OK, folks, so why is it that 62% of Republicans now say that their dearest wish is for Sarah Palin to run for president in 2012…and yet, we can’t get Darcy Burner elected? Or, for that matter, why Hillary Clinton seems to arouse the most murderous emotions in them?
Is it a case of gender or (cue scary music) ‘perceived brain power”?
To answer this question, I turn to our friend John Dean and his work in “Conservatives Without Conscience”. Here are a couple of things he said in articles at Findlaw.
“.. In addition to being especially submissive to established authority, Altemeyer’s research revealed that those he calls right-wing authoritarians also show "general aggressiveness" towards others, when such behavior is "perceived to be sanctioned" by established authorities. Finally, these people are always highly compliant with the social conventions endorsed by society and established authorities. ..
Based on Altemeyer’s study, as well as those of other social psychologists, [Dean] prepared a list of the additional traits that these personalities, both men and women who test high as right-wing authoritarians, often evidence: highly religious, moderate to little education, trust untrustworthy authorities, prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals, women, and followers of religions other than their own), mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical toward their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent and contradictory, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarian, severely punitive, demands loyalty and returns it, little self-awareness, usually politically and economically conservative/Republican. “
On the leader end:
[Dean] prepared a listing of the traits revealed in the testing of these remarkably manipulative and cunning personalities, who are typically men: dominating, opposes equality, desirous of personal power, amoral, intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheats to win, highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic), mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tells others what they want to hear, takes advantage of "suckers," specializes in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, usually politically and economically conservative/Republican.”
So, let’s go back to Darcy, Hillary and Sarah(and if you like, we can throw in right wing pundits like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin). What card has Sarah (and Ann and Michelle as well) played? Appearance. Whatever other traits she might or might not have, she has played the girly/appearance card consistently and has appealed to authoritarian (“I’m fighting fraud”) cards consistently. She also waved the flag that she’d gone to five different colleges before she finished. The message there is “I’m just like you – I had to try and try and try in order to finish up because I’m not too smart.”
Was Darcy Burner’s Harvard degree something that voters used against her? Did she pose an intellectual threat? Was her appearance not ‘girly/sexy/conventional” enough so that the smears thrown at her by the Seattle paper allowed voters the excuse to not vote for her? If she had been built more along Palin’s lines or dressed more like Palin or acted more like Palin, would that have been enough to outweigh the newspaper’s smear tactic?
Even if we take away people’s almost hysterical anger at Hillary Clinton during her presidential bid and look at how the Right Wing went after her before, during and after Bill Clinton’s administrations, it certainly seems that one of the factors in people’s almost pathological hatred of her is based on the fact that Hillary Clinton is a smart woman – one who makes no bones about being on an equal basis with men. To me, there seems to have been a real "anti women with brains" factor in Darcy Burner’s lack of success because she waved not only a college degree, but a degree which carries some of the same issues as the "Martha Steward carrying the Birkin bag into the courtroom" problem: Smart, rich, and "I’ve got something you can never get". I am not saying that Ms Burner needs to change her appearance in order to win – far be it – but it is very possible that IN THAT DISTRICT, in order for a progressive female to get herself elected to Congress, looking smart and using what is perceived as a ‘rich man’s’ credentials will not work.



13 Comments




Thanks, Toby. I’d like to think our country is beyond this, but you are probably right. Remember all the hoo-hah when HRC had the temerity to show a little cleavage on the Senate floor? The right-wingers sounded like the world was coming to an end.
On the other hand, beating Congressional incumbents is just hard, what with the fund raising advantage and gerrymandering, so I really hope that is a lot of the problem,too. I’ll probably put a diary together in the next day or two with results from a post-election poll by the Campaign for America’s Future, but one tidbit I did find is that incumbent Republican congresscriters averaged a 60-40 win, so Darcy beat the spread by a lot. Sadly, my local challenger ended up right on those numbers, and he’s a smart male.
How much does the Authoritarians link with the 30%ers 70%, 80, 90%? This is interesting given their traits it seems the GOP appeals to the least qualified to vote voter.
How does George Will, the neocons etc stare at themselves in the morning after every election kowtowing to those cretins?
I only saw one antiDarcy ad I thought they said Darcy lied about having a Harvard degree. Anyway I suspect vote fraud just can’t prove it.
Right – I should have connected that up. The paper said she lied – which of course was a smear. Then, when it came out that she DID have the degree from Harvard, the Right Wing got a two-fer: a smear that stuck for a lot of people plus the Harvard degree which would put off others.
Appearance? I think its better to say Sex Appeal that letter by the GOP pundit where he describes how he thought Sarah was winking right at him? I think female GOPers who are attractive have a do me vibe that 30%ers pick up on.
Maybe Dem females by appearing competent and sane somehow send a message to 30%ers of not in a million years.
I think further thought on this is needed we need to help our female candidates.
I didn’t ever hear the Media correct that story.
As far as Sarah goes, she’s the new kid on the block. One that’s not deeply associated with the last 8 years, which is a total failure. When you see the also rans, Huck, Mittens and Nounverb911, they all seem so tired. All three just lost a primary battle to McCan’t by a rather wide margin.
And Darcy. I don’t live in her district and haven’t been following her campaign too closely so I can’t offer an informed opinion about what happened.
Remember the blondes of hate who built their careers attacking Senator Clinton. The right has always valued appearance over substance.
Well, the Right likes it’s poison marketed in a very pretty package.
I think female GOPers who are attractive have a do me vibe that 30%ers pick up on.
Yes. No self-respecting woman would go there. In this great post, John Cole quotes a commenter at Larison’s site, speaking of Palin in particular, but pertint to Republicans in general:
It would be interesting to look at the demographics of Burner’s district; I think that would help test this thesis.
PhilK
’…psychological imbalance and theatrical skill.’ Just too perfect! Thank you.
masaccio,
I tried to find some data to confirm my opinions, but I can’t, so they’re just my opinions.
The northern third of the district probably has slightly more than half the population, and economically, it’s heavily influenced by Microsoft, and becoming more like Seattle all the time. (Microsoft’s asshole mgmt gives lots of money to Republicans, but the employees probably favor Democrats 2 or 3 to 1.) There has been a steady influx of people from Seattle, and from other parts of the US and the world. It contains Bellevue, which is now the 4th-largest city in the state.
The southern two-thirds of the district is much more sparse. It includes Mt. Rainier and the National Park. It’s mostly rural, with a high percentage of
rednecksrural authoritarian traditionalists. Ethnically, it’s like the hills of Kentucky.It’s only been in the last 20 years that there has been any liberalization at all. In 1993, the Bellevue paper (long gone now) published results of a reader poll in which 25% of the respondants opined that it was acceptable to murder abortion providers. Since then, a lot of these types of people have gone off to Idaho to be with Mark Fuhrmann and the like, but evidently not enough.
I like and support Darcy, but without much confidence that she can overcome the demographics, unless the northern part of the district grows larger.