Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Guest Blogger: Primary Battles Prove Feminized Values to be Defining Element of 2008 Presidential Race



Primary Battles Prove Feminized Values to be Defining Element of 2008 Presidential Race

By Katherine Adam and Charles Derber

As Democrats come closer to choosing their candidate for the 2008 presidential election, gender has emerged again and again as the defining element of the primary race. Hillary has relied heavily on a base of older and working class women. Barack Obama has pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton with a feminized personal style and using feminized language about unity and community.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on this phenomenon, writing, "The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival." Boston Globe writer Ellen Goodman has a different take on the events: "Now we see a woman running as the fighter and a man modeling a 'woman's way' of leading. We see a younger generation in particular inspired by ideas nurtured by women, as long as they are delivered in a baritone. So, has the women's movement made life easier? For another man?"

Dowd and Goodman both touch upon a theme we discuss in our book, The New Feminized Majority: How Democrats Can Change America with Women's Values. The Obama-Clinton gender battle ultimately comes down to feminized values, which will also be the defining element in the 2008 election and beyond.

For many Democrats, it seems strange to talk about values-based politics. We usually equate values with religion. The media calls evangelical conservatives the only “values voters.” Yet, values are nothing more than socially constructed ideals of how the world should be. Many aspects of a person's identity beyond religion create his or her value system –age, race, and nationality. However, the most important values for Democrats to understand are values shaped by gender.

Women's history of oppression, combined with their fights for liberation, have created what we term feminized values. These include empathy, cooperation, and a preference for non-violent solutions to conflicts. Conversely, men's history of political and economic dominance socialize men into a system of masculinized values, including aggression and individualism.

Gender gap data from surveys consistently show this gendered difference. But it is important to understand that gendered values are not embedded in a person's DNA. Women are not inherently more peaceful and nurturing, men are not born as cutthroat, "every man for himself" individualists. (Just look at Condoleezza Rice and Dennis Kucinich.) People, in general, are socialized into values based on gender, but gender is open to variance and change. Men can adopt feminized values, and, as we will show, millions have.

Women's increasing progressivism won't lead to a battle of the sexes showdown. In fact, millions of men are following the feminized progressive example, holding opinions on issues that match those held by a majority of women. This points to the reason Obama or Clinton needs to pay close attention to gendered values: for the first time, feminized values—which are progressive, community-minded, and often closely aligned with Democratic Party policy—are now held by a majority of Americans.

While gender gaps still exist, a large enough minority of men support feminized principles to make them majoritarian. We find these values reflected in issue after issue, in poll after poll. From ending the Iraq War to funding stem cell research, from raising the minimum wage to adopting government-sponsored universal healthcare, the feminized position is the majoritarian position—which means it is the winning position.

While Clinton seemed to be the more "masculinized" candidate in the Democratic race, the differences between Clinton and Obama will seem microscopic once we enter the general election. The race between McCain and the Democratic candidate shows a HUGE chasm between feminized and masculinized morality.

McCain's hypermilitarized foreign policy objectives and traditionalist social policies reflect his masculinized values. At events, he is often flanked by symbols of American masculinity, such as cops and soldiers. These visuals are an attempt to convey a subliminal promise of masculine protectionism: vote for me and men like these will keep your wives and children safe. The other unspoken part of this message is clear: Democrats are too weak and womanly to lead.

Unfortunately for McCain, a majority of Americans have turned away from this dated definition of "strength". With hundreds of thousands dying in Iraq, GIs returning home paralyzed or in body bags, and pictures circulating of hooded Iraqi prisoners with electrodes attached to their bodies, Americans are looking for a new kind of foreign policy. And with multiple corporate mergers, rising poverty rates, and economic inequality unparalleled since the Gilded Age, Americans can't afford anything but new domestic policies.

Obama or Clinton can provide an alternative to the morality offered by McCain. All they need to do is recognize the new feminized majority, and embrace it.

To order “The New Feminized Majority” visit Paradigm Publishing at http://www.paradigmpublishers.com/books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=180321 or Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/New-Feminized-Majority-Katherine-Adam/dp/1594515689/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204436315&sr=8-1
Building beyond Lakoff’s election-year best-seller, Don’t Think of an Elephant, this new book shows how the values of American voters are dramatically shifting. With the arrival of the 2008 election year, a rising feminized majority’—made up of both women and men—is emerging as the pivotal force in American politics. Emerging trends show these values are broadly progressive and address not just the needs of women but the general interests of society. They are held by women substantially more than by men but have become the values held by a majority of all voters, including millions of men.

