Palin

I’ve been fascinated with McCain’s choice ever since I found out about it. I was in the lobby of the hotel I was staying at on Maui, doing some work before hitting the gym. It was about 6am there, which is 9am Pacific. All of a sudden I heard a golfer by the bar, watching TV, exclaim “he just threw it away.” I had a feeling this was about the Repub Veepstakes, so headed on over.

Since then, I’ve wanted to write about it, but I’ve struggled about how to do it in a way I feel right about. What conclusion to draw? And the more posts I read about it, most of them have a conclusion. I didn't have a bright line conclusion.

In the liberal ‘sphere, most of these conclusions are predictable. It should be noted, though, that both Feministe and Shakespeare’s Sister defend against the misogynistic gender-based attacks on Palin, albeit making clear that having to defend her is distasteful.

I agree with much of the substance of these posts. I do think picking a woman had something, if not everything, to do with attempting to attract Clinton supporters. While I support her right to make her own choices, I strongly disagree with her willingness to deprive other women of such choices, via her extreme anti-choice (with the only exception being the health of the mother) position. I strongly disagree with including discussions of creationism in schools.

Although she and McCain advocate equal pay, they also advocate for a statute of limitations that would make it difficult for women who do not quickly find out about pay discrepancies to advance their causes -- another position with which I strongly disagree. While Palin supports contraception, her stance on abstinence-only sex ed is reprehensible, as is her stance against gay marriage. And finally, I agree with other Democrats and some Republicans that her years of experience are not enough for someone in a Vice Presidential role, especially given McCain’s age.

On the other hand, Palin is an impressive person in other ways, which I can say as a feminist without falling on my sword. She was an aggressive player in sports that aren’t typically women-centric, playing through injury. Her high school ambitions were not stereotypically female subordinate ones. Her much-maligned pageant participation helped her get into college – she didn’t have relatives who went to Harvard and helped her through private school and into elite colleges, as is the case with other prominent politicians of recent note.

Her early political career was self-driven and earned through taking controversial positions, mainly involving economic positions against waste and corruption. She fulfilled campaign promises to reduce high salaries of officials and to give back to the community through reducing property taxes. She was Ethics Supervisor of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and resigned over the lack of ethics of fellow Republican members, some of whom she filed complaints against for corruption despite possible risk to her career. She directed a political training group for Republican women from 2003-2005.

In 2006, she became governor on a clean government platform. Soon after taking office, she auctioned the state jet on eBay (at a significant profit). A July 2008 put her approval rating at 80%. While she actively promoted drilling, she also passed a tax increase on oil company profits and created a new sub-cabinet group of advisors to address green energy sources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska. She also got rid of appointments made by her predecessor, including a chief of staff who later pled guilty to financial fraud.

So because she is not lacking in substance, although we may not agree with her views, I have a hard time with the choice to add a woman being characterized as pure pandering. After all, candidates for both President and VP are chosen to fill in perceived holes in the ticket and to win voters that are perceived as wavering. That’s politics. Democrats have acknowledged that Obama’s being black is a positive, although additionally he has many gifts, is a brilliant tactical politician and charismatic speaker. I have relatives who voted for him acknowledging they would have voted for Clinton if he had not been black. Race and gender are identity characteristics, such as age, religion and place of birth, that like it or not are part of the public’s evaluation of candidates, and therefore are looked at by smart campaigns when choosing whom to champion. Despite the fact that many of us disagree (strongly) with various of Palin's policies, others (mostly within her party, which after all is the group which chose her) do not. So when women ignore the fact that Palin has gotten things done and claim that her choice is purely pandering, that to me is antifeminist.

I heard both Palin and Obama speak. I’m from an academic family and culturally, Obama’s more impressive educational background and eloquence in speaking resonate more with me. Obviously, his voiced positions (which don't always translate to action) do too. But I thought Palin a good and confident speaker as well. Both are in their mid-forties and have held statewide elective office for less than four years. Obama’s rise involved working within the Chicago political machine, whereas Palin took positions adverse to the Republican establishment in her state. Obama was a community organizer, then law instructor and state senator. (As a community organizer, while Obama claims in his best-selling memoir to have initiated a cleanup of asbestos, Hazel Johnson, now 72 -- hmm, reminiscent of his treatment of Alice Palmer anyone? -- had been pushing for a variety of environmental cleanups years before he arrived, and felt her and others’ contributions were minimized and distorted, which is echoed by another action group, per the Los Angeles Times).

Palin and Obama both gained office via unpopular incumbents. In Palin’s case, she challenged a long-serving Republican governor during a time the state was open to reform. Obama was elected to statewide office after an unsuccessful first run for a congressional seat and after his Republican opponent was exposed in a sexual scandal, and won his seat eventually against a candidate who was not a resident of the state.

Obama has more national experience and has traveled more internationally and been briefed throughout the campaign more extensively on international matters. Palin has more executive experience; though Alaska is a small state, she does make decisions that affect the lives of 500,000 people within it, has balanced a budget, run something successfully, and has signed the front and not just the back of a check.

Obama and Palin both feel bipartisanship is needed to end “Red” vs “Blue” America discord and inefficiency. Obama’s efforts in the Senate have been, at best, mixed in this regard. Palin has taken many arch-conservative positions that are personally distasteful, but inarguably has worked with Democrats in the state legislature to secure landmark anti-corruption legislation, and partnered with Democrats such as former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz.

So given the respective records, while if I were Republican I’d have preferred to see Kay Bailey Hutchinson or other seasoned women chosen, to completely dismiss the choice of Palin as insubstantial seems unfair and yes, sexist.

That’s why I don’t have a conclusion. I loathe Palin’s social positions. I think they’re bad for women. But I don’t like hearing “I hate women like that” as if she has less right to have these positions than men do, and I don’t like seeing her criticized, often in gendered terms complete with looksism, in ways men with thin resumes aren’t. The temptation, in political writing, to take a firm position because it feels stronger, ignores the fact that it leaves so many holes it’s actually weaker. There’s plenty of substance to take issue with here, without resorting to that.