Wise Sage, Geraldine Ferraro

The Clinton supporter has an op-ed in The Boston Globe about the role of sexism in the Democratic Primary Race between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. For a statement by Ferraro, it seems worse than her other arguments, especially for the way in which it stereotypes voters and absolves the Clinton campaign of any guilt. Here is here argument:

After a long election between two extraordinary candidates (well, one extraordinary candidate and Senator Obama), the democratic party is not united right now because of the role of sexism and reverse racism against Senator Clinton and her supporters. Neither the Obama campaign nor the media (get it, they are working together, an essential component to her argument and the Clinton's conspiracy argument), understand that women feel Clinton was treated unfairly because of sexism and that white working class voters feel they have been treated unfairly because of reverse racism. The obvious implication, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, is that the Obama campaign (who in the campaign exactly?) and the media (who in particular?) is responsible. In the opening two paragraphs, Ferraro shifts the burden of proof (fallacy of ignorance) to show sexism occurred (without evidence) and the Obama campaign & the media is responsible whereby the acts of one stand for the entire group (fallacy of composition).

If you are going to make your case, then make it with evidence not an assertion. Don't scream out emotive words (sexism, reverse racism) and fail to provide definitions or examples. In regards to sexism, communicative acts need no interpretation as sexist claims and acts "exist" as being self-evident.

But it gets better:

In response, a group of women - from corporate executives to academics to members of the media - have requested that the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University and others conduct a study, which we will pay for if necessary, to determine three things.

First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate. And if they did to suggest ethical guidelines which the industry might adopt.

Well, this is a "fair court" as Monty Python would suggest. A group of women conducting a study to determine if there is bias. I wonder what they will find... If you already conclude that sexism existed in the campaign, they why do you need a study to prove your point when, under the circumstances of the study, it would hard to conclude that this group is impartial. The clear suggestion throughout is that there are individuals and corporations against Senator Clinton and an impartial group, from a major constituency of Senator Clinton, will be able to provide impartial evidence.

As for the questions, well what does sexism and racism look like? Tell us about the interpretive process or what the definitions will be? How often does it have to occur? Will context or intent matter? What does it mean to be treated fair or unfair? Will you be concerned as to whether or not other candidates were treated unfairly? What is bias? How ought we interpret the actions of the candidates in the past? How does experience fit in your mathematical equation, especially if Senator Obama cut in Senator Clinton's line before her, regardless of the fact that the voters selected him over her? (Or if this were true, since Senator Biden declared his candidacy shouldn't Senator Clinton abstained from running?) How can we include or exclude sexism and racism from the zero sum game of elections? Can this study group, under the guide of impartiality, give us an account of bias that would be fair? It doesn't seem like it.

Unfortunately, Ferraro's argument continues. Senator Clinton was treated unfairly because of sexism and it may have cost her the election, though no where does it suggest Senator Clinton was wrong to rely on gender to advance her campaign or Senator Obama was treated unfairly (by the Clinton campaign) because of his race. Further, there is no consideration how sexism may have helped her, especially rally her base. It is wrong for Senator Obama and his campaign to use the race card but reciprocity does not exist to Ferraro.

This is my problem with her argument. Guilt only exists on the part of one party. Her attempts to fix this overlooks the role of agency and interpretation and imposes one set of speech norms as it separates speech from its context. It seems that while sexism exists, without interpretation, claims that involve race must be scrutinized closely because claims of racism cut of debate, which in this case, concerns criticism of Senator Obama.

Ferraro leaves us with a discussion of Reagan Democrats who feel, like herself, that they cannot criticize Senator Obama without being called a racist. To Ferraro, these voters (and she stereo-types all of these voters as having the same view, removing agency from them and denying them the chance for interpretation, but I digress):

They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

Two things: first, Ferraro's original complaint was that she was attacked for suggestion Obama received special treatment because of race and that he did not possess the experience of Senator Clinton, which is a subjective claim at best.

Second, it appears that, to Ferraro, Obama ran on identity politics, contrary to what he argued throughout the campaign. It seems she knows him so well that his intent does not matter, only hers. Further, because of his identity politics and his elitism, he will not be able to identify with voters (pay attention Super Delegates, there is nothing that can be done about this:

Whom he chooses for his vice president makes no difference to them. That he is pro-choice means little. Learning more about his bio doesn't do it. They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind.

It appears that Senator Obama cannot understand these voters and their problems because he attended Columbia and Harvard and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Lawyer. Even though Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale and her husband attended Georgetown, received a Fullbright scholarship, won a Rhodes Scholarship, attended Yale, and skipped out on Vietnam, the Clintons can relate to these voters. However, since Obama attended Columbia and Harvard, and his wife (why this is in here, I have no idea, really, no really, I couldn't guess), Harvard-Princeton, he cannot relate to them. Make your argument about elite sensibilities but making it on education makes you look foolish. Further, these voters can not relate to Obama's family experience because even his middle-class upbringing is elitist even though he was raised by grand parents and a single mother for a time. That is a great generalization. Finally, he doesn't advocate policies for them, which is a reference to the gas holiday policy since most of the policies are similar. But the GTH is just a terrible policy. At one point, the Clinton campaign attacked Obama because of elite sensibilities. But elite materialism does not work when your candidate attended prestigious schools and made $100 million in the past eight years.

Geraldine, we get it. You do not like the Obamas for the way in which you perceive they treated the Clintons. Fine, they attacked your friends and heroes. Make your case against them and do not hide behind "sexism" or "elitism" when doing so because, when you do, you deflect and purify the actions of the Clinton campaign, who have not been innocent throughout this election. Neither party is innocent, don't pretend they are.