Like earlier eras in American history, such as the New Deal, the rise of the feminized majority today presents an opportunity for the Democrats to become the governing party for decades to come. Looking beyond the 2008 election, Adam and Derber describe a new political strategy that targets the feminized base and opens up a window for major social justice movements to make progressive change.

Like Lakoff’s, this striking new book—perfectly timed for election year 2008—offers a new vocabulary for every citizen who wants to understand (and reimagine) American politics. It will intrigue and provoke readers, stirring new conversation among progressives and new insights for every citizen interested in politics, morality, religion, values, and social justice.

Reveals the “Three Hillaries” and why two of her three political dimensions consist of masculinized values.
Shows why Obama and Edwards are more “feminized” than Hillary Clinton
Builds beyond Lakoff’s Elephant in showing how gender is increasingly pivotal in political values, and by revealing the deep historical roots of gendered values in America
Looks at the relation between religion, values, and politics in a new way
A book perfectly timed for the first election in which a woman, Hillary Clinton, stands a strong chance of becoming president
Written by a widely experienced political campaigner and a noted social critic
Shows how political discussions have been gender-blind and how gender awareness opens new windows to social justice in America


Gender, Values, and the Democrats

As the only group targeted by a political party using a value-based strategy, evangelicals are seen as the only people who match their actions and politics to their values. Values, however, are a universal human phenomenon. In their simplest form, values are socially constructed views about how the world should be. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote about the subjectivity of values and how we shape our values to fit our ideas of what makes a perfect society.

But whatsoever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire, that it is which he for his part calleth “good”; and the object of his contempt “vile” and “inconsiderable.” For these words of good, evil, and contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them. There being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of Good or Evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves.7

Looking past Hobbes’s notorious pessimism about the human condition, this idea highlights that everyone acts on values and that values are socially constructed. Therefore, values vary from person to person, and a person has the ability to change his or her values.

Although Hobbes refers to an individual’s values, his message translates to larger community values. Americans, for example, hold American values. Every political candidate, on the right or the left, knows that most Americans respond favorably to the idea that a person should be rewarded for hard work. This is a capitalist, American value. Members of other societies might feel that a person should be rewarded for his or her skin color or family bloodline. Every person is socialized into the values of his or her community or nation, and these values then intersect with other values the person has, such as those based his or her religion, race, and socioeconomic class.

Perhaps the most important set of socialized values, however, is based on a person’s gender. We term these values feminized values and masculinized values. In this book, we will outline how men’s and women’s different value systems create divergent views about what America should be. We argue that Americans carry gendered attitudes into the voting booth and, like the evangelicals, vote based on how these values translate to specific political issues.

Just as some groups’ values fall to the more conservative end of the political spectrum, other groups’ values fall to the left. Evangelicals usually support right-wing candidates, because their moral values are highly conservative. We will introduce a group of voters whose values reflect progressive ideals: feminized values voters. If evangelicals represent the key to Republican electoral victory, then feminized values voters represent the chance for Democrats to usher in a new progressive era.

Feminized values are the values into which women are socialized; a majority of women hold these values, as do a smaller percentage of men, for reasons we will describe shortly. The potential for a more progressive era arises because the women and men who hold feminized values make up today a majority of the country and of voters.

We term feminized values voters the feminized majority. These women and men will not only change election outcomes, but also will transform American values and the American Dream. The feminized majority supports a strong welfare state, views social issues through a lens of egalitarianism, and feels that government should do more in general to help its most vulnerable citizens. Feminized majority voters support stem cell research, comprehensive sex education, and environmental protection. They reject violent imperialism. They worry about their long-term economic security and fear that neither party will provide them with adequate health care. In a much deeper and richer way than American masculinized voters, the feminized majority yearns for a progressive, populist America.

We call these voters the feminized majority because the values they carry truly are becoming majoritarian. We will describe the political and economic changes that have led to this point. It is important to remember that President Bush changed the 2004 election by mobilizing evangelicals, who represent only 23 percent of voters. Now, Democrats have the opportunity to change America in dramatic ways with the support of a much larger part of the electorate. While the general perception is that the United States is a conservative country, we shall show that feminized values are held by an increasingly robust majority of voters in the country who are prepared to support a progressive politics of social justice.

