Whatever you think of her politics, Bachmann's presence in the Republican presidential race is a net positive for women
As the usual line-up of white, senior, well-off men declare their candidacies for the Republican nomination in 2012 US presidential race, the question for women in politics advocates is whether to support the only officially declared female candidate, Michele Bachmann.
For those familiar with Bachmann's politics, this may not seem a vexing question at all. Her fundamentalist Christian view of women's social role, her anti-abortion activism, her belief that wives should submit to – ahem, respect – their husband's wishes and her belief that homosexuality is a curable choice make for an evangelical worldview many would consider bad for women.
But for those concerned that the world's top political office is consistently a male-only domain – both the actual office and, with few exceptions, the race for it – Bachmann is the only horse to back to redress that inequality. Bachmann's politics may make her an undesirable standard-bearer for feminist principles, but if her presence in the race means greater female participation in politics, should women back Bachmann?
The answer must be a contingent yes. Feminist philosopher and Harvard professor Jane Mansbridge explored in a 1999 article the question of whether blacks should represent blacks and women represent women. She argued that "descriptive representation", or representation by people who, in some way, look and sound like their voter base, is good in certain contexts.
There are two particular implications from Mansbridge's research that should make us pause before throwing Bachmann out with the bathwater.
First, there are occasions in democracy that lend themselves to descriptive representation. Descriptive representatives can, according to Mansbridge, communicate to their voter base in a way others cannot. They also force us to deliberate on issues specific to their identity as a representative.
Second, descriptive representation can potentially recast underrepresented groups as "capable of ruling". Whatever Bachmann's politics, her presence as a serious presidential contender helps American society see women as potential political leaders. This, in turn, enhances the democratic legitimacy of a group historically excluded from high office – women.
The obvious objection here is that if Bachmann's gaffe list continues to grow, she, in combination with Sarah Palin as America's other most high-profile female politician, will help fuel the opposite belief: that women are less competent and capable than their male peers for political office.
Given the ambiguity over whether Bachmann will recast women as "capable of ruling", what about her impact according to Mansbridge's first claim – that women candidates enhance deliberation of women's issues? For that, we need to distinguish between whether Bachmann would be a good president for women and whether she is a good presence for women in the presidential race. If Bachmann helps promote debate about issues that matter to women, you can say no to the former and still say yes to the latter.
Consider abortion. Strong anti-abortion advocacy by male politicians smacks of patriarchal swagger. Recall GOP candidate Rick Santorum's insistence that rape and incest victims should be denied abortion because it victimises the unborn child twice. In contrast, if a forceful female candidate opposes abortion, that objection does not apply, since it is a woman advocating a restriction of rights placed on her own gender. Arguably, then, we might get a real debate on the issue with greater public engagement and participation. Like it or not, many women in America hold conservative social views, so Bachmann is a legitimate "descriptive representative" of that constituency.
Descriptive representatives also work when political positions are not yet defined. There is still no consensus, for instance, on how a woman should "look presidential", on why the glass ceiling persists or on what female sexual liberation means in the 21st century. A female candidate in the presidential race keeps debate alive, forcing Americans to discuss neglected and thorny gender politics topics. For instance, over the past fortnight, the intense media scrutiny of Bachmann's physical appearance following an unflattering Newsweek cover shot caused a heated debate about the different treatment of male and female political candidates.
But the reason why Bachmann poses a dilemma for feminists is the poverty of choice, with only one female candidate in the race. As Mansbridge says, "more women in office unquestionably makes government policies more responsive to the interests of most women." That might support Bachmann's presence in the race, but it also argues for a wider range of representatives who can reflect the nuances of women's political values and views.
So, of course, it would be better if, for every Bachmann and Palin, we had a Hillary Clinton on a ticket. But rejecting the sole female candidate on the basis that she is not the right sort of feminist is losing the war to win a battle. Women are better represented in politics with Bachmann in the race, no matter how unpalatable her views.
--
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/25/michele-bachmann-feminism-republican
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment