#women – ViewfromthePearl.com

Law, order, and dishonor

Many Republicans seem to me to be confused about law and order. I am hearing decidedly mixed messages on public safety and public corruption both here in Mississippi and from Washington, DC. It’s hard to figure exactly where that party is coming from.

First, here in Jackson the Governor used his line item veto to take money away from the local planetarium because there is too much crime in Jackson. The connection between crime and star gazing is loose, unless you know that the Governor likes to criticize the City of Jackson where the planetarium is located.

To be clear, the Governor (and the Republican state legislature) have a pretty soft commitment to public safety outside of the planetarium threat. State policies around COVID contributed to among the highest death rates in the world here in Mississippi and the near collapse of the health care system, which is starved for resources in part because of opposition to Medicaid expansion. The legislature is slow to spend infrastructure funds which could help provide reliable and safe water service in Jackson, nor does it do much for the city except occupy it a few months a year when the legislature is in session.

I conclude that these Republicans care about public safety from some threats but not from others. They like beating up on the majority African American capital city but don’t do anything helpful about public safety unless it helps make their, shall we say, “anti-urban” argument.

Next, two of the three Republican members of Congress from Mississippi were forced into run-off elections for what appear to be opposite reasons. Representative Steven Palazzo has been the subject of multiple accusations that he struggles with both truth-telling and campaign finance law. His failure to win 50 percent was predicted, although he came in first. He faces a local Sheriff in the run-off.

Representative Michael Guest, on the other hand, in whose district I reside, was forced into a runoff by a newcomer to Mississippi, Michael Cassidy, who accuses Guest of being a RINO because he voted for a January 6th Commission. So Guest, a conservative former prosecutor is accused of failing to represent Mississippi by a guy from the DC area whose principal complaint was that the prosecutor wanted to investigate a crime. Whatever.

That brings me to the main event of the week, the January 6th Committee hearings. Dramatic. Fact-based. Headed by a Mississippian (a real one; not like me and Cassidy) who acknowledged in introducing himself that Mississippi’s history and his own had prepared him for the moment. The hearing also featured two very tough women: the extraordinarily clear-headed daughter of a Republican Vice President, and a law enforcement officer who had put her life on the line for her job and for her country. The Committee presented hard evidence of a carefully planned and executed coup against the United States government and its peaceful transfer of power.

The Republican leadership response? They would rather address inflation than sedition. That seems non-sensical. Like announcing they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Or that Jackson’s crime rate means it can’t have a planetarium. High inflation does not make the attempted coup OK.

Representative Cheney’s statement that their dishonor will remain was the central quote of the night. And I really don’t know what the Republicans think they stand for. Its not public safety. I am clear on that. Chaos and violence? Greed and unchecked power? Or what I have euphemistically called here “anti-urbanism”? They really aren’t leaving themselves with much else.

At least most Republicans aren’t leaving themselves much else. I am sure I have many disagreements with Representative Cheney on matters of policy. But I admire her courage, toughness, clarity, and patriotism. I hope in the coming months to see that our country and my adopted state honor those qualities.

Its not about abortion (alone)

The leaked draft of the Supreme Court decision produced a torrent of texts and emails from friends and former colleagues many of whom had worked in the political sphere to advance women and women’s rights for their entire adult lives. That a legal right won 50 years ago and considered settled law since could be so readily erased was upsetting personally, politically, and professionally to many women. Assuming the decision holds – and the very politicized Supreme Court could modify it for legal or extra-legal reasons – the upset will last a long time; until, frankly, it is undone.

I concur with those who believe the decision may mobilize younger voters in November. No one wants to lose rights their grandparents had and while younger voters have long been dubious that this could be taken away, now they know there are no permanent victories.

Democrats must also meet the messaging challenges. A lot today seemed off the mark on that front. Abortion will be an issue in November but it wont be the only one. Voters are indeed more focused on inflation and their immediate economic realities than on the loss of their rights. For the roughly 50 percent of voters who own stock, things cost more while they have less. For the 50 percent who don’t own stock, things cost more and they didn’t have much to begin with. The message that “Democrats deliver” doesn’t resonate with either group.

“Whack-a-mole” messaging is not the answer: If you care about abortion rights, we are going to fix it; if you care about voting rights, hey, we’re on it; if you care about inflation; its getting better (not that anyone can tell). And then there is COVID which apparently isn’t quite done with us. Mission accomplished is not a good message when, well, it isn’t. It seems unfocused, at best, to list the litany of problems we are trying to address. No one wins whack-a-mole. It just times out.

So what to do? It is hard as the party that is at least nominally in power to run against the party that isn’t. It can sound whiny and partisan. We can, however, run against a worldview that undergirds much of what is wrong.

