Let's look at those 'silly arguments'

Having being accused by the writer of invoking six “silly arguments” in my rejoinder to Ben Peter Terpstra’s article “Girl Power is back”, I am writing this response.

Once again, right off the bat, Terpstra’s article grates when he refers to Palin as “a great woman”, without actually telling us why he thinks she is so great.

Is it the fact she is under investigation for abuse of power?

Is it the fact that she fired a Wasilla council librarian shortly after the librarian stated that she would under no circumstances ban books from her library?

Is it the fact that, as Mayor she charged rape victims for the cost of investigating their rapes?

Is it the fact that as Governor she has used her position to settle personal vendettas and appoint grossly unqualified friends into positions such as one within the State Division of Agriculture, after said friend stated that one of her major qualifications for the job was a “childhood love for cows”?

Is it the fact that the National Organization for Women (NOW), who has long held a neutral stance in general elections, is so appalled by the prospect of Palin in the White House, making decisions on women’s issues that they have endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket?

Is this what makes Palin “great” to you? Because, to the rest of us, it is these issues and more that terrify so many of us.

Terpstra has expressed dissatisfaction in my calling his article sexist because he feels that he has the right to use what he deems “politically incorrect” terminology such as “girl power”. Well, of course this is true, we are all free to use whatever words we wish, whenever we wish to use them. However, when doing so we should be aware that we are opening ourselves up to scrutiny and criticism. OK that’s silly argument one taken care of.

What about silly argument two: is using the term “girl power” when referring to Palin sexist?

First, Terpstra cries foul stating that “leftists” and Hillary Clinton supporters themselves have used the term, and wonders why he has been singled out. The answer is of course, context. The reason I “singled” him out is simply that my article was a response to his writing in this particular instance. Furthermore, there is a difference between an unknown supporter posting a “Hillary Girl Power” video on YouTube and a writer in a political journal using the same term. And just for the record a quick click on the YouTube link in Terpstra’s article reveals that it has had the grand total of 676 views (viewed on September 18, 2008), hardly the Internet phenomenon he made it out to be and was uploaded by a 19-year-old teenager from the Netherlands.

So while that teenager may have been driven by a sense of empowerment to praise Clinton in that video, the same cannot be said for Terpstra. A place for everything and everything in its place, please. The fact that he used the term “girl power” in a respected national journal to describe a major figure in current world politics makes the appearance of such a colloquial term stand out like the proverbial sore thumb. It is patronising and the written equivalent of a pat on the head.

Next up is my third allegedly silly argument that Terpstra does not refer to what “change” it is that he finds so appealing in Palin. As I repeatedly stated, the fact that Palin is a woman is not in itself a significant indicator of change. He did not discuss her policies in the first article and despite my repeated requests, again failed to do so in the second. Simply listing the number of prominent female Republican politicians is not evidence of change, Policies, please. It’s the policies that count. In what way does Palin represent a change in the way Republicans do politics? I am still waiting for an answer to that question.

And onto silly argument four: the ever-present subject of disenchanted Clinton supporters. I took exception to Terpstra’s original statement that Palin “may win over Clinton’s hurting supporters” as it portrayed women as a monolithic entity who vote less on issues and more on whether the candidate sports their vaginal characteristics.

Terpstra has since watered down his stance to “McCain only needs 10 per cent of them” and claims that he has seen YouTube video’s of ex-Clinton now McCain fans which he cites as evidence that Palin is indeed winning over a large chunk of Hillary Clinton’s 18 million voters. However, without actual figures, it is impossible to gauge whether this is at all true. There are also no indicators that the examples that Terpstra cites have anything to do with the Palin pick. If he is referring to the group Clintons4McCain, then he would do well to acknowledge that this group surfaced well before Palin’s arrival on the scene and their website has since been revealed to be registered by the Republican National Committee.

Regardless, however, of whether or not some Clinton supporters defect to Palin in protest, it is the inherent sexism of Terpstra’s initial statement that I objected to. That women will automatically flock to Palin en masse, simply because she is a woman. On the contrary, according to a Lifetime Networks poll, 62 per cent of women say that McCain’s choice of a female VP has no bearing on their vote either way while the vast majority (76 per cent) of Clinton supporters have actually “flocked to Obama”.

Women Against Sarah Palin a website created as a response to the claims that McCain can win women over by picking a female running mate features these words by Gloria Steinem:

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for - and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs”.

According to Terpstra, that is silly argument number five and he issues a series of frustratingly simplistic blanket statements to “counteract” it. Ignoring the irony of Terpstra claiming that Palin represents a real change, then promptly declaring that her views are virtually identical to Clinton’s anyway, let’s examine them one by one:

“Abortion? Clinton now says that ‘abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare’. This suggests that she is moving to the right. Less abortion clinics, after all, means more mothers.”

