Coates and Sullivan are both puffing this little paragraph from Dana Goldstein:
Sebelius, of course, would be the bold, unconventional choice — very Obama. But by choosing a female running mate, Obama would, unfortunately, thrust the Hillary die-hards and their ever-more marginal discontentment back into the spotlight. That said, anyone who believes that only Hillary Clinton deserves to be the first female president or vice president doesn’t deserve the designation “feminist.” So I’d relish watching the reactions to a Sebelius nod, not only because such a choice would double down on Obama’s most effective message — “change” — but because it would reveal exactly which Clinton boosters are ready to widen the lens and enthusiastically support women’s leadership as such.
Really? I’m surprised no one seems to be picking up that Obama appointing a female VP in these circumstances would mark a serious set-back for the feminist movement. It’s widely accepted that such an appointment would constitute an attempt by Obama to apologize to feminists for beating Hilary to the job that really matters. Goldstein herself draws her argument from the belief that it would “double down” on Obama’s message of change, i.e. remind everyone that he won’t let those nasty old white men keep all the jobs. So surely the great American public is quite capable of drawing the same inference - and then assuming en masse that Sebelius can dismissed as merely a token floozy.
While the VP’s job has long been little more than helping the candidate cover some demographic bases, it would be sad to see such a blatant confirmation of it. And the more superficial the VP job becomes, the less of a feminist triumph is it to see a woman in the post. Just as affirmative action inspires resentment, so parachuting a woman in to burnish Obama’s feminist credentials is only going to inspire the Rush Limbaughs of this world to claim that women are now doing down men. It might even give the naive cause to think that 2008 constituted a successful year for women in public life, instead of the year that exposed the endemic misogyny underlying media responses to strong women. So Goldstein is wrong to claim that feminists should be supporting “female leadership as such”. We want to see more women taken seriously on their own merits, not because they fulfill quotas. And we’d like to see it in jobs that actually count.
Um, what?
I love Kathleen Sebelius and have for a long time, for example, because she’s friggin awesome. You’re pulling one of these “it’s widely accepted that” common belief fallacies. Do you really not think there are women then deserve it on the merits such that it would be “blatant confirmation?” Really?
On the more substantive point, I do agree that women should be put in jobs that count, but aren’t you contradicting yourself? First you say that affirmative action just inspires resentment, then you ask for something better than the VP slot on behalf of a demographic group.
So clearly I wrote this far too late at night (UK time) to be at my most articulate. But there is no contradiction in rejecting affirmative action, but then expressing a hope that one day a woman will make it on her own. The key point is that the VP slot is always about covering demographic bases more than it is about personal merit. And given the immense shadow Hilary’s defeat has cast across the issue of women in politics, I don’t think that the VP appointment will ever be viewed as independent of it.
I never said, nor did I imply, that I myself thought there were no women who deserved the job on merit alone. I’m merely concerned that a woman like Sebelius would fail to get the plaudits she deserves if she is given the job for the wrong reasons - or even perceived to have done so. And as for the counter argument that you, David, love on her own merits, as a delegate to the DNC I doubt your level of expertise is representative of the wider American public. Which is, of course, to your credit. I’m just worried that vast numbers of people will see a woman appointed, know little about her genuine qualifications, and jump to the conclusion that affirmative action is in full dangerous swing.
But isn’t there a difference between it being viewed as independent of demographic choices and it actually being so? Doesn’t the world in which Obama could pick her on the merits exist? (I hope so, but we’ll find out soon!) I don’t think you draw a clear enough distinction between popular wisdom, its sources, and your own. But I know you realize it in real life, so it’s a moot point.
On the second point though, yes, I do agree that it’s sad. I suppose the question is - which I’m really not sure - is it better to appoint the woman on the merits and weather the storm of doubt or to avoid doing it to avoid the appearance of affirmative action?
Kate, I’m glad to read your opinion on this, because before now, I couldn’t really grasp why the choice of a woman other than Senator Clinton would be a negative to her supporters.
My only concern is that I feel the vice presidency does count, and I do not want to see a more inexperienced candidate like Governor Tim Kaine take the post over Governor Sebelius just because, as David said, they were worried about avoiding the appearance of affirmative action.