Posts
First, Haley claims that her candidacy is not about gender or race, but then her supporters are found wearing pink t-shirts with a Margret Thatcher saying?! Is she trying to have it both ways? I believe that she is, but I think as a politician you have to exploit whatever advantage you have (within reason and the law!) in order to win. Good for her that she found a way to do it. The endorsements of Sarah Palin and Jenny Sanford having such a profound impact are also noteworthy.
Second, the author interviews a Haley supporter who says that she is not supporting her simply because she is a woman; rather because she is more interested in talking about the issues than whatever history her election may make. What is interesting about this woman is that she is a retiree. Perhaps this is evidence that post-feminism is reaching the older generations? Or that Republicans/conservatives just don't care about your sex if you believe what they do?
Third, the author claims that Haley is apparently benefitting from Southern notions of how a lady should be treated. Supposed evidence of this is the fact that when baseless accusations of an affair were launched against her, her support among men increased. I think the author hasn't made a forceful argument here. Isn't it more likely that her support increased because the men were disgusted by the fact that she was unfairly attacked? Why does it have to do with the fact that she is a woman? I don't think it does. That said, I am from New Jersey, so perhaps I don't understand the "Southern gentlemen" thing too well...
Fourth, according to Senator Graham, apparently "ideology is more in vogue than background." We have discussed this in class as well, and I believe a majority of us agree with this point in that we are more likely to cast a ballot based on ideology than gender, race, etc.
3 comments:
Ilana,
Another great find!
I thought that the Sen. Graham quote was really interesting. While I would like to agree wholeheartedly- I think that for the AVERAGE American, background is still the deciding factor.
The reality is, the majority of our nation's politicians come from a similar, and limited swath of the American public. We require certain things of out politicians- and not just in terms of gender and race, but class, education and experience.
I am not convinced that this a bad thing. In one of my classes last night, someone said, "Politicians do not just fight for policy, they represent the people to the world". With that said, shouldn't background be a part of the decision making process?
This is a very interesting article regarding Nikki Haley. While I do not believe that we have discussed it in great detail I believe we have mentioned in class or read in one of the books that women tend to gain power after a crisis, scandal, etc. So, I wonder if she is enjoying such success because of the problems with Gov. Sanford. Do you think she would have performed as well among voters had Gov. Sanford not found himself in a bizarre scandal? Also, the article seems to place a high importance on Jenny Sanford's endorsement. Again, do you think that her endorsement would mean as much if she had not been the scorned woman? (Her handling of the scandal compared to other politicians' wives could also be discussed in great detail.) None of this is to discredit Haley's success. As someone from the South I am proud that we seem to be moving beyond the stereotypes we are so often labeled. However, I just wonder if it is another factor that is contributing to her success.
How about this quote: "A majority of men here are true gentlemen: They don’t like anybody picking on a woman"? While at first glance, I thought it was inferring that male voters "pass" on female candidates because they're afraid to put them to the test, after re-reading the quote 4 times (and the following paragraphs), does the quote have more to do with the accusations of adultery? Is this man stating that the scandal gave her more press because the public (maybe men in particular) paid greater attention to her campaign because they were shocked to see a woman being attacked ("the victim")? And then, to implying (I believe) that her opponent "avoided any direct negative attacks" maybe because she was a woman and it wasn't being accepted well by the electorate? I genuinely don't know what he was trying to say (help!), I also don't know which of the scenarios is better!?
Post a Comment