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 My True Outrage About False Umbrage

THE STUMP APRIL 12, 2012

My True Outrage About False Umbrage

BY ALEC MACGILLIS

For those of you who were doing something more valuable with your Wednesday night than monitoring Twitter—like, say, clipping your toenails or watching the Home Shopping Network—let me report that the explosion over Democratic talking head Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney on CNN was quite something to behold. I’m not sure where exactly in Shenzhen the faux outrage is manufactured these days—I imagine Foxconn’s got the contract—but you could all but hear the factory whistles ordering in the workers for a double-shift of umbrage production.

The Democrats are crying foul—Rosen’s connection to Obama is being wildly overstated, for one thing. And for another thing, her offending comment—that Ann “hasn’t worked a day in her life”—was, let’s face it, an attempt (however poorly phrased) to tap into the Democrats’ class argument against Romney, rather than a straight attack on stay at home moms. What offends liberals like Rosen is not that Mitt Romney is invoking a stay-at-home mom as his source of wisdom on women's economic concerns, but that he is turning to a stay-at-home mom who, while presiding over the zoo that a five-boy household surely was, was also not facing, from early in her home-making role (long before she obtained her two Cadillacs and a stable-full of horses), a whole swath of the pressures and anxieties faced by most women, employed outside of the home or not.

But my defense of the Democrats on this score goes only so far, because they have not exactly been earning goodwill in the manufactured outrage department. It was just last week that party minions, Emily’s List and the Obama campaign pounced on Republican National Committee chief Reince Priebus’s analogy suggesting that Democrats’ assertions of a GOP war on women were as ludicrous as would be claims of a “war on caterpillars.” Here’s what Obama campaign honcho Stephanie Cutter had to say about that one, which I called out at the time : “Does [Romney] stand with Reince Priebus—the leader of the Republican Party—when he compares the debate over vital health care services to a war on insects?”

Apparently, we’re supposed to shrug at all this, roll with it. Deny or complain about the reality of the modern news cycle, and you’re a nostalgic prude. But I’m willing to suffer that label. This stuff is ridiculous, and I’ve been through enough of these campaigns to know that it’s getting worse. When the possible future First Lady, a woman who by most reports is as dignified as they come, is dragooned into setting up a Twitter account late on a weekday night so she can tweet her outrage over a line spoken on a news network no one watches, and her grown sons then chime in with their own go-mom tweets, and the rest of us get breathless ("game on!")—well, it’s time to pause for at least a millisecond and recognize that while this is how it is, it doesn’t have to be this way. We do still have personal agency. We can shut it off, put it down, and get the nail clipper.

follow me on Twitter (ha!) @AlecMacGillis

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 29 comments

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

29 comments

Nice

- Tristan

April 12, 2012 at 2:20pm

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

We spend the better part of a year grooving on Romney's uncanny ability to say the wrong thing, and we can't perceive the patent offensiveness of Hilary Rosen's comment to your average stay-at-home mom, let alone in the context of feminism as we understand it?????? Yeah, that's not the same hypocrisy we accuse Republicans of day after day.

- Mikelawyr22

April 12, 2012 at 2:37pm

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

I wish I could figure out what mikelawyr22 is saying. I tried three times. Who is "we" and what does Hillary Rosen's comment have to do with feminism?

- Nusholtz

April 12, 2012 at 2:44pm

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

While I think there is manufactured outrage on both sides there isn't really an equivalence in the examples given. On the one hand you have a campaign linking a candidate to a statement made by the head of his party, and asking him for his take on it. On the other you have a campaign contorting a factually accurate statement into an attack on stay at home moms, and then demanding an apology from the President. The first case is a little silly, the second is blatantly dishonest and histrionic.

- Attrill

April 12, 2012 at 2:55pm

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

Mikelawyr22, Ann Romney is not your average stay-at-home mom. Her husband's been filthy rich for a long time. The average stay-at-home mom often has to worry about economic survival, like my stay-at-home mom did. Besides worrying about servants taking unscheduled days off, Ann Romney's main worry, I'm sure, was whether her 5 young boys would tear the furniture up in the house while rough-housing.

- magboy47.

April 12, 2012 at 2:59pm

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

Ann Romney was consulted by her husband on the issue of Women's economic concerns and she said they were concerned about jobs, the implication being paid jobs to support oneself or a family. Hillary Rosen objected to Ann Romney's expertise as an advisor on that issue, inasmuch as she had never held a job to support herself or a family. Unless Ann Romney was saying that women are concerned about working in the home and President Obama has failed those women, Hillary Rosen's objection should be sustained.

- Nusholtz

April 12, 2012 at 3:23pm

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

When the possible future First Lady, a woman who by most reports is as dignified as they come... Please, I don't know her from anyone but to assert that she is "dignified as they come" is ridiculous, unless you consider dignity as having a slew of houses, cars, and horses for dressage and if Romney is going to use her mere existence as somekind of proof he understands women's issues then detail the manner in which this is so. And right now I am on my sabbatical and am a stay at home dad, believe you me working is far more difficult and I have 3 young sons. It was far more difficult when my wife and I were both working to get the necessary work done, now our lives are a breeze (at least for one year). So mike, does my admitting that our lives are easier since both of us are not working "offend" you?