The Democrats can lead the feminized majority if they are willing to abandon their triangulation strategy and create a values-based platform. This approach seems unorthodox, because we usually conflate values and morals with religion and conservatism. However, values are nothing more than socially constructed ideals that provide a moral compass for each person, regardless of where he or she falls on the political spectrum. Once Democrats recognize the power of values in elections, they can begin appealing to values voters.

A noted social critic, Charles Derber is a Professor of Sociology at Boston College. Katherine Adam is the Outreach Director for the Philadelphia GROW Project of the Drexel University School of Public Health. She has been active in Democratic Party politics at the federal, state, and local levels, including interning for Senator John Kerry. Derber and Adam collaborated on the newly released nonfiction title, “The New Feminized Majority: How Democrats Can Change America with Women’s Values” which can be purchased at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble.com, and from the publisher’s website.


Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Obama, Why Do You Hate the Voters of Michigan?

Obama, Why Do you Hate the Voters in Michigan?

It was reported to day that there are four factions working toward getting a revote for in Michigan. Clinton has already come out in favor, while Obama has remained silent. Which only leads me to believe that his is either he is afraid or that he hates the voters of Michigan.

The governor, state representatives, many Democrats, and businesses have been working to make it possible for Michigander votes to count. The people in the state, who weren't involved with decision to move up the date, want their voices heard. The 12million dollars have been pledged. It will not cost the National Democratic Party or the state a cent. All that needs to be decided is the manor of the revote and the date.

Clinton honored the agreement by not campaigning in Michigan; however, she showed the residents respect by not removing her name from the ballet. She has been asking for the revote, even though she originally carried the state.

Removing his name was optional, yet Obama chose to over look the millions of voters in Michigan. Since then he has continued to snub the state, by remaining silent and subtly discouraging the revote. So is he afraid of loosing and giving Clinton momentum or does he simply hate the people of Michigan.


Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Fox New Commentator Bill O'Reilly Spews Bigotry and Should be Fired

Don Imus was fired after his remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team. His comments were bigoted and ignorant; he hurt feelings, but didn't propose violence against another, unlike Bill O'Reilly’s comments about Michelle Obama.

On February 19, 2008 in response to a caller identified as Maryanne, Woodbury, Connecticut, O’Reilly mentioned lynching. Although Maryanne obviously had issues with Obama's statement, it was O'Reilly who brought up the concept of violence.


O'REILLY: Maryanne, Woodbury, Connecticut: What say you, Maryanne? Maryanne --

CALLER: I'm here.

O'REILLY: -- you're on the air.

CALLER: Here I am.

O'REILLY: OK.

CALLER: I just wanted to say that I think Michelle Obama is an angry woman -- is speaking, I think, with her real voice for the first time. And --

O'REILLY: But how do you -- what do you base that on? You're basing that on what?

CALLER: Well, your representative asked me not to talk about this, but I have a friend who had knowledge of her and said to me months ago, "This is a very angry," her word was "militant woman."

O'REILLY: All right. What I want you do then, Maryanne, if -- I want you to stay on the line.

CALLER: OK.

O'REILLY: Because it's not fair to Michelle Obama for you --

CALLER: Oh no, all I'm saying is --

O'REILLY: -- because we don't know who you are, and we don't know who your friend is, but we want to know. We want to know, OK. But it's not fair at this point for you to say, "My friend said X and Y," because we just don't know. But if you would give us your information, we would like to talk to your friend. And then whatever your friend tells us, we'll track it down. We'll do it in a fair and balanced and methodical way. That's how we're going to cover this campaign -- all of them, all of them. So stay on the line, give us your information. If indeed Michelle Obama is angry about something, if she has a history, we would like to know that, and then we can put it into some kind of context so that we can be fair to everybody.

You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.

That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.
1-877-9-NO-SPIN. Right back.

For those who not only understand history, but who have faced bigotry, Obama’s statement is easy to comprehend. Those who that came into adulthood after the 1960's understand the political and social the disillusionment. The early to mid 1960’s were filled with optimism, hope and change. The Civil Rights movement not only helped minorities start to gain equality, but also the younger generation were actively involved in political and social reform. They were out to change the world by ending the war, protecting the environment and creating equality. People marched the streets for peace and equality. Violence was isolated and was only used in response to the harassment by law enforcement.

