Sarah Palin's Phony, Duplicitous, Distorted and Warped "Feminism"

From The Washington Post -- May 30, 2010:

The Fake Feminism of Sarah Palin

By Jessica Valenti

Sarah Palin sure is dropping the F-Bomb a lot lately.

Sarah Palin's Lamestream Thinking

In a widely noted speech this month to the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion-rights group, Palin invoked the words "feminism" and "feminist" no less than a dozen times. She called for a "pro-woman sisterhood" and addressed the "sisters" in the audience. If it weren't for the regular references to gun rights, you might have thought you were listening to Gloria Steinem.

If this rhetoric seems uncharacteristic of the former governor of Alaska, that's because it is. When running for vice president in 2008, Palin flip-flopped on the feminist question, telling CBS's Katie Couric that she is one, but later telling NBC's Brian Williams, "I'm not going to label myself anything."

Today, however, Palin is happily adopting the feminist label. She's throwing support behind "mama grizzly" candidates, describing the large number of women in the "tea party" as evidence of a "mom awakening" and preaching girl power on her Facebook page.

It's not a realization of the importance of women's rights that's inspired the change. It's strategy. Palin's sisterly speechifying is part of a larger conservative move to woo women by appropriating feminist language. Just as consumer culture tries to sell "Girls Gone Wild"-style sexism as "empowerment," conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.

Several years ago, when antiabortion protesters realized that screaming "Murderer!" at women wasn't winning hearts and minds, they launched more palatable campaigns claiming that abortion hurts women -- their new protest signs read "Women Deserve Better." (Not surprisingly, this message is much more effective than spitting invective at emotionally vulnerable women.)

When members of the conservative Independent Women's Forum argue against efforts to address pay inequity, they say the salary gap is a result of women's informed choices -- motherhood, for example -- and that claims of discrimination turn women into victims. Conservatives have realized that women respond to seemingly feminist arguments.

But, of course, Palin isn't a feminist -- not in the slightest. What she calls "the emerging conservative feminist identity" isn't the product of a political movement or a fight for social justice.

It isn't a structural analysis of patriarchal norms, power dynamics or systemic inequities. It's an empty rallying call to women who are disdainful of or apathetic to women's rights, who want to make abortion and emergency contraception illegal, who would cut funding to the Violence Against Women Act and who fight same-sex marriage rights. As Kate Harding wrote on Jezebel.com: "What comes next? 'Phyllis Schlafly feminism?' 'Patriarchal feminism?' 'He-Man Woman Hater Feminism?' "

Given that so-called conservative feminists don't support women's rights, how can they paint their movement as pro-woman? Why are they not being laughed out of the room?

Easy: They preempt criticism of their lack of bona fides by aligning themselves with a history that most women are proud of -- the fight for suffrage. They claim they're the real feminists, as Palin did in her speech lauding the Susan B. Anthony List for "returning the women's movement back to its original roots." (She wasn't talking about voting rights; she was referring to the debated notion that first-wave feminists were antiabortion.)

It may seem odd to argue that for women to make progress, they should ground their movement in the past -- but it's appropriate, given the beliefs of conservative "feminists." They don't want to move forward; instead they knock 1960s-era feminism as hooey while claiming to support equality. In her book "Going Rogue," for example, Palin writes that she doesn't agree with "the radical mantras of that early feminist era, but reasoned arguments for equal opportunity definitely resonated with me."

Of course, by dismissing the past 40 years of feminism, women such as Palin disparage the very movement that made it possible for them to be public figures. After all, would Palin be addressing tea party rallies if Betty Friedan had never talked about the "problem that has no name?"

By tying their "feminism" to the suffragists, whose goal was realized nearly 100 years ago, they're not-so-subtly saying that women in America have achieved equality. In fact, they don't believe that systemic sexism exists. The conservative writer Christina Hoff Sommers, for example, says that women aren't oppressed and that "it is no longer reasonable to say that as a group, women are worse off than men."

If you believe women have made it, you're not going to fight very hard on their behalf. But it's difficult to rally women's support behind a message of inaction, so Palin is doing her best to frame this nonmovement as proactive and, of course, "empowering."

"More young women agree with these feminist foremothers [on abortion] than ever before," Palin said in her Susan B. Anthony List speech. "And believe in that culture of life, empowering women by offering them a real choice." (Exactly what said choice would be once abortion is illegal went unmentioned.)