- blackton

April 12, 2012 at 3:34pm

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

I have really tried to like Ann Romney. I am sorry for her physical ailments - I sincerely wish her a full recovery and the least amount of suffering possible. I always loved Laura Bush, so privledge is not the issue. Ann Romney is the most out of touch, entitled snoot I've ever seen as a candidates wife (except for Barbara "for those women who chose to work" Bush, who I liked even less than Ann Romney, but who I at least respected for being the formidable political enemy she was. I never once thought of her as the friendly Grandma the media made her out to be, that cracked me up. She was a stone killer, bless her). Hillary Rosen was absolutely right and has nothing to apologize for. For Ann Romney to think she has any credibility as a person to speak to employment issues for American women simply galls and shows how far from mainstream life she really is. I have been a working mother my entire career and damn it, Ann Romney HAS never worked a day in her life. No one made her have five kids and isn't she so lucky she could CHOOSE to do so and not work? For her not to even mention the fact that she's grateful she had the luxury of choosing not to work - and choosing to have an enormous family - just makes my stomach turn. Good for Rosen for getting pissed, I mean really. The only think she did was make a Michael Kinsely style gaffe, by accidentally telling the truth. People in DC don't like that very much. It was a political forced error, but I wasn't offended in the least, I cheered her. Go Rosen.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 4:44pm

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

And Nusholz, you said it perfectly. This has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 5:04pm

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

Those close to the candidate, or the President, may become the objects of "target practice" as they put themselves in the spotlight. As each campaign retaliates when one of their own is shelled, firewalls are created around spouses, other family members and close associates. It should matter whether the statements made about Mrs. Mitt were true or false and the context in which the statements were made should be considered before the retaliation begins.

- Doug12

April 12, 2012 at 5:05pm

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

As an aside, I'll note that Michelle Obama, who was the primary breadwinner in their family for several years, juggling the demands of her children and career, is probably in a much better position to understand how most women feel in terms of the economic pressures. Until relatively recently, the Obamas were living in a small apartment, still dealing with his law school debt, etc.

- shellski

April 12, 2012 at 5:10pm

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

There is no such thing as working mothers versus stay at home mothers, except with bored columnists on deadline. Some of my friends are lucky enough to not have to work, more power to them, its utterly irrelevent to our relationships. The issue is entirely this: clueless, pampered dolt versus clued in humble human being - these things have little to do with gender.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 5:18pm

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

I will also just echo the point that it is a luxury she is lucky enough (and her kids are lucky enough) to have had. And one that my stay-at-home husband is now lucky enough to have, which I remind him of quite frequently. In one sense, it is the kids who are fortunate enough to have a stay-at-home parent, but it is also nice for the stay-at-home parent to have the choice. But when one spouse's earning power is about five times that of the other, the higher earner will have a much harder time arranging things to be the one at home for any length of time, especially if switching roles would require moving somewhere completely different and other major life changes.

- shellski

April 12, 2012 at 5:20pm

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

What Wandrey said. Amen.

- Sophia

April 12, 2012 at 5:56pm

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

Thank you for your excellent perspective, Wandrey! I do think Rosen chose her words poorly, but bless your heart for bringing it home for me.

God has blessed Ann Romney seven ways from Sunday, and she may be one of the most upstanding and kind-hearted women in politics today, but she really doesn't know what it actually means to have to decide between things like food on your table and clothing for your children. I will say I'm glad Mittens at least consulted a woman about at least one womens' issue. That's progress, I think.

- GSpinks

April 12, 2012 at 6:21pm

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

means the world Soph.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 8:31pm

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

WandreyCer: Interesting. I have the same take on former first ladies Barbara Bush, Laura Bush. I don't know much about Ann Romney except it's bizarre to consider her an informed adviser on "women's" economic issues. But that's a problem with Mitt, not Ann per se. I'm so tired of the "working mom" v. "stay-at-home mom" debate. It not only frames the issue with the burden on women but it's also a false dichotomy. Both moms are "working women." The real issue is recognizing parenting as a full-time job and paying livable wages with benefits to the person who does it, regardless of gender. (http://kvickthoughts.blogspot.se/2008/09/dream-on.html). It's only because of tradition that this work is unpaid and continues to be done primarily by women. It’s time to change that.

- Claris

April 13, 2012 at 7:05am

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

(My post above got screwed up. Let me try this again.) WandreyCer: Interesting. I have the same take on former first ladies Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, etc. I don't know much about Ann Romney except it's bizarre to consider her an informed adviser on "women's" economic issues. But that's a problem with Mitt, not Ann per se. I'm so tired of the "working mom" v. "stay-at-home mom" debate. It not only frames the issue with the burden on women but it's also a false dichotomy. Both moms are "working women." The real issue is recognizing parenting as a full-time job and paying livable wages with benefits to the person who does it, regardless of gender. It's only because of tradition that this work is unpaid and continues to be done primarily by women. It’s time to change that. (http://kvickthoughts.blogspot.se/2008/09/dream-on.html).

