Obamarama

Washington state still votes for presidential candidates’ delegates via the antiquated caucus system, and I hate it. It requires that all participating members of a precinct show up at the same time in the same room for 90 minutes or more in the middle of winter, be subjected to statements by anyone who chooses to speak (no matter how ill-informed) and vote publicly, and sometimes repeatedly. Each of these conditions makes it less likely that people will make the effort. People who are working, traveling or ill cannot participate. People without transportation or the money to arrange for it are disadvantaged. Shy or private people have a disincentive to attend, since they’re subjected to argument, crowds and publicity for their closely-held beliefs whether they want to engage in such public displays or not. Those with immune deficiencies because of illness or medical treatment (such as those undergoing chemotherapy) put themselves at risk to attend. It’s inconvenient, coming right in the middle of Saturday, the day we look forward to. Caucus locations don't match polling places and the websites which provide location information get overloaded and go down when they're needed most. It takes determination to be a part of the process.

So what happened this year? Did attendance suffer? On the contrary, caucus stations were filled beyond capacity. People parked a half-mile from the school that held my local caucus. The crowd was too large for the school auditorium in which we assembled and had to spill into the gym. People at stations around the state ran out of ballots and pens. And the vote went overwhelmingly to Barack Obama. Hope may not spring eternal, but it sure as hell got the vote out. Hope, and disgust for our current administration.

I’ve heard a lot of people refer to Obama supporters as Obamabots because so many of his followers do seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid and been mesmerized and hypnotized by the man. For some, devotion borders on the fanatical, and it makes me uncomfortable. But not all of us Obama supporters are voting solely on feel-good platitudes and gut reactions. There are strong reasons to vote for the man that are based in rational thought, and even those who subscribe to a realpolitik-style pragmatism must admit that there are compelling reasons to believe that he can help to wash the U.S. of at least some of our sins in the world’s eyes by leading his fellow citizens in taking responsibility for our actions, remembering that we do not own the world and only make up 6% of the world’s population, and being willing to talk to and consider the ideas and needs of other leaders while standing up for our principles at home. I believe he may be able to help us build a stronger and more admirable foreign policy which allows the rest of the world to approach us with a more conciliatory and friendly stance. After these years of adversarial arrogance, a leader who is willing to listen to and consider other countries’ needs and concerns honestly and see our country as others see us could do us a world of good in the eyes of the rest of the planet. He could make us feel more pride in our place in the world based not on some “America, right or wrong” stance, but because of positions that follow our laws and consider international law as well.

Many people complain that his constant harping on the theme of hope leaves their brains feeling bludgeoned with meaningless buzz-words. I understand. They say they fear that he has no real positions because he does not always mention them in his speeches. But look at the extraordinary following he has built based on this (very clever) choice to emphasize feelings in his public speeches, while providing concrete and strong positions on his website and position papers. When asked directly how he stands on various issues during the debates, he has made clear cases for his positions, but most potential voters don’t want to sit still and watch or listen (or read online or in the paper) the answers to these questions. I have been made uncomfortable by the amount of ardor and excitement people have expressed for the man based on how he makes them feel after beautifully delivered but not always deeply meaningful speeches. I myself have complained to friends that, while I admire him for his actual positions and have heard him speak ardently and eloquently on all manner of subjects for some years now, the text of his most popular speeches rarely stands up to the power of the delivery. I felt nervous about the Oprahfication of his campaign during his tour with Ms. Winfrey in January; it seemed that people who attended his appearances were so hungry for hope and so thrilled to be in the presence of celebrity that mass hysteria was taking over.

I understand the thrill of seeing an ardent, excellent speaker with whom one agrees; I don’t blame people for falling for him after spending time in his presence. It takes a hard heart to hear a speaker of his grace and skill (and political positions!) and not be moved and thrilled. But choosing wisely takes more than a good gut feeling. I fear people voting on their gut reactions because that leads to people voting for people like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, too. A lot of people loved the idea of voting for screen icon Arnold Schwarzenegger in California before they knew anything about his politics because they loved the way he made them feel. Millions find even Mike Huckabee refreshing and charismatic, which leaves me dumbfounded, as I find him vindictive and ignorant.

