SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home "just Deck 'em, Mom"

OPEN UNIVERSITY JANUARY 28, 2007

"just Deck 'em, Mom"

BY TNR STAFF

by Linda Hirshman
All weekend the websites and papers were full of coverage of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In addition to being a citizen myself, I am interested in Clinton's campaign, because I have been working on a project on women as citizens for a while. My hypothesis is that American women, believing that politics has no ultimate meaning, raised on a steady diet of the authenticity of private feeling and in retreat from communal ties to the single family dwelling, were the actually incarnation of, pardon the gendered language, Nietzsche's last man.

Before Senator Clinton arrived in Des Moines, I indulged myself in some speculation, about what a campaign dependent on support from such women might look like. I concluded that she would have to deploy a weird combination of conventional suffering female autobiography herself and super macho toughness on her opponents to stand a chance with that particular segment of the electorate. To my astonishment (and delight), on her first foray down the campaign trail, that seems to be exactly what she is doing. It is driving Frank Rich crazy. It will be interesting to see if she can keep it up.

The star turn in her big speech in Iowa Saturday was her statement that she "was going to ask people to vote for me based on my entire life and experience ... the fact that I'm a woman, the fact that I'm a mom, is part of who I am." The Telegraph reports that Chelsea, not exactly Nancy Pelosi's grandchildren-producing machines, but still an offspring, is about to reappear on the campaign trail.

The candidate had the good sense not to reveal the War Room Hillary at the same event as mom, but at another appearance that very day, "mom" showed her readiness to play with the big boys in the world of attack politics, sharing her strategy in the most graphic terms: "When you're attacked you have to deck your opponents."

Now that I have had that rare academic experience of seeing my scenario played out in the arena, I wonder if she's going to learn to be a little more discreet about her tougher side. Counterpunches can always come from somewhere deep in the campaign rather than from the candidate herself. The most interesting thing about the macho mama is the somewhat ambivalent response--"some laughter and applause." But the loving mama got exactly what Hillary had to be hoping for. "You go, girl!"

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

14 comments

I hate the idea of the last man, sentimental tripe about the transcendent, heroic life, and in utter condescension of, and abstract detachment from, the struggles, tragedies and passions of real people living real lives, however removed from the "meaning of politics." Only those under-lived in the groves of academe could consider making it a hypothesis about any group women, American or not. Women by and large suffer "authentically" from plenty enough and don't have to concern themselves overly whether their their suffering is "conventional." And there are plenty enough terrible problems requiring decisiveness and toughness as natural facts. The ability to convey those qualities to people need not involve the cynical projection of a persona of "super macho toughness." Hillary Clinton, I think, electorally will live or die by her ability to be whom she is--a tall order, some say--and appeal to people on that basis. So it is politically smart, and (call me naive) not necessarily calculated-- in the worst connotation of that word-- to appeal to women voters, in part, on the basis of her own experience. We shall see what we shall see.

- basman

January 28, 2007 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In Childhood and Society Erikson made similar points in his discussion of momism. It is worth a look

- howardb

January 28, 2007 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All for it. But neither party really pays any attention to the issues that directly undermine the ability of working-class and moderate-income families to provide a good education, decent healthcare and a good environment for raising school-age kids. That agenda would prioritize 1) school vouchers 2) immigration reform, ie slam shut the door on illiterate campesinos who are undermining 25 years of school reform, and move to a points-based immigration system favoring educated immigrants 3) single-payor, now The Repubs will never go for #3, the Dems will never go for #1, and each party is desperate to prevent the other from making inraods on the crucial latino vote, so #2 will likely never happen. Where do Grandma Pelosi's grandkids go to school? Public schools in which 40% of the kids are illiterate (in Spanish as well as English)? Doubt it.