The enemy is a power-hungry minority that wants to impose their views and their interests on everyone else. It is a worldview that power means you get to decide. In that worldview people get to keep power because they have it. They use it to cheat. They use it to steal. And they use it to take away from the rest of us.

Not all Republicans subscribe to the world view, although the wimps who are unwilling to stand up to it don’t get an exemption. And I recognize there are a few Democrats who are of the “because I said so” school themselves. They should cut that shit out – if you can’t explain how your view or policy is consonant with my views or my interests you won’t convince me of it. Asserting my ignorance makes you part of the problem.

Strong messaging requires modification in our presentation of ourselves as well as aggressive opposition to those who take power for their own sakes. On our side, (1) we need to listen and reflect what we hear (and listening is not the exclusive province of pollsters). Reflect on what people are saying about their own lives – it is tough out here. Tell us how it happened and how you are addressing it. (2). The message should be about voters not about Democrats – Democrats deliver just says we are self-aggrandizing and out of touch with someone who doesn’t believe they have been delivered to. (3). Trim the ideological statements way back. (Yes, I do believe the worldview I am describing is about white male supremacy but describe it as acts of greed, arrogance, and corruption: say what it is not why it is.)

When we sound a little more like regular people and less like politicians, it is time to go after those who have used the money we put in to spur the economy in corrupt ways or not at all. Here’s one example (https://mississippitoday.org/the-backchannel/) of misspent federal funds but there are a dozen states that aren’t spending their federal stimulus funds. The story is that there is corruption stopping a lot of what Democrats are doing. There is corruption in state governments, at big drug companies, in anti-trust violations, and at the Supreme Court. It is all about greed and power. It is not about progress and people. We are for progress and people. They are for themselves in ways that are greedy and corrupt. Don’t start with the conclusion, but do tell the stories for which that is the (unstated) but self-evident conclusion.

Then there is perhaps the most corrupt thing of all – the conspiracy on the part of people in the White House and the U.S. Capitol to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. And those aware of the corruption who stood by and did nothing or defended it out of fear of those who are corrupt. That is part of the same worldview that people with power get to keep it and be damned to the rest of us. Donald Trump, with his own deep roots in greed and corruption, made corruption fashionable for his cronies.

There are Republicans who have stood up. They include Members of Congress, state and local election officials, and judges. Go after the corruption not the party name. Republicanism isn’t inherently corrupt. But a whole lot of them became so under Trump.

As for Trump himself, he is a very painful and visible symptom but he is not the whole disease. Even if he goes into remission, there is still a need to fight the notion that power is there to advance the views and interests of the powerful. Power does corrupt and it has done so quite absolutely in some quarters.

The Supreme Court is politicizing women’s health and taking away women’s and family’s rights to make decisions because they believe power means imposing their viewpoint on the rest of us. Its not for our good; its not advancing the protections in the Constitution; its simply an exercise of power for its own sake. That is wrong. That is corrupt. It is the same mindset as people who stormed the capitol because they wanted to.

There is nothing new in “might makes right.” But saying we want to “protect democracy” is like saying “we oppose kratocracy;” Tell the story of corruption instead. People will understand it. At the moment they are concerned it applies both to Democrats who say they deliver and to Republicans who say they care. The story of what’s true, however, is often the story they will find more credible.

Women and Electability – Part 2

In Part 1 of this post, I argued that there is no solid reason to consider women less electable than men in the 2020 Presidential contest. Women candidates do need to grapple, however, with four areas that may create misconceptions of their potential. First is implicit bias, second is the nature of leadership archetypes (and negative stereotypes), and third is the management of the strong value among women voters of caregiving and the “Caregiver” archetype. Finally, there is the differing nature of media coverage of women candidates. None of these are barriers but they are considerations for women candidates and those observing them.

1. Association and Implicit Bias. One reason men may be currently considered more electable is simply how often they have been elected. Older men look more like the panoply of former Presidents than women do, even though men have given up both the wig of our first president and the mutton chops of many. People are more used to seeing men in leadership positions and so they associate men and leadership qualities.

Both academic and popular research shows that people have stronger associations with men and leadership qualities than with women and leadership qualities. Such “implicit bias” is not necessarily unconscious and it does not necessarily project behavior. In fact, there is some academic literature lately that suggests it does not predict behavior. Still, there is such bias.

To measure yours, the American Association of University Women has provided a test on line. It is anonymous and instructive: AAUW Implicit Association Test of Gender Bias. Implicit bias is not a barrier because at a time when people may want change – and perhaps big, structural change, as one candidate promises, such associations may not matter, or perhaps even underline the change a woman might bring.

