Kirsten Gillibrand leaves
Gillibrand branded herself as the candidate of empowered women.
She called herself the antidote to Trump.
Her website reads, "And in the face of a president who demeans women and threatens their rights, Kirsten’s fearless advocacy for women is the antidote. Women are half of this country—and they deserve a president who values and fights for them."
It did not work. In fact it backfired.
Gillibrand carried with her the scent of inauthenticity. She had switched from being a gun rights advocate to favoring gun regulation when she went from being a Member of Congress from an upstate district to being New York's new Senator.
But her real problem was that Gillibrand was known for one thing. She led the defenestration of Al Franken. She betrayed the Democratic tribe in order to lead the MeToo tribe.
The Franken attack was done quickly. There was an element of group-think and political panic within Democratic circles. Franken was guilty on accusation. Maybe, in the fullness of time, people would have concluded Franken should leave, but Gillibrand's sidestepped the established process. No ethics panel, no testimony, no evidence, no hearings. Gillibrand heard accusations and reacted. Guilty! She got others to go along.
This event might have launched her presidential campaign. She might have galvanized a tribe of politically motivated women, a sisterhood voting block. After all, some 58% of Democratic voters are women. A core group of them might have secured her a position in the first rank, putting her center stage, giving her visibility.
It did not work. Apparently there is no political sisterhood of consequence.
In 2016 a majority of white women voted for Trump, even in the immediate aftermath of the Access Hollywood video. Women as woman does not appear to be a political motivator for women.
Worse, it apparently motivates men in opposition. Gillibrand's campaign confirms the 2016 election inference that when many men hear women talking about patriarchy, male predation, and female empowerment, they hear it as an unfair and discriminatory attack on men. So do their wives. Hillary did not just decisively lose the votes of men, but she decisively lost the votes of married women.
Gillibrand became the face of vigilante MeToo justice. Too harsh, too quick to judge, no due process.
But her real problem was that Gillibrand was known for one thing. She led the defenestration of Al Franken. She betrayed the Democratic tribe in order to lead the MeToo tribe.
The Franken attack was done quickly. There was an element of group-think and political panic within Democratic circles. Franken was guilty on accusation. Maybe, in the fullness of time, people would have concluded Franken should leave, but Gillibrand's sidestepped the established process. No ethics panel, no testimony, no evidence, no hearings. Gillibrand heard accusations and reacted. Guilty! She got others to go along.
This event might have launched her presidential campaign. She might have galvanized a tribe of politically motivated women, a sisterhood voting block. After all, some 58% of Democratic voters are women. A core group of them might have secured her a position in the first rank, putting her center stage, giving her visibility.
 |
| Gillibrand website headline |
It did not work. Apparently there is no political sisterhood of consequence.
In 2016 a majority of white women voted for Trump, even in the immediate aftermath of the Access Hollywood video. Women as woman does not appear to be a political motivator for women.
Worse, it apparently motivates men in opposition. Gillibrand's campaign confirms the 2016 election inference that when many men hear women talking about patriarchy, male predation, and female empowerment, they hear it as an unfair and discriminatory attack on men. So do their wives. Hillary did not just decisively lose the votes of men, but she decisively lost the votes of married women.
Gillibrand became the face of vigilante MeToo justice. Too harsh, too quick to judge, no due process.
The Franken event served as a heads up to Republicans on how to respond to the charges against Kavanaugh. Fight back with angry indignation. They saw that an accusation could be career ending, no matter your position. Don't empathize, deny, and make the issue a matter of team loyalty.
That strategy worked. Every Republican Senator supported Kavanaugh, and Republican male and female voters were energized to turn out to vote in the 2018 elections. They didn't "believe the woman," and women did not vote sisterhood. They doubted the woman and voted Republican.
MeToo makes backlash. Aroused womanhood signified to a great many not "justice and accountability" but a threat to due process, and men--like women--were half of this country.
That strategy worked. Every Republican Senator supported Kavanaugh, and Republican male and female voters were energized to turn out to vote in the 2018 elections. They didn't "believe the woman," and women did not vote sisterhood. They doubted the woman and voted Republican.MeToo makes backlash. Aroused womanhood signified to a great many not "justice and accountability" but a threat to due process, and men--like women--were half of this country.
Gillibrand earned her enemies but didn't win friends. Her campaign languished.
6 comments:
As you have correctly noted, Warren is not running as a woman but as a Dem policy wonk. Sort of like my gay Uncle, I can overlook the identity issue so she may have a better chance. To be frank, Franken was a dick. He was fired for proof positive of a middle school prank. But what do you expect from a comedian? Dems are purists- they eat their own. KG saw the opportunity as her ticket to the top.
Once more than one woman had a story to tell about Franken Democratic leaders had a choice to let the Franken saga play out or to pressure Franken to resign.
Kirsten Gillebrand’s campaign centered more on full rights for reproductive health care choices for women—which have been under assault by the Trump administration—than the #metoo movement. In past elections, some Democratic candidates have tip-toed around the abortion issue. One of the keys to getting nonvoters (those who didn’t vote last time but didn’t support Trump) is to inspire youth voters. Younger voters are generally unabashedly pro-choice. Our Democratic candidates still in the race need to take a clear stance on this issue. Another key nonvoting block that Democrats need to lure to the ballot box are Latinx. Julian Castro seems to have found a good balance of appealing to the Latinx community and standing firmly as pro-choice. It will be interesting to see which candidate’s poll numbers will rise after Gillebrand’s departure.
Gender aside, one way these candidates are considered is if they are "Presidential"...can a voter visualize them in the position, do they have the gravitas? it's largely a subjective thing and somewhat unfair, and one reason so many are horrified at the current occupant's utter lack of the "it" factor that presidents have all had to some extent.
It's something that can make a difference in three equally qualified candidates, and can determine whether a campaign gets traction or not.
Who's next?
I am a white, college-educated, feminist, pro-choice, older female. I knew her strategy was not going to work from day one. How could it??? Democrats need to be Very Careful when talking about abortion, for one thing. The Democratic Party still has a lot to learn about talking to average Americans about the culture issues. Most Americans are not left-wing and/or counter-culture extremists. Although there appear to be many who don't get, or refuse to accept, this concept.
Post a Comment