Fortunately, I like Obama’s manner as well as his stand on most issues. But I fear people loving him because Oprah says to, or just because they think it would make them look good to support a black man. I don’t have trouble with people, all candidates being equal (which they aren’t, but if they were), wanting to vote for a woman or a black man as a way to show societal support for groups that were disenfranchised for so many years, and which still face bigotry and stereotyping, and which could bring fresh perspectives and new international respect to the office and the nation. I’d love to be able to vote for a woman I could feel good about, and if I can vote for a strong, brilliant black man with wonderful values and a solid track record I’ll feel terribly lucky.

It makes me sad that the first viable female candidate the Democrats have been able to offer (with apologies to the late Shirley Chisholm) is a centrist pragmatist who angers huge swaths of U.S. society, who blames “vast right-wing conspiracies” when it's convenient and seems willing to let those in her campaign play dirty while pretending not to. I find it sad that there are 150 million females in this country and she’s the most viable female candidate we’ve ever had. I’m not saying Hillary Clinton isn’t extraordinarily bright, savvy and politically gifted. I will certainly vote for her if Hell (and Texas) freeze over and she is somehow able to end what looks at this point like an Obama juggernaut, since she would be endlessly better for this country than John McCain’s conservatism could ever be. But given the choice between a woman so entrenched in Democratic National Committee-style centrism and a devoted, energetic and extraordinarily articulate (read his latest book if you want proof) man who asks the country to stand up tall, live up to its principles and sacrifice when necessary to do the right (and progressive thing), it’s easy for me to stand up for Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton’s husband’s presidency (which all agree she had a strong advisory position in) promised so many progressive improvements but that administration frequently reneged on its promises (don’t ask, don’t tell, anyone?), pulled the country to the center and bogged down in the middle and sat there, losing momentum. The state of the country, the economy and civil rights were all much better then, of course, and I’d trust her far more than any Republican of any stripe to lead us to a more stable, constitutionally-run country, but given the choice between her and Obama, my choice is clear.

I’ve been sad and embarrassed to hear feminists like Gloria Steinem imply that women who vote for Obama when they could vote for Clinton are traitors to their gender, and that as a group women have it worse than black men in this country. I’ve considered myself a feminist since I was a child and I read every issue of Ms. Magazine (which Steinem, long one of my heroines, founded in 1973), from the first issue until I was in my mid-20s. I loved Ms., I went to a women’s college, and I was a member of NOW for many years, until I came to believe that they had gone off track and no longer shared my beliefs. I stood up to sexism at work on multiple occasions, and I love that both my senators (and both of the senators from my birth state of California) are female Democrats. I would love to vote for a woman I admired for president, but more than that, I love that I do not have to vote along gender lines, but have the choice to vote for the best person for the job. I love that I do not have to choose allegiance to my gender (or race) before allegiance to my principles and to my beloved Constitution.

To me, feminism is a branch of humanism; I approach people of either gender (and any race or mix of races) as deserving my respect unless they prove otherwise, and all the work of feminists (and other civil rights activists) who came before me and paved the way to a more just and equal society helped me to believe that I could put the humanity and decency of others before not only their gender but also their race or sexual orientation. I am relieved that if I cannot feel best voting for a woman, I can at least vote for a black man, which makes my choice not to support the strongest-ever female U.S. presidential candidate less painful.