2. Archetypes and Negative Stereotypes. At a deeper level than the associations shown in implicit bias tests, there is leadership imagery that is sometimes more male than female. Jungian psychology introduced the idea that we share unconscious ideas, often gender-associated. Thirty years ago, Robert L. Moore and Douglas Gillette wrote King, Warrior, Magician, Lover about the archetypes of mature men (as opposed to other archetypes like “the Trickster,” who survives challenges through trickery and deceit, which may remind you of someone).

The use of archetypes for communications and branding is recounted in Margaret Mark and Carol Pearson’s classic book, The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands through the Power of Archetypes. Their work helped establish Nike as “the hero” brand, and Apple as “the magician.”

Some archetypes are more gender-laden than others. The King is certainly a gender-based term (and the Queen has different associations), as is the “Everyman” or “Regular Joe” that their book discusses. There are, however, women Warriors, Magicians, and Sages, which are among the highly desirable leadership archetypes, in mythology, in history and in popular culture.

The shadow (a Jungian term too) of the Queen archetype bears watching. There we find negative stereotypes like the manipulative “Queen Bee” who destroys other women while the men work for her; the Queen with her clique of Mean Girls so well-profiled by the movie of that name; the Bossy Beyatch (to use the more acceptable colloquialism), and her sister the “Angry Woman,” with the latter two carrying qualities less acceptable for women than for men.

Another archetype, the Innocent, is not inherently negative but not what voters want in a President. Children and some women are perceived as The Innocent and we do not want a President who is untutored in the ways of the world.

The “Good Girl” or “Daddy’s Girl” archetype is more likeable but follows status quo authority a little too much rather than bringing change, and generally follows men rather than aligning equally with other women.

The “Victim” archetype is also not a desirable President. The victim feels powerless and blames others for their predicament. There is a fine line for women leaders in talking about discrimination against women and sounding like they believe women – perhaps including them – are victims. The President of the United States should show compassion for victims but should never be a victim.

3. The Caregiver. One of the biggest challenges for women candidates is integrating one of the most powerful, positive – and generally female – archetypes: The Caregiver. The Caregiver is compassionate, generous, thoughtful and kind. It is reputedly part of the branding of Campbell’s Soup, Johnson & Johnson, and McDonald’s – with billions and billions sold.

Women identify with caregiving. In a survey I conducted for a client many years ago, nearly 70 percent of women voters said caregiving was one of their most important values. The importance of caregiving is presumably why George W. Bush modified his declaration of being a conservative with the word “compassionate.”

Women candidates – despite their self-evident ambition and aggression – generally have advantages on compassion, as they do on issues associated with it like health care. Failing to display Caregiver qualities can alienate other women, who value caregiving in themselves and in leaders. The challenge is in nurturing the caregiver, which almost all successful women candidates do, without appearing to be the Innocent or the “Good Girl.”

Part of the answer for women candidates in balancing strength and compassion is to define who and what they fight for: in the mythological world from which archetypes derive, the male fights to be the Alpha male; to win the competition for its own sake. The woman or female fights to protect her cubs (if she is a lioness or a bear), or her children, family or community. The behavior may look the same but the motivation is different.

Note that if she fights for victims, then you have to see yourself as a victim to believe she fights for you – and most people do not see themselves that way – and even fewer want to be a victim. The strong Caregiver fights for what she loves to make it stronger. The Caregiver is not patronizing.

4. Media Bias. Others have written about how the media cover men and women differently and how some men candidates do the same (Suzanna Danuta Walters Washington Post Op Ed). I do think the coverage is more balanced than it has been in the past and some in the press clearly make a conscious effort to diversify their sources. Still, the reality remains that most of the press corps covering the presidential campaign and reporting it on television are men, and, indeed, white men. The media need to understand and give women candidates’ credit for messaging and strategies that incorporate gender differences – women candidates and their strategies are not supposed to be just like men’s. I hope the press talk to more women – and many more people of color – who live outside the bubble of punditry about what they hear the candidates saying, and what they are listening for. The perspective is likely to be different, but also more reflective of the majority of voters.

# # #

It is still 230 days until the Iowa Caucuses when the first votes are cast. The electorate in Iowa will very likely be larger and younger than eight years ago, and in other states it will be larger, younger, and more ethnically and racially diverse than in the past. In every state, the majority of the primary electorate will be female.

In what may be a historically large primary and general election, pollsters don’t quite know who to talk to – and not everyone wants to talk to pollsters. The best anyone can do at this point is to reach out to the extent they can, and be aware that the dynamics of gender, race, ethnicity – and generation – are changing the electorate in ways that may be difficult to predict. The picture may look similar in seven months. Or it may be very different, indeed.