Actually, Clinton has long maintained that position. But far from a shifting to the right Clinton, maintains that the way to decrease the number of abortions is through comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, not simply closing down abortion clinics as Terpstra astoundingly suggests. In other words Clinton wants to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, not attempt to force unwilling women into motherhood.

To suggest that Clinton and Palin share similar views on this issue is simply bordering on the absurd. Palin is “pro-life” to the point where she has publicly stated that should her own daughter fall pregnant as a result of rape she would still “choose life”.

Clinton has always maintained that women have a right to privacy and bodily autonomy: “I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.”

“Guns? Clinton talks fondly of her hunting memories too … ‘It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter’. (April 12, 2008.)”

Oh, the joys of selective quoting. This quote by Clinton was a response to Obama’s infamous comment that people in small towns cling “bitterly” to guns and religion. While Clinton criticised this approach by Obama, her policy on this issue nonetheless calls for stricter measures on gun control. She said:

We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons … I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but ... It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns.

Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA.

“The death penalty? Clinton and Palin support the death penalty.”

Not a major issue in this election by any stretch of the imagination.

“Gay marriage? Clinton and Palin oppose gay marriages.”

Another simplistic argument: Gay rights is more complex than simply being for or against “gay marriage”. Openly advocating gay marriage is considered to be political suicide in the US (just ask John Kerry). While Clinton has stated that she believes marriage is between a man and woman, she also strongly supports gay civil unions and granting legal rights to same sex couples. She has achieved an 89 per cent score on gay issues from the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay and lesbian organisation in the US, which monitors the way in which Senators vote on issues key to gays and lesbians. In 2006:

Hillary Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and included language which could have prevented recognition of civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. The amendment failed by a vote of 49-48.

Clinton also states:

I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment.

And where does Palin stand on this issue? First, she is a member of a fundamentalist Christian Church that openly prays for God to turn gay people straight. She says she “doesn’t know” if people choose to be gay or are born that way.

While her position on civil unions and gay adoption is still vague as she is fairly new on the scene, it must be kept in mind that she is John McCain’s running mate and “he is against almost all equal benefits for same-sex couples (and) opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, expanding the Hate Crimes Act to cover sexual orientation and he supports the military's discriminatory "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, which not so incidentally, Clinton opposes.

“Iraq and Afghanistan? Clinton and Palin back interventionism when it counts, and millions of Kurdish women are very grateful … In reality, this idea that Clinton will bring us back to the ‘peaceful’ 1990s, and that all of Hillary’s supporters reject Palin’s support of Bush’s ‘hawkish’ policies is a joke, miles removed from reality. Indisputably, they all support interventionist foreign policies. Thus, Hamad’s anti-war Hillary is pure fiction.”

I never actually stated that Hillary was “anti-war” in all cases. Once again Terpstra puts forward an overly simplistic argument. One would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that any candidate in a major American party would favour a completely non-interventionist foreign policy. However, while Clinton has not hesitated to say that she would use force “when necessary”, she has long being critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.

In her interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson, Palin stated that she believed that Bush was doing the best he could to handle Islamic extremism. Clinton ran on platform that included staged withdrawal while Palin is running mate to a candidate who famously stated that the US could be in Iraq for another 100 years.

The major difference in Clinton and Palin’s positions on foreign policy and National security is in the approach the US should take and can perhaps best be summed up in the following quotes:

CLINTON: “Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy. As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests ... But soldiers are not the answer to every problem. Using force in lieu of diplomacy compels our young men and women in uniform to carry out missions that they may not be trained or prepared for. And it ignores the value of simply carrying a big stick, rather than using it”.

PALIN: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God … That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Regardless of whether or not Palin’s remarks explicitly state that the US is on a mission from God in Iraq, they nonetheless display an astounding naivety and idealism regarding her stance on where the US stands in world affairs and does nothing to appeal to supporters of Clinton who take a far more pragmatic approach.

Finally, to “silly” argument six and Terpstra’s claim that my criticisms (stating that the way in which he refers to Palin is detrimental to the advancement of women in the workplace) are more “excessive” than Michael Moore. The tactic of guilt by association aside, the only possible response is, it is not enough to simply call an argument “silly”, you actually have to provide a counter argument. Which, of course, Terpstra fails to do - again.

Most pertinently, he ignores the first part of my statement, where I say that the major problem in his original article was the way it focused on Palin’s gender and ignored her politics. Thus making it extremely sexist. Thus bringing us full circle once again.