- Claris

April 13, 2012 at 7:09am

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

Wandrey, as usual, is spot on. And as to the outrageous umbrage over the "war on caterpillars," I have a hard time understanding why the criticism of Priebus's comment was unfair. He said, "there's no war on women, it's as made up as if Dems said there was a war on caterpillars." Stephanie Cutter responds that Preibus is trivializing very serious concerns. Isn't he? The issue is whether the Repubs are taking positions that endanger women's health; Priebus says they aren't (without, AFAIK, any supporting evidence), and Cutter says they are (with supporting evidence), If Cutter had responded without referencing caterpillars at all, would that have been acceptable?

- GeoffG

April 13, 2012 at 9:52am

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

Great link Claris. I dont see working Mom versus stay at home Mom anywhere in this. For me, its entirely personal. Anne Romney "reporting" back to her android husband on anything to do with working women besides how to interview the help is just too much. Here is a couple just itching to cut health care for working class and poor children - as they waft around in their gas guzzlers to their horse shows. As Roi said so succinctly, the wealthy are unspeakably greedy these days. Maybe in her next life Anne's struggles will include her opening that letter that states how much subsidies have been cut for her disabled child. I'm sorry she leaves me so notibly cold. It started when she insisted, irrelevantly, that she doesn't "feel wealthy.". Um, so? Did anyone ask? Fact is, you are wealthy. At least have the sensitivity to be aware, humble and grateful for that - vocally and regularly. Stay classy rich Republicans. Eleanor Roosevelt - where are you?.

- WandreyCer

April 13, 2012 at 9:55am

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

Maybe "working mom" v. "stay-at-home mom" characterizes the issue badly. But in the comments thread, and Ann Romney, there is a sense of good fortune or luck about not having to work outside the home (Ann Romney could afford to stay home with the kids) or having a spouse who can cover the home front. And that's exactly what it is - luck and/or good fortune for those individuals who don't have the stress of juggling work life and home life carefully to keep food on the table. As you point out, Ann's obliviousness to this privilege and Romney's dependence on Ann for clues about "what women want" is what makes the whole thing so damning. It's simple: women (and men) need pay for their work, and financial independence, no matter if the work is in or outside the home. (So to that extent, I disagree that Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life." She just wasn't paid for it.) Individual and family well-being should not be a matter of "luck." I zeroed in on parenting since that's such a big part of it for women. Call it a sideways take on the issue. "Women's" economic concerns are no different than those of men. It's a shame Mitt Romney needed to consult with anyone to figure this out.

- Claris

April 13, 2012 at 10:57am

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

GeoffG: " Stephanie Cutter responds that Preibus is trivializing very serious concerns. Isn't he?" No, I don't think he was. He was asserting that the media will take whatever the Democrats say the Republicans are doing and repeat it as gospel. It wasn't disparaging women's issues, it was disparaging the supposedly overly gullible media. That being said, I find this whole issue ridiculous. Nusholtz is right that Rosen was questioning why Romney would get economic advice from someone who never had a paying job, not questioning the actual work of stay-at-home moms. That the Romney campaign is trying to conflate the two shows to me an indication of their desperation on women's issues (just because women care about jobs doesn't mean they don't care about access to reproductive health care). But I'd bet that the vast majority of people aren't paying attention and don't know who Hillary Rosen is, and in November I doubt anyone (even those who are paying attention) will care. This is all about playing to the base; it's not going to change more than a handful of votes, if that.

- dsimon

April 13, 2012 at 11:01am

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

Right on, WandreyCer! I believe the "War on Women" charge is based on the Republican attempt to pass into law an employer right to control his (and I am deliberately using the masculine here) employees sex lives. I do find it mildly offensive to have it said that this is an imaginary problem, especially after what was said by Republicans and Republican apologists two months ago. It doesn't compare women to insects, it just says their concerns are imaginary (maybe all these women have PMS?).

- polijunky

April 13, 2012 at 11:02am

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

polljunky nails it to the wall (on the other thread about Mitt not changing diapers too btw).

- WandreyCer

April 13, 2012 at 11:15am

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

"(So to that extent, I disagree that Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life." She just wasn't paid for it.)" Claris, Ann Romney was paid for her work at home. She got luxury housing, Cadillacs, furs, jewels, meals at expensive restaurants, baby sitters, probably servants, top medical care for herself and her children, etc. I don't know whose book that wouldn't be pay in. I admire women who work outside the home and inside it, but I submit that women who work as "domestic engineers" are not unpaid slaves. And even if they were, they would be voluntary slaves.

- magboy47.

April 13, 2012 at 9:40pm

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

Please, it's all fake politics and at that level not much distinguishing either side. People's political desires shouldn't blind them to that as on this score no one has a monopoly on virtue.

- basman

April 14, 2012 at 12:19pm

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

magboy47: slaves are slaves.

- Claris

April 14, 2012 at 2:47pm

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

"magboy47: slaves are slaves." Because you say they are? Your evidence is non-existent. You repeat slogans without thinking.

- magboy47.

April 14, 2012 at 9:33pm

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

It's about dependence.

- Claris

April 16, 2012 at 7:07am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close