A related strategy for Palin and fellow conservatives is to paint actual feminists as condescending hypocrites who simply don't believe in young women: "[They] send this message, that 'Nope, you're not capable of doing both. You can't give your child life and still pursue career and education. You're not strong enough; you're not capable.' So it's very hypocritical," she told the anti-abortion-rights crowd. Palin's "pro-woman sisterhood," however, "is telling these young women that they're strong enough and smart enough, they are capable to be able to handle an unintended pregnancy and still be able to . . . handle that [and] give that child life." (Unless of course, these young women were unlucky enough to live in Alaska when then-Gov. Palin cut funding for an Anchorage shelter for teenage moms.)

So Palin's "feminism" isn't just co-opting the language of the feminist movement, it's deliberately misrepresenting real feminism to distract from the fact that she supports policies that limit women's rights.

Of course, deciding who gets to call themselves feminists is a tricky business. Even some people who seem to generally disagree with Palin have found it difficult to bar her from the feminist ranks. Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz wrote that she won't "quibble with her" over the label, and Meghan Daum said in the Los Angeles Times that if Palin "has the guts to call herself a feminist, then she's entitled to be accepted as one."

Now, there's no grand arbiter of the label, and the tremendous range of thought in the movement means there isn't a singular platform one can look to as a reference point. And the sad reality is that there are plenty of self-identified liberal feminists who exhibit not-so-egalitarian ideals, such as racism or homophobia. So is it possible to exclude women such as Palin from feminism if we don't have a conclusive definition?

Absolutely. If anyone -- even someone who actively fights against women's rights -- can call herself a feminist, the word and the movement lose all meaning. And while part of the power of feminism is its intellectual diversity, certain things are inarguable. Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It's a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end.

What Palin is peddling isn't feminism -- it's a manipulated buzzword being used to garner support for a party that time and time again votes against women's rights. Palin isn't trying to further a movement for justice or equality; she's shilling for women's votes -- a "stampede of pink elephants," she says -- for the midterm elections.

And it's working. The conservative "sisterhood" responded passionately to Palin's call. Blogger Lori Ziganto swooned over Palin and the other "true feminist" candidates she's supporting. "They are the new faces of feminism," she wrote. And Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review criticized those who would doubt Palin's feminist credentials.

But feminists -- or anyone who cares about women's progress -- need to stop Palin from turning feminism into yet another empty slogan. Because "sisterhood" and meaningless rallying cries aside, American women need real feminism in their lives, not just the F-Bomb.


Jessica Valenti is the author of "The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession With Virginity Is Hurting Young Women" and the founder of Feministing.com. She has written previously for Outlook on women's rights in the United States and on virginity.

Republicans Are Back In Their Favorite Position -- Impeachment Mode

From SALON --- May 29, 2010:

For Republicans, Impeachment Isn't a Joke

When Darrell Issa compares the Sestak affair with Watergate, he is expressing a persistent Republican strain

BY JOE CONASON

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. talks about Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa. during an interview on Capitol Hill in Washington Friday, May 28, 2010.

As the point man for Republican attacks on the Obama presidency, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is a laughable character. His billing of the deflated Sestak affair as "Obama's Watergate," replete with insinuations of "witness tampering," sounds like partisan hysteria. So do the whispers and cries of "impeachment" from the wingnut gallery to whom Issa is playing.

But at a moment like this, it is worth remembering that Republican scheming to impeach Bill Clinton began long before Monica Lewinsky appeared on the public stage -- and those grandiose notions seemed easy enough to laugh off at the time, too.

Theories about impeachable offenses committed by Clinton began to appear in right-wing forums as early as 1994, when such "scandals" as Whitewater, the FBI files screw-up and the White House Travel Office imbroglio were still new. To most observers those theories still sounded like a joke over the ensuing years, right up through the fall of 1997, when Bob Tyrrell, then the editor of the American Spectator, convened a dinner of conservatives at a Capitol Hill restaurant to plot the impeachment of Clinton.

The point is that no matter how heavy-handed and disreputable Issa may seem, he represents an attitude that has never changed in his party, which was not chastened by its electoral losses after the Clinton impeachment. Listening to right-wing propaganda against Obama over the past year or so, such as the "birther" meme, it is clear that there is a certain kind of Republican that still thinks any Democratic president lacks legitimacy by definition, and that those Republicans will entertain any scheme to eject a Democrat from the Oval Office.

