Shawn Maxam believes we need to contextualize statements made by political figures if we really want to understand what is at stake.
Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
-George Orwell
We Americans can be so reductionist sometimes. We want to breakdown a ninety-minute presidential debate into a nine-second remark. As hilarious as everyone finds Romney’s “binders full of women” gaffe/comment I think it is more important to note the conservative discourse about women’s reproductive rights, access to equal pay and notions of workplace equity.
The same thing occurred when Romney said he loved PBS and Big Bird but wanted to cut funding for public television. Instead of looking at the substance or meaning behind politicians say we become so enamored with their slip-ups, mistakes and gaffes. We are all flawed when it comes to using language but if we become distracted by one silly comment by a presidential candidate we do a disservice to the messiness and complexity that is policy.
I am not saying everyone has to become an expert in political punditry but being an engaged citizen requires effort especially when our elected officials make decisions that not only affects us personally but the entire sociopolitical Eco-system. We know what Romney’s politics and policies are. Doing just a few minutes of research will illustrate this.
As a good friend of mine stated “At the very heart of modern conservative ideology is the belief that people should be free to discriminate, and that includes paying women whatever the hell they want. I wish more people, especially women, understood this”.
There isn’t just a “war on women” but a difference of ideologies and policy here. I am not a feminist but I don’t need to hear a politician say something trivial to understand his policies are unfair and detrimental to women. These women include my wife, my mother and my sisters. Context is always important but it is also confusing and complicated. Unfortunately soundbites don’t offer us much room for contextualizing.
Please share this with friends, enemies and temporary allies alike.
Thank you so much for reading, sharing and commenting.
R.I.P. SKH
About S. Maxam
Awesome Orwell quote. From “Politics and the English Language,” right? One of my favorites.
Yes that is exactly where it is from. I love it too. Orwell was amazing.
The problem is that John. Q. Public is incredibly stupid. You need only to watch the “undecided voter” panels after the debate to see how painfully stupid these people are. Policy, facts, numbers, and the like are completely irrelevant to the vast majority of people. If they think it sounds good, well, they want in. It is why Republicans do so well on tax arguments because they say, “Hey, we’re going to cut taxes! Everybody pays less in taxes!” There is absolutely no thought about who pays less in taxes, whether the tax cuts will be paid for, and the like. The very fact that Romney “won” the first debate was telling. He was lying through his teeth but because he looked good doing it he won.
I am a conservative woman and there is no war against me. I am not against equal pay for equal work, nor do I know anyone who is. There is no lack of access of birth control in this country. Nor is anyone trying to take it away from anyone. Talk about listening to sound bites and believing them. Most people still think that Sandra Fluke was asked to talk to committee on “women’s issues” when what the hearing was actually about was issues between church and state; something that she has zero expertise in at all.
What I find frustrating about the “binder” issue is it became a soundbite. If he had a D behind his name all we would be hearing at this point is how he took positive action to increase the gender diversity of a cabinet that had no women in it in the previous administration, and how heroic and groundbreaking that is. I’m not going to try to defend him on some of the other social issues but in this case a poorly phrased but strong gender equality action did take place.
I think you’re right that a Democratic candidate would have gotten a little more slack for being on the “right side.”
Then again, if Bill Clinton (D) mentioned “binders of women,” I’d have a somewhat jaded response as well…. : – )
I’m thinking about the binders meme as a historian who watches Antiques Roadshow. Somewhere out there those binders may still exist as actual objects. Someone has access or ownership of them, probably whatever archive stores the papers of the governors of Massachusetts. If they still exist, look for someone to auction them off, put them on display, or post a pdf online. And then, expect some fakes on the market as well.
There are collectors out there waiting to make a bid to the first one who offers a binder for sale.
Unfortunately, there was a larger point in Romney’s answer that got somewhat lost because of the “binders” part of it. And, it’s a point I think both parties need to handle better. I detected an attempt on his part to suggest that one of the most important ways to help women is to help the economy generally and the job market in particular. Basically, the idea that a bad economy is bad for women. Unemployment may hit men and women differently, but it’s still bad for women. He, I think even more than Obama, talked about women as workers and as earners of paychecks.
The fact that the majority of paychecks in the U.S. go to women does not seem to have registered yet. The majority of the workforce is female, which I think will start to make more and more difference in American politics in the near future.
Romney handled it hamfistedly, but I think there is a need in American politics to talk more often about “women’s issues” as something that includes larger economic issues. There’s a tendency to limit women’s political considerations to questions of reproduction, family, and equality in the workplace. These are all important, but don’t women also care about the national debt, the solvency of Social Security, national security spending, and the tax code? There’s a sort of progress here, talking about women in terms other than as mothers, homemakers, and victims of crime.
Dammit, I hate it when public overreaction leads me to defend something Romney said. Of all people. What can I say? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.