Gloria Steinem's History Lesson
Steinem observed that the results of what she termed the Iowa “primary” showed that women have generally had a tougher time in U.S. history than African-American males. “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).”
Going back a century, I wonder how many New York City women of Ms. Steinem’s social class—women who would have lacked the right to vote—would have traded places with a black man from, say, North Carolina?
Steinem then applied her interpretation of the American past to contemporary political punditry. Some white males willingly supported Obama, Steinem reasoned, because “racism stereotyped black men as more ‘masculine’ for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming.” And despite Hillary Clinton’s having led in every 2007 national poll of the Democratic candidates, and almost every state poll taken in New Hampshire and Iowa, Steinem asserted that Clinton was never the frontrunner in the campaign.
Why not? Because she’s a woman, and “women are never front-runners.”
Steinem added, “Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.”
Leaving aside the fact that hyper-masculinity hasn’t exactly formed a prominent part of Obama’s effort, what campaign has Steinem been watching? On a whole host of issues—the war in Iraq, policy toward Iran, gay rights, ethics reform and corporate influence on politics—Obama has staked out positions to the left of Clinton. In terms of tone, meanwhile, John Edwards has clearly been more “radical” than Clinton. On what basis, then, was supporting Clinton proof of a voter’s “radical” tendencies?
Would Steinem have reached the same conclusion if older Iowa women had caucused for Margaret Thatcher, who Clinton invoked yesterday on the campaign trail? Based on the quality of her Times argument, I’d have to say yes.