I’m going to argue that even voters in non-swing states, who think their votes for president don’t count because of the electoral college, should still vote for Clinton.
Partly, I think this election is much too important. I don’t want to screw around, not with this one. I don’t want to take a chance on electing a literal fascist because the polling was off and Nevada was closer than we thought it would be. (Stephanie Zvan has an excellent piece on why “swing state” thinking is harmful, both in the short-term and the long-term.)
But I also think the popular vote counts. It isn’t what elects the President (absurdly). But it sends a signal: to the voters who won, to the voters who lost, to other people running for office, to the rest of the world.
And when November comes, I do not want this to be a close election.
In theory, third-party votes for anyone but Trump should be read as “anyone but Trump.” But that’s not how it’s going to be read. When this election is over, almost all the media reporting will be on the gap between Clinton and Trump. And I want that gap to be HUGE.
I’d been working on a piece about reasons to vote for Clinton, but it was becoming huge and unmanageable. So I’m breaking it down into bite-sized morsels.
I recently did a poll of my Facebook readers, asking, “Clinton supporters — what are the main reasons you’re voting for her? Not reasons you’re voting against Trump, those are easy, but things you positively like about her and make you want to support her.” The entire thread is well worth reading, especially if you’re planning to vote for Clinton but aren’t wild about it — or you’re not planning to vote for Clinton and are wondering why other people are. And one of the themes that came up again and again: Clinton’s administrative skills and knowledge of government are fierce.
And she is well-known in Washington, even among her opponents, for her policy expertise, her willingness to study and increase her already prodigious knowledge, her work ethic, her ability to work with others and make effective deals while maintaining her tenacity, and her willingness to share credit (a useful and underrated trait in long-term political strategy).
This has been a difficult primary, with inspiring things and shitty things on both sides. But I’m going to take a moment and be weepy and proud at the historic nomination of Hillary Clinton, the first woman to be nominated as a major party Presidential candidate.
(Hillary haters: please, don’t post it here. There’s plenty of other places, and there will be lots of other times. Thanks.)
If you think Clinton and Trump are basically the same, I urge you: Please, PLEASE, read this. It’s an extensive summary documenting large numbers of ways in which Trump is a literal fascist. That’s not hyperbole.
And if you think Trump could never be elected: People said he’d never be nominated, either. This is a close election — much, much closer than it should be, given that one of the candidates is a literal fascist.
If you have problems with Clinton — say so. I would urge you to take some time and fact-check your opinions about her: there’s been a decades-long right-wing smear campaign against her, much of which is being repeated by people on the left. I would also urge you to look at some of the ways manyattacksonher, including attacks from the left, are sexist. If you’ve checked the negative things you think about her and they turn out to be true and fair and not a sexist-double-standard, say so.
I want to take a moment to talk about why we publicize these accusations. Tl;dr: We do it because we’re trying to make the community safer.
Those of us who talk about sexual harassment and assault, and other problems in the organized secular movement (and everywhere else, for that matter), are often accused of doing it for our own gain. We’re accused of doing it to increase traffic and boost our careers. And we’re accused of doing it to bring down people we don’t like. I’ve already addressed the first accusation: today, I want to speak to the second.
Richard Carrier was a friend of mine, as well as a colleague. We weren’t close friends, but we had a good social relationship and a good professional relationship. He’s been to multiple parties at our house (a fact that now gives me the creeps: I hate the thought that I may have exposed my friends to his behavior). We worked together at Freethought Blogs for a long time; we collaborated; we promoted each others’ work. And he was a public advocate for feminism and social justice within organized atheism. I was extremely distressed when I started hearing these accusations, and at first I didn’t want to believe them. But I heard more than one accusation, and some of my own conversations with Carrier made me uneasy about his sexual ethics. That’s when I began distancing myself from him, personally and professionally.
I’m not publicizing accusations against him because I don’t like him. I stopped liking him because I started hearing these accusations.
I’m going to say that again, in large boldface capital letters, since it seems to be all too easily overlooked:
To any cis/het people who are wondering why queer people, and especially Latinx and African-American queer people, are responding so strongly to the attack on Pulse in Orlando:
Did you grieve over 9/11, even if you didn’t personally know anyone who was killed? Did you feel frightened, angry, in shock? Did you feel that the attack was an attack on all of us? Did you realize it could easily have been you, or people you knew? Did it make you fear for your own safety? Did you wonder if there would be follow-up attacks, copycat attacks, or simply more attacks by people who hate us? Did you feel rage and bafflement at the idea of people having that much hatred towards you and people like you?
If so, you need to SIT THE FUCK DOWN and listen.
Note: I am not going to be patient in the comments.
CLAIM: Hillary Clinton purchased a $12,000 Giorgio Armani jacket to deliver a speech about income inequality.
FACT: Women’s bodies are treated as public property, and women in all professions and walks of life receive unsolicited judgements on our appearance as part of our everyday lives. And it is literally impossible for female public figures to get this right. Female public figures will be criticized for look frumpy, for looking expensive, for looking stylish, for looking out of date. Our bodies are treated as public property, and our appearance is relentlessly judged in a system we can’t possibly win.
Okay, no, that’s not what Snopes said. What Snopes actually said was, “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.” Details are at the link. I’m just saying, is all.
COMMENT POLICY FOR THIS POST: This post is not a place to discuss Clinton versus Sanders. It is a place to discuss the sexism of how women’s bodies are considered fair game for public commentary. Violators will be dealt will harshly. Thank you.
Comment policy: In addition to my usual comment policy, I’m going to add this one for this post: DO NOT comment here on the election itself, or the merits and terriblenessess of the candidates. Please keep comments narrowly focused on the topic at hand. Thanks.
Tl;dr: If you’re saying “Hillary,” please also say “Bernie,” “Donald,” and “Barack.” If you’re saying “Sanders,” “Trump,” and “Obama,” say “Clinton.” Don’t call Hillary Clinton by her first name and other candidates or political figures by their last.
It’s fairly common — in many arenas, not just the political one — to call women by their first names and men by their last. And yes, this is a problem. First names imply casualness, friendliness, some degree of intimacy. Last names imply professionalism, respect, some degree of distance. Traditionally (in much U.S. culture, anyway), adults call children by their first names, while children call adults by their last.
So when people use first names for women and last names for men, it positions women as less professional. It reinforces the stereotype of women as the friendliness-makers, the doers of emotional labor, whose job it is to be nice to everyone. It treats women as less deserving of respect. To the extent that it treats women as children or childish, it’s patronizing. All of this sucks in any situation — but it especially sucks in the political world. In the political world, all of this sends the message: Women are less capable, and less fit for office. Continue reading “Hillary Clinton and First Names”→