I’m delighted to have the chance to vote for a black man and to show the world, especially Africa and the Middle East, that we can see someone who isn’t just another white man of Northern European descent as worthy of elevation, leadership and admiration. There is so much resentment and anger toward us, especially in Muslim regions, it would be exciting and I think hugely beneficial to show the world that a man of African descent whose father’s family was Muslim is not automatically denigrated or denounced in our country, despite the huge numbers of bigoted fear-mongers among us who fear Islam and see it only as a source of violent anti-Americanism. I also admire his emphasis on treating others (be they individuals or nations) with respect and diplomacy. A great man or woman, like a great nation, listens to others and engages with them in a manner that honors their humanity. Others will not take heed if they don't feel there is a core of respect for them. We don't have to agree with them, but we should not be so arrogant as to refuse to listen.

Obama himself is Christian; sadly, he would be unelectable in this country otherwise. And he’s actually half-black and half-white, which is pleasing in that he himself would be a wonderful symbol of the intermixed, interracial makeup of our nation. He chooses to identify himself as black, and our country has a long and sordid history of considering any amount of “black blood” a taint so foul that for several hundred years anyone with a single black great-grandparent was considered completely black as a mark of inferiority and shame, and his or her rights were accordingly diminished to the same state as a person of fully African-American parentage. I admire his desire to consider his blackness something to be so prized and honored that he chooses to consider it one of the most salient characteristics in defining him, much as I wish it didn’t matter so much to the populace.

No, I don’t think Obama’s perfect. I do wish he had more experience in national office. But I do think he’s run a cleaner campaign than his primary rival, I think his record is strong, his long history of public service exemplary, his ability to determine the crux of the issues keen, and his awareness of our place in the world and his desire to be a good world citizen as well as a good American citizen laudable. I desperately hope that our next president, whether Obama or Clinton, will have the chance to choose Supreme Court justices whose decisions will help to bolster our sagging civil rights and undo some of the damage that has been done and will continue to be done to us by Bush appointees. While I do think there are distinctions worth noting between Obama and Clinton, and I do feel his platform is closest to my ideals and goals for the country, I recognize that they are quite close in their opinions over all, and this gives me comfort and hope. Either one would be a huge improvement over the disgusting administration we’ve suffered under these past seven years.

The next time someone tells you there’s no difference between parties and that it doesn’t matter who’s elected president, politely mention that the makeup of the Supreme Court determines their day-to-day rights in thousands of areas of daily life. Presidents determine the composition of the court and all sorts of rights, from habeus corpus to abortion to adoption to marriage to the death penalty to income taxes, depend on those nine people. When they tell you presidential party doesn’t matter, ask them whether they think Democrats would have started the war that’s cost trillions of dollars, perhaps a million Iraqi lives, harmed or killed tens of thousands of American soldiers and damaged hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens’ families. Which party has the most members who don’t believe in global warming? Evolution? The Geneva Conventions? Not my party. It matters.

It matters, it matters, it matters.

The Verb "To Pimp"

A couple of weeks ago, television commentator David Shuster got into trouble for asking on MSNBC’s Hardball program whether Hillary Clinton had “pimped out” her daughter Chelsea by putting her to work as a fresh new face and spokesperson for her mother on the campaign trail. Hillary was outraged by the use of the term, found it offensive in the extreme and called for his head; MSNBC responded by suspending him temporarily. This episode brought up several issues: one is whether it’s fair of the press to follow Chelsea’s private life now that she is acting as a shill for her mother; the other is what is an appropriate use of the word “pimp.” Guy Branum wrote an interesting article on the first topic in Slate.com on February 11; Jesse Sheidlower discussed the second topic in a separate article published in Slate on the same day. I’d like to address both issues.

Let’s address the question of the appropriateness of dragging Chelsea Clinton into the limelight. All her life her parents have been extremely tenacious of her right to have a private life and have gone after those who intruded on Chelsea’s personal space and private activities like bulldogs. Most people have found this admirable; we don’t like to see parents trotting their children out and using them as tools to garner public sympathy.

