The current agitation against Nancy Pelosi epitomizes a sexist and ageist trend in our party that I want to call out in its own thread.
Here are some (not all!) dog-whistles intended to pander to stereotypes among Democratic voters:
– Fill-in-the-blank is too old.
– Fill-in-the-blank is too white.
– Fill-in-the-blank is too male (or too female, as the case may be).
I am reminded of similar dog-whistles tossed about during our recent Democratic Primary when supporters of Ayanna Pressley used phrases like “generational change”, “taking on [a] long-time incumbent”, and “credible candidate of color”.
Calling this material “identity politics” is at best a euphemism — it’s little more than a new name for straight old-fashioned pandering to prejudice and stereotypes.
78 year old legislators are not any more “tired” or less “creative” than their 20-something counterparts. The race or gender of a legislator has very little to with the policies of that legislator. Criticizing specific policy proposals or votes is great. Attacking the age, gender, race, or religion of a legislator is not. There are senile 50 year olds. There are sharp-as-a-tack 98 year olds.
A lesson that mainstream journalism had to learn way back in the 1970s was that the race of the alleged perpetrator and victim was irrelevant to a story about a crime. Headlines like “Black man rapes white woman at knifepoint” were pervasive and incredibly racist. It took years of pretty much constant pressure to replace those with something along the lines of “Woman raped at knifepoint”.
Michael Moore correctly pointed out a decade ago that something quite similar was happening with “reality” crime shows that ALWAYS feature big black men who do terrible things to often-white victims and are ALWAYS perp-walked away in cuffs. Programming like this exists because it panders to white fear of blacks. It is worth noting that white criminals who embezzle orders of magnitude more money from their victims are seldom if ever arrested and cuffed like this, and never on camera.
We saw this recently, even from otherwise respectable outlets like Washington Post, in the tragedy of Mollie Tibbetts. The immigration status of her killer should have been completely irrelevant to the crime. The story itself should not have been any different from, for example, the equally tragic killing of Lauren McCluskey.
The reason such coverage is so insidious is that it reinforces and panders to false prejudices about the targeted group. The race of an alleged criminal is relevant only when an active search for the individual is underway and authorities publish a description. The immigration status of an alleged criminal is never relevant.
In a similar vein, the age of Nancy Pelosi is not relevant to her leadership unless someone is arguing that she is senile. The longevity of Mr. Capuano in his congressional seat should not have been an issue in the primary. The race of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Capuano should similarly not be an issue, and neither should their gender.
If Democrats want to put forward candidates for speaker who want to see different ideas and policies, that’s legitimate (even if I might disagree). Some examples include candidates who are:
– Less attached to big donors
– Less attached to big pharma
– More aggressive against the Trumpist high crimes and misdemeanors
I think we owe it to ourselves, our descendants, and humanity to put an immediate stop to our own racist, ageist, and sexist dog-whistles.
This is just an amazing pivot–to start with an attack the motives of Pressley’s supporters , and then to start blathering about the Willie Horton ads. I don’t know whether this is just cynical, or whether it is just a monumental lack of self awareness.
It isn’t an attack on anybody’s supporters or their motives. It is instead an attack on demagoguery.
There were lots of reasons to vote for Ayanna Pressley, many of them detailed here. The dog-whistles of age, race, and gender are not among them.
Speaking of “a monumental lack of self awareness …”
Oh … and by the way … I said absolutely NOTHING about Willie Horton. That’s entirely your own fabrication.
There is no such thing as “reverse” racism against white people. I think we have to be very careful with this line of argument since that is an argument the Trump supporters often use to discredit valid pushes by African Americans and other minorities to gain a seat at the table.
Almost 20% of 7th District Primary voters, including a majority of voters in Somerville, concluded that Pressley was a better candidate. Capuano immediately pledged his support to the new Congresswoman. Ageism and “reverse” racism had nothing to do with his loss or her victory.
