GUEST BLOG / By Michael
Hulshof-Schmidt of Social Justice for All-- Let
me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of
Bernie Sanders, and until recently, held out great hope that he would become
our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great
deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational
antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After
doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to
confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary
Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP
with the help of many democrats and independents.
This
narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent,
wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very
dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be
bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you
know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender,
able-bodied, heterosexual men?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael Hulshof-Schmidt is a
blogger. He is the author of this
post. He shares his essays with
all. His work may be viewed at
My research
indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when
talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most
honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project
Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most
of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York
Times. Abramson writes:
As an editor
I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her
foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater.
I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next
surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
Members of
the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that
we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever.
What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the
cartoon version of Hillary Clinton. Trump is unpopular — even with many
Republicans who weakly support him — because of his stated positions. Secretary
Clinton is unpopular largely because of an aggressive campaign of fictions and
slander. That campaign has succeeded largely because of systemic misogyny.
Journalist
Michael Arnovitz points out in his article Thinking About Hillary–A Plea for
Reason (I strongly recommend his piece) that propaganda around Hillary’s
“dishonest” nature stems from the pablum written by conservative writer William
(I can’t be concerned with facts or evidence) Safire. Safire wrote the 1996
article Blizzard of Lies in which he vilifies and demonizes Hillary as a
“congenital liar” without any evidence to support his claims. (How’s that for
irony?) What I find profoundly sad is how quickly and how easily I — and so
many Americans — bought into this false and misogynistic narrative. This
tragically illustrates how systemic
sexism/misogyny is: how it is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in
every fiber we wear.
In fact,
most of the resistance to Hillary initially was about how “smug” she was in
pushing that “Universal Health Care” agenda. How dare she want all people to
have health insurance–why that means that health care is a community health
problem–there she goes again, with a mind of her own! Furthermore, apparently
she was not behaving as a First Lady should. What the hell is that? How should
a First Lady behave? The intense misogyny is too overwhelming to ignore here,
and sadly, we are all implicated in this system of oppression. Just this past
June, Hillary was shredded by the media for the Armani jacket she wore. Really?
The day she was announced as the Democratic Nominee for President, it was a
picture of her husband that made the front page of the paper. This is some
intense sexism at work. Did anyone ask what Bill Clinton was wearing and who
designed it?
Sadly, any
time there is a claim of sexism at play, people roll their eyes as though such
a thing does not exist, because women, women of color, people of color, LGBT
folk, all of the intersecting identities of all targeted communities are always
under suspicion. We are disbelieved disproportionately for asking to be treated
the same way our white, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender counterparts are
treated. All of a sudden being treated equally becomes “special rights.” So say
those within the dominant narrative and power structure.
While I have
never been a fan of David Brooks, he actually was able to offer some reflection
and repair work on Friday’s NPR commentary with
E.J. Dionne. Brooks made the claim that Hillary is too guarded (why
wouldn’t she be?). Kudos to E.J. Dionne
for pointing out the double standard to Brooks, that he would not make the same
claim about a male candidate for President. Brooks connected and agreed that
this was a sexist statement.
What I find
profoundly sad is the blatant double standard of how we individually and
collectively punish women who seek power, as opposed to how we reward men for
the same ambition. As Arnovitz notes in his article:
What I see
is that the public view of Hillary Clinton does not seem to be correlated to
“scandals” or issues of character or whether she murdered Vince Foster. No, the
one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public
perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power. Once she actually has
that power her polls go up again. But whenever she asks for it her numbers drop
like a manhole cover…Even NBC news, looking back over decades of their own
polls, stated that, “she’s struggled to stay popular when she’s on the campaign
trail.” If this has nothing to do with gender, then wouldn’t the same thing
happen to men when they campaign? But it doesn’t. Why not?
When I try
to ask people for specific examples of why they “hate” Hillary, or how has she
been dishonest, all I get is “everyone knows she is,” or “that’s just the way I
feel.” These two answers are problematic
in so many ways. Regardless, this sentiment is testament to how effective the
messaging/propaganda from Republicans has been over the past two decades. All I
am asking is this: can we slow down and think critically and not accept without
caution or question what is presented to us as the narrative of Hillary
Clinton? Can we also allow for the fact that she has made mistakes and more
importantly that she grows and learns from her mistakes.
I know I
have gone from a true supporter of Bernie Sanders to an apathetic supporter of
Hillary to now an excited and enthusiastic supporter of our first female
President. It’s certainly true that she isn’t as progressive a candidate as I
would like. Neither was Bernie and his stand on guns. Neither is absurd
long-shot Jill Stein and her strange anti-science positions. That’s the reality
of American politics in 2016.
I truly
believe that Hillary and her platform are beneficial to targeted communities:
people of color, people in poverty, people with disabilities, veterans, LGBTQ
people, and all of the intersecting identities thereof. She is a hard-working,
fundamentally honest person for whom — as she so nicely framed it — “the
service part has always come easier than the public part.” I welcome people’s
input here. All I ask is that you put in check any misogynistic comments and
please have evidence to support your assertions.
Every
election matters, but this one has even deeper resonance than most. Please
remember to vote:
MORE ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Do I contradict myself? Very well,
then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. –Walt Whitman

I encourage
people to contribute to this blog and share ideas. All I ask is that everyone be respectful, as
we all work towards global equity, equality, and sustainability.
Social
Justice For All is an active part of the online community. Please feel free to
share the contents of this blog, either through linking or reposting. When
reposting, please provide attribution to Social Justice For All with a link
back to this blog:
All original content is the property
of Michael Hulshof-Schmidt and Social Justice For All, ©2016, all rights
reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment