Heidi Li's Potpourri

CNN interview: Amy Siskind attempts to educate; Ms. Mag editor uses airtime as commercial

Watch the video here. Listen to The New Agenda's executive director Amy Siskind succeed as she raises pertinent, relatively mild objections, to the Ms. Magazine cover for its special inauguration issue.  Then listen to Ms. Magazine's executive editor Katherine Spillar as she first a) dodges the issue, which is not whether men can be feminists, but whether there is any basis for referring to this man, President-elect Obama, as "what a feminist looks like" and then b) tells people to read the magazine so as to understand the cover (read = buy the magazine) and then c) evidently indicated to the CNN anchors that subscriptions to the magazine are up because of the inauguration cover, and thus the cover was a good idea.

Successful covers do not require a magazine to explain or justify their meaning. For example, most thoughtful criticisms of The New Yorker's satirical cover of the Obamas faulted the cover for being failed satire: for its failure to broadcast its satire and thus its potential to be taken too seriously. In other words, that cover, in many people's opinion, failed on its own terms. Similarly the Ms. Magazine cover fails on it own terms. The intention was not to satirize the claim that Barack Obama, who has not one achievement in public life that can be considered as his own contribution to advancing feminism, is the paradigm of a feminist. No, the intention was tell us just what the cover said: that Barack Obama is a feminist, indeed a heroic - if closeted - one (note it is only his undershirt that reveals the truth of his feminism). If the intention was to say that men can be feminists, they should have put Bill Clinton, who put his career on hold to assist his wife achieve greatness in hers, on the cover. Or they could have put Terry McAuliffe on the cover, for his unwavering devotion to a candidate who happened to be female but who also had a record of standing by the once-core Democratic Party principles that have, in the past, made many of us proud to be Democrats. No way was Ms. Magazine's intent  to suggest that men can be feminists, a point that anybody who has given two thoughts to feminism gets.

Apart from an intent to laud and fuss over President-elect Obama, the intent of the Ms. Magazine cover is the intent of most magazines: to sell the merchandise.  Fair enough, some will say. What's wrong with trying to sell the merch? Generally, in the case of magazines not much. But Ms. Magazine was founded to lead a cause. If it simply wants to bump up subscriptions - assuming there's enough data in yet to support the claim that the current cover does that - then Ms. Magazine should, straightaway, start with centerfolds labeling whoever is trendy at the moment as a stealth feminist. For those with more salable physiques, have them pull the over-clothes apart a little more widely; or maybe pose them with the slogan on the back of their panties, briefs or boxers, and wearing nothing else. They can shyly peek over their shoulder, indicating that they themselves are as surprised as the rest of us that Ms. Magazine has singled them out as archetypical feminists.

In the CNN interview, Ms. Spillar says "some people" have "overreacted" to the cover. This sounds an awful lot like the sexist tropes used by the cover subject's language during the primary season, such as his imagery about Senator Clinton's "claws" and "fangs" coming out. Just who is Ms. Spillar calling "some people"? Women. You know, the people whose claws and fangs come out when they get periodically down.

Ms. Spillar, you are completely correct that a man can be feminist. And in your interview today you demonstrated the corollary, that a woman can be a misogynist, belittling the concerns of those who once depended on publications like Ms. Magazine to give voice - and the front cover - to matters central to equalizing opportunities for 51 percent of this country's population.

Terry's in the race!

Because I live in the District of Columbia, I am literally, a stateless citizen of the United States of America. As I have explained before this means I pay careful attention to which Senators states send to Washington DC (because I believe that every Senator owes a special obligation to the residents of the nation's capital) and to the state governments of Virginia and Maryland, as the two states who impact most on daily life for D.C. residents.

So I would be interested in the upcoming Virginia governor's race no matter what. I have taken special interest in the race, however, since Terry McAuliffe expressed interest in running. Now comes word that he will run. (Click anywhere below to go to the video announcement on Terry's site.)

