To chalk Hillary up to a "loud mouth bitch" is not to say anything that has not been said over and over again by the far right for the past 15 years. A sexist slur like that is commonly overlooked. You will not, however, catch them using a racial slur when attacking Barack Obama. Can you imagine the outrage? Although, Bill O'Reilly did recently say that he did not want to go on a lynching party for Michele Obama. Whew, thanks for clearing that up, Bill. See, that's real progress. Change we can believe in, as it were.
So, what does this all say about American society? Well, you could take the high road and say that while we have made great progress with the racism against African Americans in this country we need to dispel all racism from our politics. We could also acknowledge that the way that many of us view and treat women is based archaic beliefs and that must change! Or, you could just find yourself a Latina immigrant in a leadership position and work yourself into a frenzy. A "mullet fantasia" if you will. I can assure you the politicians and commentators who want to play the race and gender card this season are hoping for the latter.