But Chelsea is no longer a child; she is 28 years old, and she has chosen of her own free will to appear in public on her mother’s behalf. If the Clintons see fit to trot her out, it can only be because they feel she is an appealing and attractive surrogate for her mother who demonstrates that Hillary Clinton is not only successful in her public life, but has raised an exceedingly bright, successful, polite and socially astute daughter. It is exactly because she is a symbol that the media want to learn more about her: is she an appropriate symbol? What can we learn about her parents by examining her? If she and her parents have decided that she should play a public and ongoing role in the campaign, it is only fair that members of the press ask about the reasons why. When Hillary Clinton presents her child to the world in her stead, we must ask what the point is, and if she won’t tell us, we have the right to express the question.

David Shuster’s cynical and ugly terminology was totally inappropriate, and there seems to have been a nastiness to the idea behind it as well. I believe he used the objectionable term “pimped out” solely to convey the idea of displaying or using the charms or talents of another person for one’s own gain, but even as he made the comment, he was hedging and implying that he realized the term was loaded.

However, the idea behind his badly-worded comment was valid. Cynical, but valid. I believe that question is, What is the point of using Chelsea on the campaign? Furthermore, why is it suddenly okay to do so now? Why have the Clintons decided that it’s appropriate to put their daughter on constant public display now when they know full well her personal life, behavior, friends and opinions will be even more thoroughly scrutinized as a result? They have always contended that anyone who pried into her life was beneath contempt, but in using her in this way, they have to be aware that they’re opening her life up for even more sustained attention. It is, of course, her right as an adult to help her mother out in this way; I find Chelsea Clinton admirable for being willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary. But for her family to pretend that as a 28-year-old out on the hustings for her mom she’s as far off limits as she was as a 13-year-old is ridiculous.

The primary historical use of the verb “to pimp” means to solicit sexual partners for someone else and to benefit financially from the exchange. As a parent, if someone accused me of pimping my daughter, even in a purely metaphorical sense, I would also be outraged and incensed. Though she is much older than I, Hillary Clinton and I both come from a time when we knew of no attractive or appealing usage of the word “pimp.” Every possible meaning she and I were exposed to was offensive and ugly.

Since the Shuster dustup, I’ve heard a number of people under 30 complaining that they don’t get what the fuss is all about. They’re so used to seeing “to pimp” in a whole new and positive context: to decorate, to make more attractive, to show off one’s desirability or power. When they think of “pimping” they think of showing themselves or their possessions off in high style, and think of television shows like “Pimp My Ride” where cars are overhauled and go from blah to wow—at least according to those who admire a high bling factor.

The new use of the term is so common that millions of young people don’t realize how recently its meaning changed, and how loaded and offensive the term is to most people born before 1980. But David Shuster is 40 years old; he should be aware of how loaded and offensive the term is. There’s no excuse for his resorting to it when there are more precise and appropriate ways of getting to the root question.

I disagree that the word “pimp” is now so commonly used that the age-old offensive sexual meaning no longer competes with more recent meanings. Kids may believe that the term no longer carries offensive sexual overtones, but to most of the populace the first meaning of the verb “to pimp” remains an ugly one referring to people who benefit financially from the sexual degradation of others. Many people don’t mind using “pimped out” or “pimp my ride” in mixed company because they think of it as a term implying over-the-top fashion or a youthful hipness that they’d like to co-opt for themselves. It’s obvious that legions of people no longer give thought to the fact that the term has for centuries referred to (and continues to refer to) a man who subjects women to humiliation, duress and physical, legal and psychological dangers for his own gain. But millions haven’t forgotten the meaning of the word just because an alternate meaning has become popular over the past decade.

Even among young people who admit that the first use of the word refers to someone who procures customers for a prostitute, the term has lost its sting because so many younger people no longer see pimping (that is, making money as a procurer for sex workers) as offensive. They now see sex workers and those in their orbit as becoming ever-closer to the mainstream. Over the past decade, our culture has embraced a certain pimp and ho chic; pornography may not be completely mainstream, but it’s so pervasive and such a lucrative, easily accessible and popular form of entertainment now that hardcore porn style and terminology are now freely accessible and attractive to middle-schoolers. Disturbingly large numbers of teens are quite knowledgeable about porn, from its techniques to its accoutrements.

