The idea that having a woman
in office will automatically make the lives of most US women better is
wrong-headed.
Catherine Rottenberg teaches
20th-century American literature and feminist theory.
Gloria Steinem's now infamous
comment about young women flocking to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
because "the boys are there" is only one aspect of the current
Hillary Clinton versus Sanders debate that has given me - a 40-something
feminist - pause.
Other Clinton supporters have
claimed that the young women supporting Sanders are riding on the successes of
the older feminist generation, taking many of the 1970s
achievements for granted. Rather than continue the struggle to ensure
reproductive rights, this young generation is focusing on socioeconomic
inequalities and not on ostensibly proper feminist issues.
For Steinem, Madeline Albright
and others, then, the younger generation has abandoned identity politics, thus
betraying the legacy of the women's movement. Albright's equally recent and
ill-famed quote about a "special place in hell for women who don't help each other"
speaks volumes about this feeling of betrayal.
Identity politics is no longer
relevant
There is no doubt that
identity politics has been an incredibly powerful and empowering strategy in
the United States political landscape. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was part of
an historic attempt to claim recognition and rights for women, African
Americans, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) and other minority
populations. Black Lives Matter, the most important mobilisation in the past few
years, is also based on identity politics. Yet, identity politics is no longer
the privileged ground of progressives.
The kind of feminism that
Clinton and her supporters represent is deeply disturbing because it is
repeating past mistakes while ignoring the wider structural issues of gender
justice. It is a kind of trickle-down or neoliberal feminism.
Indeed, when George W Bush
appointed Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to two of the most powerful
government positions, it became strikingly clear that not only was Bush
incredibly savvy, but also that having the most diverse administration in no
way translates into progressive politics.
More recently, the French
nationalist Marine Le Pen has been advocating women's rights as part of her
campaign against French and migrant Muslims, while Geert Wilders, the founder
and leader of the conservative Freedom Party in the Netherlands - who compared
the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf - has invoked LGBT and women's rights to
attack and undermine religious freedoms, particularly of Muslims. Indeed,
identity politics can be used by conservatives just as well and effectively as
by progressives.
Thus, when I hear colleagues
and friends declaring that they will vote for Clinton because she is, well, a
woman, I am dismayed.
What does this kind of
statement mean?
There is little disagreement,
even among her feminist advocates, that Clinton's policies are reformist
domestically and hawkish internationally. And while her support for the
invasion of Iraq, and her unwillingness to denounce Israel's 50-year colonisation of
the Palestinian people may be abstract in the imagination of young American
voters, her intricate ties with Wall Street are not.
Healthcare for all?
Even more concrete for young
women is Clinton's criticism of Sanders for advocating a one-payer health
insurance system. Obamacare has certainly expanded coverage and made it more
affordable, but most individuals still need to buy insurance to access care.
Sanders is promoting a
national and universal "Medicare-for-All" system found in many developed
nations. In this system, every citizen would be automatically enrolled and
receive health insurance, including the 33 million US citizens who are still uninsured, even after
the introduction of Obamacare.
Sanders' vision, Clinton has claimed, is unrealistic and, even worse,
destructive. She is unwilling to commit to universal government-funded
healthcare and instead wants to expand Obamacare by reducing co-payments and
introducing other strategies that benefit the middle class but not the poor.
"We had enough of a fight to get to the Affordable Care Act," she recently said. "So I don't want to rip it up and start
over."
What many young women heard
was Clinton admitting that she was unwilling to stand up to the corrupt system
of HMOs and private health insurance companies. And because young women are
smart, they also drew a connection between Clinton's agenda and her intimate
links with lower Manhattan.
Young women do not want to
make the same mistakes as white feminists did in the 1970s and 1980s. They
understand, for example, that all US citizens - but especially women - would be
better off with a one-payer system because this would promise comprehensive and
good healthcare for all. This latter line of thinking simply echoes the
incisive black feminist criticism of liberal feminism (PDF) for its narrow focus on abortion and
"choice" rather than on the more inclusive fight for reproductive
justice.
Stratified hierarchy of
existence
Role models are important. But
I will not vote for Clinton because she is a woman. The idea that having a
woman in office will automatically make the lives of most US women better is
wrong-headed.
US women live very different
realities and often require very different things in order to ensure that they
can live a dignified and meaningful life.
Moreover, a feminism that does
not take into account the way in which women exist in a stratified hierarchy of
existence - stratified by race, class, sexuality, religion, nationality and
many other categories - is a myopic one; one that ultimately reifies much of
the status quo while making life better for a small percentage of upwardly
mobile - and most often - white women.
The kind of feminism that
Clinton and her supporters represent is deeply disturbing because it is
repeating past mistakes while ignoring the wider structural issues of gender
justice. It is a kind of trickle-down or neoliberal feminism.
As difficult as it may be for
many progressives, it is high time to recognise that identity politics is no
longer the stronghold of the left. As a radical colleague put it to me just the
other day, political responsibility cannot and should not be reduced to
identity.
[Catherine Rottenberg teaches
20th-century American literature and feminist theory, and is the
author of Performing Americanness: Race, Class, and Gender in Modern
African-American and Jewish-American Literature.]
No comments:
Post a Comment