- teplukhin

January 29, 2007 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wonder what the mommies in Grandma Pelosi's district think of their public schools? Think they agree with Pelosi's views on vouchers and immigration? Here are California State proficiency test results for the San Francisco USD. Scores are sortable by ethnicity, among other things. Here's the % of hispanic kids in the SF USD who scored below Proficiency in 2005: CST English-Language Arts: 78% below Proficient in Grade 2, 75% in Grade 6, 75% in Grade 12. CST General Mathematics (Grades 8 & 9 tested to "Grades 6 & 7 standards"): 86% below Proficiency. Algebra: 88% below Proficiency. Geometry: 88% below Proficiency. CST Integrated Math I: 98% below Proficiency. CST Integrated Math II: 93% below Proficiency. What mommy would even dream of sending her children to schools where nearly 25% of the kids attain such results? http://tinyurl.com/2mslw7

- teplukhin

January 29, 2007 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

edwards just appointed michelman of naral to be his womans voice. does this mean that hillary will then have to adress michelman instead of edwards on issues. i want a direct voice from edwards. for me, all this positioning is becoming very unsettling, even disgraceful. watching the iowa cspan coverage yesterday, i was struch by the women in the audience clasping their hands together in wonder at hillary. ive seen that clasp before at the fatima movie. the wonder of it all. and in the presence of a vision. with guliani, i felt comfortable. a decent, well spoken and direct politician. i would vote for him .

- check

January 29, 2007 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Check, you are truly the ee cummings of political discourse. As with ee, not sure I follow you, but it's way cool.

- teplukhin

January 29, 2007 at 7:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He's my notional man. A great candidate, with some bullshit in his past that should be irrelevant. Can't stand the parsing, for example, of whether H.C. actually meant to tell a joke. That kind of nonsense will be irrelevant to a Giuliani campaign. Teplukhin, how could you not stand behind Giuliani? And you have an actual vote. She'll not ever, I can't imagine favour school vouchers. Just one thing Check, don't, in my opinon, think that Giulaini will be any less contrived than anyone else. He is simply a superior political presence, with besides a solid record of experience and achievemnent--successful mayor of NYC, for example. Unlike the guy before me, I understood you, as I do E. E. Cummings.

- basman

January 29, 2007 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He's my notional man. A great candidate, with some bullshit in his past that should be irrelevant. Can't stand the parsing, for example, of whether H.C. actually meant to tell a joke. That kind of nonsense will be irrelevant to a Giuliani campaign. Teplukhin, how could you not stand behind Giuliani? And you have an actual vote. She'll not ever, I can't imagine favour school vouchers. Just one thing Check, don't, in my opinon, think that Giulaini will be any less contrived than anyone else. He is simply a superior political presence, with besides a solid record of experience and achievemnent--successful mayor of NYC, for example. Unlike the guy before me, I understood you, as I do E. E. Cummings.

- basman

January 29, 2007 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Giuliani is indeed a very interesting candidate. Has a Nixonian streak, though-- not sure whether his humbling post-2000 life experiences cured him of it. The nation could do far worse than to see a Hillary-Giuliani matchup-- a truly national race, with nearly every state in play. Everyone's vote may finally mean something, for once.

- teplukhin

January 31, 2007 at 3:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting to note that Giuliani has accurately and eloquently positioned school vouchers as a civil rights issue, a ticket to freedom for poor afr-amer kids trapped in hellish urban public schools. And Eliot Spitzer has picked up the issue as well. Let's hope it's a trend

- teplukhin

January 31, 2007 at 3:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...crazy, I'm for. You go girl.

- ChanRobt

January 31, 2007 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...cap key. But are you also too small to jump on RETURN and make paragraphs Your pithiness would be thus rendered more readable. Maybe you have a cat friend, or a parrot who could do this for you?

- ChanRobt

January 31, 2007 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...is likely due to the fact that any sense of humor she may possess has rarely been in evidence. The "evil men" thing was truly funny, though. She's learning that Jack Benny long long pause thing.

- ChanRobt

January 31, 2007 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...the Democratic party, the GOP is in big trouble. Fortunately for the Republicans, it's not likely.

- ChanRobt

January 31, 2007 at 1:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close