All that started to end on April 4, 1968 with the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. which was followed by Robert Kennedy’s execution on May 4 of the same year. These two heroes were slain for the positive changes they were attempting to create; they represented the civil rights, peace and equality on all levels. They were more than just symbols of hope, but they also were representative of the younger generations. Their deaths along with the continued bigotry and persecution turned that hope into the disillusionment and violence. The more the “establishment” attempted force the old standards and to stifle civil liberties, the more unrest and violence spread. From the Weatherman and the Chicago 8 to middle Americans being assaulted in the streets by police officers, the faster the country became a pressure cooker ready to explode. The leaders of the civil rights movement were murdered, jailed or harassed into submission. It is this history that Michelle Obama and many others can’t be proud of. With the reawakening of political activism and participation, hope has been reborn as one or both glass ceilings will soon be shattered.

O’Reilly continually promotes his own narrow political, social and religious beliefs; nor is he a stranger to down playing the horror associated with nooses and bigotry. When the Jena 6 were overly prosecuted, O’Reilly ignored the social implications and focused on the teenage indiscretions of the accused, while discounting the same offenses of the so called victim. When the other nooses where hung around the country, he casually glossed over the stories if he mentioned them at all. October 2007 he mocked the protest of a Wiccan when she protested the witch being hung in effigy on her neighbor’s lawn. O’Reilly attacks what he doesn’t want to hear. While campaigning John Edwards exposed not only the poverty in this country, but the lack of support of the returning veterans. In spite, of the information released by the Veteran’s Administration and his own expert guests, he denied that 200,000 vets were homeless. He kept repeating that it wasn’t the fault of the economy that vets were without homes but the fact that they were addicted to drugs and mentally ill. No one said the economy as the source of the problem. The lack of proper physical and emotional care after their tours is the issue. PTS, closed head injuries, and loss of body parts are the reason vets are homeless. O’Reilly also turns a blind eye to civil rights violations. In nearly every case of police abuse of power that he bothers to mention, he has always come down on the side of law enforcement in spite of the evidence against them. According to O'Reilly, unless you have led a pristine life, law enforcement has the right to harass and abuse you.

In days following his remarks about Obama, O’Reilly issued a non-apology. It was clear that he feels his remarks were justified and accurate--fair and balanced. Obviously, he has different definition of those concepts than those with IQ’s over 85.


Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Wiccans And Pagans: It's time to Make Your Vote Count

Wiccans and Pagans: It is time to Step Of the Shadows And Make Your Vote Count
By
Theresa Chaze

I posted a political piece on my page at a Wiccan and Pagan Networking site. The first comment was made by someone who didn't give a damn. Being politically and socially active isn't optional; it is a responsibility that we all share. After the past seven years of the whittling away of civil liberties, corporate greed, and government spying on the citizens of this country, we don't have the luxury of not giving a damn. Unless we are willing to get involved and hold our representatives responsible for their actions, they will continue to be public masters instead of public servants. In addition, the religious zealots will continue to be the only source of information about who we are and what we do. What each of us must ask ourselves is do you want the Pat Robertsons, the Pat Buchanans or an other right wing religious extremists disseminating information about us and our religious practices? Unless we step up to the podium and speak our truths that is all the society will know about us.

In the past seven years, the only people who are better off are those in the upper 10% economic bracket. They are the ones who received the big tax breaks. The oil, drug and insurance companies make record breaking profits on the backs of workers whose wages remained stagnant, while their benefits shrank. The cost of living has risen to the point that people are losing their homes. No matter how hard people work, they simple are unable to provide for their families. Soldiers who are returning home from an unnecessary war aren’t being provided the necessary medical, emotional and physical care needed to heal from the damage done to them by extended and repeated tours. Civil liberties both on the local and national levels have been usurped in the name of national security when in most cases those involve have done nothing wrong outside of being different or unique. From law enforcement abusing their authority to telephone companies spying on the government’s behavior, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are no longer guaranteed.