I do not know Terry as a personal friend, and just barely as somebody with whom I interacted during Senator Clinton's presidential primary campaign. But I have read his book, learned about his accomplishments, appreciated how incredibly courteous he was to me whenever we encountered each other, and noted how encouraging he was to  a student of mine (somebody I predict will someday be a politician I want to support) who had the chance to meet Terry a couple of times at primary season events. These provide rather private reasons for being supportive of Terry's newest endeavor.

But as a liberal, I would support Terry McAuliffe for governor of Virginia in any event. Terry has worked hard for other liberals, most obviously for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. I heard Terry give his reasons for supporting Senator Clinton on various occasions. He supported her candidacy because he believed (as did I, and millions of others) that she was both the most qualified member of the field and the most liberal of the field, in the American tradition of liberalism. That tradition calls upon people to work hard for their personal successes. Consider, for example, Terry's own work to build a number of successful businesses, work that meant he has neither needed nor sought a salary for his work in politics, including his stint as DNC Chair, when he actually managed to put the DNC on a sound financial footing (an accomplishment soon squandered by the now almost-never-heard-from Howard Dean). American liberalism also calls upon government, applying measures available within its Constitutionally delimited sphere, to provide an equal opportunity for anybody's hard work to pay off.  Although nobody is guaranteed a pay off in this tradition, everybody is guaranteed a fairly level playing field, at least in principle.

During the 2007-08 Democratic primary campaign season, I heard Terry state many reasons both for his support and his hard work on behalf Senator Clinton. That she is a woman was not one of them.  Yet not only does liberalism favor Terry McAuliffe, so does feminism. I supported Senator Clinton because she was the best qualified, most liberal candidate in the field; I became active in her campaign when I saw opposition to Senator Clinton mount despite these pluses, and I saw this opposition come from people who would ordinarily also favor the most qualified and liberal candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. Yet these people seemingly could not stand to see a woman given an equal opportunity to gain the Democratic Party nomination. Terry fought against this illiberalism, which, in that context, operated in the guise of sexism.

I have no idea if Terry McAuliffe identifies himself as a feminist.  My own view of feminism is not that it requires support of any woman for any position but it does require vigilant resistance to those who would deny any woman her rightful opportunity to pursue any position in civic life, in the political arena or any other public stage. In a less misogynist, less sexist society, to identify oneself as a liberal simply would be to identify oneself as feminist. This is because in a truly liberal society, one in which being male or female neither presumptively advantaged nor disadvantaged a person, all one would have to be vigilant about would be liberalism itself, not the subcategory of feminism. Feminism becomes necessary in a society where hatred, contempt, and under-appreciation of women are systemic.

In 2007-08, Terry McAuliffee worked harder than virtually anybody else I observed to see this country elect a true liberal to the Presidency, a true liberal who also happened to be a woman. If the people of Virginia elect Terry McAuliffe their Governor, and he brings his commitment to liberalism - to opposing absolutism, to being willing to experiment with all ideas except those that conflict with the fundamental tenets of liberalism, to being committed to supporting fellow liberals regardless of their sex - to the state of Virginia, then the state of Virginia's future should be brighter.

Latest from Terry McAuliffe

I continue to believe that Virginians and those of us in neighboring jurisdictions would be lucky to have Terry McAuliffe as their next Governor. Terry is the kind of Democrat that until this year I associated with the modern Democratic Party. That is, Terry is Democratic who supports the idea of government serving the people, especially those who tend not to get heard, while at the same time believing in the idea of fiscal responsibility and hard work - for politicians and others. Certainly, Terry believes there is a difference between traditionally Democratic positions and traditionally Republican ones. And no one can say he does not speak his mind. So as a resident of the District of Columbia I hope Virginians see the virtues of having Terry as governor. With his blend of pragmatism and commitment to traditional Democratic principles, he will be a great leader for Virginia. Furthermore, Terry is already working to earn the confidence of the voters of Virginia; he's not waiting to be selected or appointed to an office, he's doing politics the good old-fashioned way - through campaigning rather than through cutting deals.

Here is information I received today from Terry via his exploratory committee.  To read the text below in a larger view, click on the it.