Assuming that today's White House explanation of the Sestak episode is accurate, such attempted horse-trading scarcely amounts to a constitutional offense contemplated by the founders as impeachable. But then neither did the Lewinsky affair -- and that didn't stop the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee from abusing their power when they had the numbers to do so.

Obama should take the Sestak maneuver as an early warning against placing too much trust in his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, whose arrogance will surely cross a line someday if it has not already. Clinton's impeachment was the culmination of years of propaganda, planning and political preparation, all awaiting an opportune moment that inevitably arrived.

Both in their campaign and in the White House, leading members of the Obama team have emphasized their cool disdain for all things Clinton. This bad week should put an end to those pretensions. The president and his aides ought to try learning from the Clinton experience instead, because for them, as Democrats in the White House, very little has changed.

Let's Hear It for Dubya Bush and Darth Vader Cheney --- America's Fearless Protectors

From The Washington Post --- May 28, 2010:

About 10 percent of the 240 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when President Obama took office were "leaders, operatives and facilitators involved in plots against the United States," but the majority were low-level fighters, according to a previously undisclosed government report. The report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, could have important political implications as the Obama Administration seeks to close the military prison in the face of Congressional opposition.

In Order To Create a Less Perfect Union

Why is it that Rand Paul and other "Strict Constitutionalist" Conservatives believe that in 1787 the US Constitution gave the federal government the authority to allow states to permit private individuals to own slaves, yet in 1964 (a century after enactment of the 14th Amendment) the federal government did not have the power to prohibit private business owners from engaging in racial discrimination?

Do these Tea Bagger Conservatives believe that the US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in order that the states might form a "less perfect" union?

James Carville, 2010's Paul Revere, Sounds the Alarm About Today's Right-Wing GOP Lunatic Fringe

From James Carville -- May 11, 2010:

Sometimes a headline just says it all - POLITICO: Rove, GOP secretly plot vast network to reclaim power.

Yup, Karl Rove and the same swift-boat crowd of crazies that believed no smear was too disgusting, no blow was too low, and no lie was too outrageous to elect George W. Bush is now back with a vengeance and coming after President Obama and House Democrats, including DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen, this year.

As I told the good folks at Politico when they were writing their story on this, there is nothing that makes people hungry like being out of power. Wanna know just how hungry this crowd is?

One of these Rove groups already got commitments of $30 million. Another one set a goal of raising $70 million to elect Republicans to Congress. Thanks to the Supreme Court, these lunatic Republican groups can fund their fear-mongering attack ads with all the special interest cash they can get their hands on.

All of this so they can take us back to the days of protecting big health insurance companies, big banks on Wall Street, and big oil companies just like the one spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico right now.

Thanks,

James Carville

The Obamas Remain By Far The Most Popular Couple in America

From Politico --- May 8, 2010:

THE OBAMAS had a date night last night at Komi, Washingtonian magazine's #1 restaurant for the past two years. Pool Report from Joyce Jones of Black Enterprise:

'People gathered on a few corners near WH on foot and on Segways ... Arrived at restaurant at about 7:08. ... The first couple emerged from Komi at 9:13 and were greeted by the crowds that had waited for two hours to see them. But by then, it was dark and black vans blocked most of the view. Still, they cheered, screamed and clapped. ... It appears that the diners in Komi gave them a standing ovation as they left. Mrs. Obama was carrying a wrapped bouquet and both were wearing huge smiles.'

A Proper USA Response to Foreign and Domestic Terrorism

From The New Yorker -- May 8, 2010:

May 2, 2010

TERRORISM
By Steve Coll

A few years ago, I was at an event with New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. The conversation turned to why terrorist groups, particularly those associated with Al Qaeda, had not carried out any attacks inside the United States since September 11th. Kelly noted that terrorist groups have a limited amount of talent and resources. They know that it can be very difficult for the United States to locate them in advance of an attack. But they also know that the strength of American counterterrorism operations lies in its forensic and investigative abilities after an attack takes place. In effect, when a terrorist group, large or small, sets off a bomb, it temporarily lights up its own network by exposing the forensic trail leading back from the event.

About the only thing that can be said at this stage about the car bomb, or incendiary device, placed in Times Square last night is that the police will almost certainly figure out where it came from and who was involved. Everything about the circumstantial evidence—particularly the device itself—suggests amateurism. I’m not especially expert in bomb making, but I do know that in the realm of homemade car bombs, propane and fireworks are not very sophisticated materials. The description of the Dr. Seuss-inspired contraption in the back of the S.U.V. offered by the police suggests someone who tried to go to school on the Internet but didn’t have the patience to complete too many classes.