As for Pelosi, I think sexism and ageism do play a role in attacks against her, I also think that having the same three people in charge for 16 years is not the look of a dynamic organization. She earned another term as Speaker, but she should make an easier path for younger leaders to rise through the ranks, something it seems like she has with her elevation of Katherine Clark and Hakeem Jeffries.
“There is no such thing as racism against white people”.
Horse feathers.
“I oppose fill-in-the-blank because he/she is white” is just as toxic as “… black”. It is as preposterous as those who attempt to excuse Israeli human rights abuses because of the Holocaust.
Pure vote counts are meaningless. Somerville voters are just as susceptible to ageism as voters of anywhere else. At least some of those Somerville votes are from colleagues and friends of my children who argued — passionately at times — that Mr. Capuano was “too old”. That’s bullshit.
I do think we have to be very careful about our arguments. We are the “good guys”, and we need to act that way. These toxic dog-whistles are dangerous precisely because they are so attractive. It feels so “right” to find what superficially sounds like a justification for what is ultimately a matter of pure prejudice.
If the age of an elected official is interfering with their performance, then criticize that performance. It took the military generations to accept that women can do most military roles, including combat roles, as well as men. There is no justification for supporting or attacking a candidate because of their race, regardless of that race.
Your first statement is an utterly false canard. It is precisely the kind of thinking that I’m talking about.
So what? “Dynamic organization” is another of those Dilbert-speak phrases that is at best meaningless and most often describes organizations in utter chaos because nobody can keep their eye on the priorities of the organization long enough to get anything done. Most contributors who have spent much time in the world of high-tech of seen dozens of “dynamic” organizations. They generally produce garbage products at exorbitant prices.
The Trump administration — and particularly Mr. Trump’s staff — is a “dynamic organization”.
Organizations become “dynamic” when they cease to be effective. We just won an election. We are benefiting from a pervasive ground-swell of support happening because tens of millions of voters — especially new voters — are belatedly figuring out that we truly represent the values and priorities of America.
Barack Obama was a “dynamic” leader. That’s great and healthy, and I enthusiastically supported him. It is a mistake to seek change for its own sake.
Sorry for the accidental downvote. How do you see who voted now?
I think we should not conflate age and long-term incumbency. Phrases like “career politician” are an effective attack for some bad and some good reasons. I believe politics is an inherently corrosive activity. People get jaded, power-hungry, or quick to compromise or, at best, complacent. Politicians necessarily build connections and owe favors to unsavory people. This builds up over time. I don’t think one-size-fits-all term limits solve much, but I do think it’s appropriate to challenge someone simply because they have been in the position too long.
edit: double negative
I think you undo an accidental vote by clicking on the opposite. So I think click on the thumbs-up to undo an accidental thumbs-down.
So far as I know, it’s only possible to who voted on a comment.
Agreed. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize any politician for being jaded, power-hungry, too quick to compromise, complacent, or any similar behavior.
Such behaviors are found in newcomers as well as long-time incumbents. There are many long-term incumbents who do not have those attributes. Would anybody seriously claim that, for example, Mike Capuano was any of those? If so, I think the criticisms are inaccurate (I’ll grant that to some he may have seemed complacent).
So I agree that the behaviors you cite are good reasons to challenge an incumbent. I disagree that those behaviors have anything to do with term limits or time in office.
Tom’s bombast and hysteria mask his argument for complacency. Joe Crowley and Mike Capuano both were defeated despite their long tenures and their ties to the Democratic leadership. At the very least the election results show that voters don’t care about seniority. Or maybe the voters actively oppose the party hierarchy. There’s no evidence that these voters acted out of ageism or racism, and the more that apologists argue for the status quo, the sooner the Democrats will be turned out of office.
That would be bad for “ourselves, our descendants, and humanity” not to mention all the ships at sea.
94 % of the Democratic Caucus did NOT sign on to the anti-Pelosi letter. Newsflash to insurgents attempting to sabotage Leader Pelosi : you can’t beat somebody with nobody.
When Serh Moulton compared Nancy Pelosi to Margaret Thatcher last night he was tooting the “senile” dog whistle as loud as he could.
Well said Tom, well said especially the
Yup, that’s it.