Many girls now compete to look as much like professional sex workers as possible, not only on reality television shows but also when they choose the clothes they wear to school or select the entertainment they provide at sweet sixteen parties. It's no wonder. Britney Spears’ earliest videos showed her vamping for the camera in extra-short schoolgirl clothing in a blatant appeal to pederastic fantasists. Christina Aguilera and other hot young singers vie for spots on the Pussycat Dolls stage, dressing like hookers, bumping, grinding and stripping as a way to build their public image and sell more CDs. And it works. Porn style becomes more pervasive all the time: breast implants and Brazilian waxes are now commonplace enough to discuss over suburban brunches.

There are some who view this as pro-sexual empowerment of women: “Look at me! I claim my sexuality and am not afraid to flash my crotch to show you how powerful I’ve become!” Pole dancing and faux-lesbian bumping and grinding are now commonplace concert and video cliches. They’re packaged and presented in a way meant to sexually excite men and play to their fantasies, but the only power women get out of it is the power to tease—to excite and then deny satisfaction. Their power is only an extension of their desire to trade sex for what they want. Nor is it even the power to demand their own sexual satisfaction. It is solely the power to prove that they can elicit a sexual response in others, then not fulfill this promise unless they get something of commercial value in exchange.

This kind of perpetually-titillating sexualized social interaction encourages women to believe that their power rests in their ability to focus on and then frustrate those who wield real power. It encourages men to continue to see women as sending mixed messages, to believe that maybe no doesn’t really mean no, and to believe that sex is all about what men want, and that satisfaction requires considering only their own needs and denying women their power. It’s about playing games to heighten excitement, but where do we go from there? And how does that spill into other ways that men and women interrelate in the rest of their lives? I fear that hypersexualization of young people and the presentation of sex as something women promise and then deny in order to gain power (and that men overcome women’s will to get) is a huge step backward for women and men both. Selfishness, force, game-playing and denial all build frustration and walls. And they’re not that great for sex, either.

I’m not against people acknowledging their sexuality. I have no problem with adults reveling in the pleasure of exercising their sexual power with other consenting adults as they see fit. I’m not even against legalizing prostitution, disturbing as I may find the concept personally, since legalization would allow women who have chosen that work to stand up for their rights to represent themselves and not to have to rely on pimps for “protection” from the law or from others who would harm them. They would be more likely to seek proper health care, which would keep themselves and their tricks (and their tricks’ partners) safer, and they would have legal recourse when threatened.

But our odd American puritan streak has so strangled healthy, honest sexual awareness and communication that lust has had to work its way up and out in convoluted forms and formats. It’s disingenuous and dangerous when a culture denies and demonizes people’s basic sexual underpinnings yet at the same time incorporates them into its youth culture so completely that everything is sexualized but no one will admit it.

Advocating abstinence-only sex education and denying teens the right to easy access to contraception and health care is hypocritical and unrealistic, and is totally insufficient preparation in a world which whets sexual appetites and debases sexuality at the same time. Girls are told at home, in houses of worship and even sometimes in their classrooms that they’re weak-willed, dirty sluts unless they’re abstinent till marriage, and they learn that it’s a sin to acknowledge their sexual feelings. If they want to show that they’re basically “good,” they learn not to prepare themselves properly for sex or follow safe sex guidelines when they put themselves in situations where they’re likely to be sexual.

They’re also taught by different but equally persuasive segments of society that their most valuable commodity, which can be traded for power and money, is their sexual attractiveness. If they get “carried away” and end up having unprotected sex, then somehow they’re not as slutty as they would be if they thought ahead, acknowledged what they wanted to do, and had a supply of condoms with them. Meanwhile, the songs, TV shows, websites and movies they like tell them they should be teasing men like whores; their families and houses of worship call them bad if they think ahead and admit that they’re actively sexual creatures.

Talk about mixed messages!