No matter who turns out to have been responsible, the Obama Administration has an opportunity to atone here for some of the botched communication that followed the more serious Christmas Day attack. Like the oil spill in the Gulf, this is a teachable moment—but it requires leaders to rise to the occasion.

Anyone who tries to set a vehicle on fire in Times Square on a warm Saturday night is going to make news in a big way. Presumably that was the primary goal of the perpetrators—to attract attention, to spawn fear. The very amateurishness of the attack—unlike the Christmas Day attack, for example, it does not immediately call into question the competence of the government’s defenses—offers President Obama the opportunity to start talking back to terrorists everywhere in a more resilient, sustainable language than he has yet discovered. By which I mean: They intend to frighten us; we are not frightened. They intend to kill and maim; we will bring them to justice. They intend to attract attention for their extremist views; the indiscriminate nature of their violence only discredits and isolates them. They intend to disrupt us and throw us into fits of media-saturated hysteria; we will remain vigilant, but we will also keep their unsuccessful attempted murder in perspective. Something like that.

There will be more of this sort of low-level terrorism in the United States in the years ahead, not only from self-styled jihadis but possibly also from the extreme right. Domestic terrorism constitutes a persistent and serious threat, but not a strategic or existential one. The country’s vulnerability arises not so much from the damage terrorists will cause but from American society’s self-defeating inability to see such violence in perspective and to find leadership and language to define national resilience.

The Insane Conservative Doctrine of Immaculate Conception of the Constitution and the Misguided Supreme Court

From The Washington Post -- Friday, May 7, 2010:

Immaculate misconception and the Supreme Court

By Joseph J. Ellis

Although we do not know whom President Obama will nominate to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, it is already clear that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings will be the major political event of the summer.

These hearings have become highly partisan affairs over the past 30 years, and given the recent closed-ranks posture of the Republican opposition, we can expect all the sharp-edged political weapons to be deployed against the nominee. The chief weapon will be the claim that Supreme Court justices should interpret the Constitution as it was written, not impose their political or personal convictions on the semi-sacred text. Woe to the nominee who has left a paper trail that deviates from the original intentions of the Founders, or what a hostile Senate interrogator defines those intentions to be.

Yet the constitutional doctrine of original intent has always struck most historians of the founding era as rather bizarre. For they, more than most, know that the original framers of the Constitution harbored deep disagreements over the document's core provisions, that the debates in the state ratifying conventions further exposed the divisions of opinion on such seminal issues as federal vs. state jurisdiction, the powers of the executive branch, even whether there was -- or should be -- an ultimate arbiter of the purposefully ambiguous language of the document.

Moreover, several of the most prominent Founders changed their minds in the ensuing years. Perhaps the most dramatic example is James Madison, often called "the father of the Constitution." During the debates in Philadelphia, Madison was one of the most ardent advocates for federal sovereignty, going so far as to propose a federal veto over all state legislation. But slightly more than a decade later, he authored the Virginia Resolutions, the classic case for state sovereignty over all domestic policy, and later, much to his chagrin, the major reference in South Carolina's secessionist claims during the Nullification Crisis.

The doctrine of original intent rests on a set of implicit assumptions about the framers as a breed apart, momentarily allowed access to a set of timeless and transcendent truths. You don't have to believe that tongues of fire appeared over their heads during the debates. But the doctrine requires you to believe that the "miracle at Philadelphia" was a uniquely omniscient occasion when 55 mere mortals were permitted a glimpse of the eternal verities and then embalmed their insights in the document.

Any professional historian proposing such an interpretation today would be laughed off the stage. That four sitting justices on the Supreme Court -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- claim to believe in it, or some version of it, is truly strange. We might call it the Immaculate Conception theory of jurisprudence. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the very justices most disposed toward wrapping their opinions in the protective armor of original intent have consistently voted in support of the conservative political agenda championed by the Republican Party.

If we were to put the doctrine of original intent on trial, the most eloquent witness for the prosecution would be Thomas Jefferson. Here is what he wrote to a friend in 1816:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before."

He was telling us, in his own lyrical way, that we are on our own. Jefferson would vote against any nominee who claimed merely to be an umpire calling balls and strikes in a strike zone already determined by the Founders.

Joseph J. Ellis, a professor of history at Mount Holyoke College, won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize in history for his book "Founding Brothers" and the National Book Award for "American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson."