On Women In Government
[Pt. 2]
Somewhere between writing the answers to “5 Questions Guys Are Too Embarrassed to Ask” and writing quizzes to test your knowledge of basic U.S. Geography, Buzzfeed finds time to write about politics. In particular, one writer covered the up and coming career of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
The very fact that this article exists on their site is (probably) an attempt at justifying the site as more than just every college student’s procrastination destination. (Feel free to forward that as a tagline idea to their marketing department.) This also means that most twenty-somethings will read this as hard news.
The article’s thesis centers on Sen. Gillibrand being a good influence in the Senate for two main reasons: she advances the Democratic mission with her penchant for fundraising, and she is a woman (specifically, the protégée of Hilary Clinton).
The text implies that the skill of fundraising in the political community is not only good, but that it’s good because she uses it to be a “true power player in Democratic politics…bringing in a coalition of like-minded lawmakers to Washington.” They hypocrisy lies in the fact that this would seem unacceptable if the Republicans were this aggressive, or even worse, a socialist party. A few weeks later, the only topic any Democratic political journalist could discuss was the SCOTUS’ ruling to allow PAC donations of any size. They chided the justices for creating an environment where dollars could buy votes.
The text doesn’t imply any hesitation when stating that Sen. Gillibrand wants to become a political machine. There is no mention of the ways this political power Gillibrand wields could be ever used destructively. Perhaps this is rooted in a hesitation to chide any woman who sets a precedent in a male-dominated community. If this article’s banner photo of the blue-eyed, blonde, female politician were simply replaced with a man of the same features, the article would absolutely be subject to more scrutiny.
John Stanton, the author of this text, capitalizes on America’s wounds from a patriarchal society to bolster his belief that Sen. Gillibrand’s work is good. He praises her strengths as an aggressive yet nurturing woman, rooted in her “get things done” mentality. He never questions what is being done and how.
Gillibrand’s aggressive nature is deemed good because it is rooted in loyalty. But do we really know all the entanglements of her loyalty? How is this justification enough for her blatant use of her political prowess to only bring in more people with whom she identifies?
In the case of her help with Tulsi Gabbard (Sen. in Hawaii), Gillibrand says she was drawn to her because she saw some of herself in Gabbard. Sen. Gabbard went on to back Sen. Gillibrand’s (failed) efforts at reorganizing the way the military handles sexual assault cases.
Gillibrand’s work, as cited in the article, certainly is not harmful in the sense that she strives for human flourishing and the equality of the sexes. This stems from her larger assumed metanarrative that women have been historically oppressed, so she must work doubly hard to not let this define her. Included in that structure, though, is a hierarchy of people who think like her (Democrats, especially women) over people who don’t.
I am not too ignorant to understand that in politics, you are always looking to make your party the majority voice, but that is not an inherent good. The text assumes that as a steamrolling politician hoping to bring in more of the unnoticed and unappreciated individuals, Gillibrand is not creating a new category of marginalized people. In fact, the author just assumes that because she helps underdogs (the reasons they never achieved success were not stated) she is creating something better.
While I would assume Sen. Gillibrand values diversity (regarding gender, race, and sexual orientation), it’s clear that Sen. Gillibrand values selective diversity. She, at one time considered the “other” because of her sex, now creates a new community of “others” by only valuing those who share her philosophy.
On a personal level, I agree with a lot of what Sen. Gillibrand wants for America. The problem with this text is that its reasoning is based on facile politicizing. It is located on a website designed for the quick skim and (dare I say) buzzword catching. For that reader, this message is cozy and encouraging. It pacifies its audience by focusing on female empowerment and ignoring the political process.
If this were a speech given in an institution of learning (which I would argue should be part of any journalist’s mission), it would be heard as brainwashing. No meat, no details, and no facts are given. If you switched out the phrases about supporting women and substituted them with “justifying aristocracy,” you would see the illegitimacy of the argument. Mr. Stanton’s thesis relies on the fact that we still feel guilty about the fact that women have not been powerful for very long. Without the fear of being misogynistic, his argument does not hold.
The strength of the article is in its intention. Stanton wants to illuminate the encouraging new work by women in politics. His article shows an attempt at restoring faith in politicians who follow through on the mission they claim. A more cogent argument, with a little more faith in the intelligence of his audience, is all this text needs to be more genuinely compelling.
vérité et de grâce
truth and grace