Recently the Livingston Parish Council in Louisiana tried to enforce the archaic fortunetelling ordinance. It was only after the Wiccan minister, Cliff Eakin, challenged the ordinance in federal court that the Parish Council decided to review their decision. Last Samhain, a witch being hung in effigy was considered a Halloween decoration, while empty nooses hung on a tree caused national controversy. At Yule, the city of Green Bay, WI opened it holiday display to other religions, yet the fair mindedness was short lived. The pentacle wreath was deliberately destroyed and was not allowed to be replaced, yet the nativity scene remained. In his State of the Union speech, Bush once again reaffirmed his commitment to the faith-based initiatives and support for religious schools at public expense; to date the only benefactors of those programs have been Christian.

Becoming political doesn’t mean that you aren’t spiritual. Protecting the environment, each other, and working towards peace is spirituality in action. It is walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk. Speaking out and being socially active does more than bring about positive change, it openly confronts the bigotry and misunderstandings that the small minds continue to spread. If all the public hears about how two girls were killed by a ritual gone bad or how a Wiccan couple lured teenage girls into their homes with sex and drugs, the stereotyping will only continue. The general public will never know the good we do in the world. If we don’t step up and out of the broom closet. We don’t have to march on city hall or protest in the streets to make a difference. However, if both as individuals or as groups, we openly volunteer for community service, become involved with charity events, run for political office or the many other socially positive options available, we will disprove the lies and build strong bridges. The more involved we become the clearly others will be able to se us for the people we are, instead of the lies that continue to be spread. Change will happen when we the people decide to make them happen. As long as we hid in the shadows, the world will not be able to see our light.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 28, 2008

Kennedy Endorsment of Obama

I was just watching the Kennedy rally in support Barack Obama. What I saw was a connection between Obama and the Kennedy family that was beyond political. When I first time I saw Obama at the Democratic convention, I sensed the same kind of energy I saw in Bobby Kennedy. I also knew he was going to be President in 2012.

Ted Kennedy looked healthier and happier than he has been in decades. It is like a great burden and sadness has been lifted from his shoulders. For the first time in decades, his shoulders were no longer weighed down by a loss that he could not prevent. In his speech, Ted found a renewed passion and strength in the message he shared. It was like he had lost the missing part of himself or an old grief had been put to rest. However, when Ted referenced John instead of Bobby, it gave me pause. Though both John and Bobby were very similar in style and message, their energies were much different. John was more conservative in his message and style, while Bobby had a freer spirit and sought more radical change. John was more focused in his intent and mannerisms. Bobby was more relaxed and subtle in the way he not only got his message across but in the way he went around the people who tried to block it. His thought was--it is simpler to go around opposition instead of trying to force your way through it. Bobby was more passionate about building bridges between people of different ethic, economic, religious and lifestyle backgrounds and finding common ground. John was more straight forward and plan spoken; he truly said what he meant and meant what he said. As with the Cuba Crisis, John stood for what he believed with calm self-assurance. He didn’t need to raise his voice to get his message across. When he did, it was more for effect than an emotional release.

Originally, I thought Obama might have been the reincarnation of Bobby Kennedy, yet the birth and death dates didn't match, nor did the dates match for John. There were several years when all three existed on this plane together. Barack was born before the deaths of both John and Bobby Kennedy. Yet the closer I looked at Obama, the more his cadence, his tone and his message, the more I see John even through there is much of Bobby still in the message. It is as if when John continued to guide Bobby after his death as he did in life, he himself absorbed the passion that drove Bobby forward. It would be interesting to know if Obama had a near fatal accident around or soon after the deaths of John or Bobby that would have opened the door for a soul exchange, which would have allowed one of the two Kennedy brother’s souls to walk in the body known as Barack Obama. Or if on the grand scheme of life, those two souls have chosen to be the angels on his shoulders, whispering to him how to create the changes they had been prevented from making a reality.

Either way it is time for Obama to start building bridges, instead of playing tit for tat. It doesn’t matter who started the conflicts and the mud slinging, but who has the strength and courage to finish it. All three Democratic candidates have positive messages, experience and individual abilities to contribute to the country. When the bottom line is tallied on each of them, the good of the country should out weigh individual egos, ambitions and hurt feelings. To quote John, “Ask not what you country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Each candidate must ask themselves in their hearts who would be best to step up to the plate and who would better at the supporting roles? If to no one else but to themselves, they need to answer why they want the Presidency. If their goal is the good of the world, good of the nation and the good of the individual, then their answer and their path will be clear.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , ,