"War on Women" Really a Ploy to Speak for Me

How are your math skills? Can you still do subtraction in your head? Because here is a little math problem that I find interesting:

1920 - 1878 = ?

If you are quick, you've already calculated the difference. If you are really clever, you may have even figured out the significance of the equation and the answer. I'll come back to that point later.

What does a math problem have to do with the so-called "War on Women" being waged by politicians, lawmakers and the flame-fanning media? Everything, in my opinion.

First  let's examine at the term. Where does the "war" imagery come from? Are there dead bodies in this war? Has blood been spilled? Are there prisoners, hostages, guerilla tactics? Are there uniforms? Is there a defined front? Are there clearly defined parties who have chosen a side? Is participation in this war compulsory?

The "War on Women" is a sham, a made-up event described with evocative terms that create a sense of danger and urgency. War terminology and symbolism permeate our culture to such an extent that we hardly question it when  such terminology is coined. Scholars have been writing about the "Battle of the Sexes" for decades. But is that really the proper way to frame the many issues under the umbrella? I don't think so.

Look at where waging figurative wars have gotten us. Just a few "wars" that have been fought in my lifetime:

War on Drugs

War on Poverty
War on Terror

War on Illiteracy

War on Obesity

None of these wars have ended. The unfortunate conditions of poverty and illiteracy are still with us. Legal and illegal drugs are abused on every strata of society. Obesity may be a growing condition, but fighting it is more of an individual battle - no general or czar can make someone change their relationship with food and eating. And the war on terror, which isn't purely figurative, has always sounded like an oxymoron to me.

The amount of time, money and effort devoted to "warring" against these societal woes is staggering. And the toll on our psyche of so many wars - real ones like Afghanistan or figurative ones like the campaign to increase literacy - have diluted the meaning and seriousness of the word "war." 


Meghan Daum, in an insightful LATimes op-ed, referred to "America's seemingly endless appetite for flimsy controversy." I believe the "War on Women" is one example of that media-fed desire for controversy. These days, they use a just-add-"GATE" approach to grabbing the attention of voters and holding it for the short span our ADD can spare. The candidates who take this simplistic approach, reaching out to voters by professing a belief that a war on women is the most significant issue facing this country do so at their own peril. It is an imaginary war and informed voters recognize the term as media hype and fear-mongering.


It is difficult enough to choose a candidate who is, at least symbolically, committed to their statements and promises. Often, we voters have to compromise when choosing the candidate we vote for. We may vote for the person who we are in agreement with on the greatest number of issues. Or it may be necessary to choose someone based on where they stand on our key issues. It is our right, as individuals and as an electorate, to decide how we weigh the issues and decide which candidate best fits that which we value. To that person, we offer our single, sacred vote.

So why, in an already muddied election year, would the creators of talking points want to christen the debate over some important issues a "War on Women"? What can be gained by misstating the real questions and distorting the real answers? 

I think I may have a partial answer. See, although only a few people truly want to be President of the United States, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people want to be a spokesperson for a cause or group. And when it comes to dividing people by gender, few distinctions are easier to quantify, so the job simply remains to choose the larger group and make a play for their vote by claiming to speak for them.


Well, I have an announcement to make. Attention, media personalities, lobbyists, political spouses, union and club presidents, op-ed journalists and the various and sundry other limelight-seekers who claim to know what I think and want: YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.


I am a woman. That is a fact of my existence. But I am much, much more than a woman when it comes to my voting tendencies. I am entirely too complex a being to be pandered to on the basis of my gender. So please stop trying. You are wrong about me at least as often as you are right, which makes for abysmal statistics when trying to claim you "know" me.


Many people, office-seekers and others, claim to know what I think. I'm not sure where they get their credentials to interpret or broadcast their version of what I, a woman, supposedly want from this election process, though I grant them their First Amendment right to say whatever they choose. But how can anyone believe the claim that a person sitting in a Washington office writing propagandist copy has a true understanding of the multidimensional, non-composite entity called "Women Voters?"  


A few politicians and pundits actually spend time outside the world of their insular lives: journalists listen to voters at town hall meetings and report what was said; candidates ask for input, not just votes; elected officials respond to constituent requests. I thank these groups for taking the trouble to get their facts first-hand and on the ground.


But many more individuals purport to speak for women without, in my opinion, any idea how women think. Men are guilty of this, but they often defer to women to shape their statements and opinions. However, there are many women in public life and the media who seem equally as out-of-touch as the men they deride. I don't want anyone who has no accountability to me to claim the right to speak for me, be they woman or man.


For the record, these women represent themselves, and do not represent me:


Michelle Obama
Anne Romney
Kathleen Sebelius
Sarah Palin
Rachel Maddow
Maureen Dowd
Ann Coulter
Hilary Rosen
Laura Ingraham


These people, regardless of whether I agree with their politics, policies or opinions, have not earned the right to represent me. I do not recklessly cast my lot with an unelected person, whether they be a paid pundit, government employee, a spouse or relative of an elected official or candidate, or a columnist, talk-show host or blogger. Because they are not accountable to me, and their motives are not tied to my welfare, I cannot risk my vote based upon the notion that they are women, and therefore are looking out for all women. 


My vote is too important for that. The votes I cast in 2008 are what I live with today. The votes I will cast in 2012 represent my contract as a citizen withthe United States of America.  The winners are my representatives, and the jobs they do are outlined in the Constitution. 


I have a President. Whether I voted for him or not is not important. He is my President, and I claim him in success and failure, and honor him for serving my country. If I want different results, I must exercise my right to vote and cast my ballot for someone else next time.


Same goes for Congress. My U.S. Senators are Richard Lugar and Dan Coats. My U.S. Congressman is Joe Donnelly. My state's Governor is Mitch Daniels. Senator Barbara Boxer does not speak for me; not just because I disagree with her politics, but I also don't live in California.


I have representation. Those gentlemen are accountable to me. But I am also accountable to be an informed, useful citizen.


If my representatives are not doing their job to my satisfaction, I should first look to myself and my expectations. When I disagree, do I call their office, write a letter or email, attend a town hall meeting? Do I contribute ideas or only criticize? Do I get my information from 24-hour news channels and trendy websites, or do I examine voting records and bills authored by my representative? How well am I doing my job as a citizen and voter?


I bring a lifetime of experiences, knowledge and emotions to any discussion about the present problems or future solutions. I have opinions about decisions being made in Washington D.C. that will affect me and my family. I care about many issues that don't fall into the category of so-called "women's issues." And I don't agree with many women about solutions to problems that do center on gender-specific issues. I do recognize, however, that much of the hoopla being paraded as a war on women is nothing more than the struggle between opposing and overlapping factions to gain a larger share of the votes of women.

The self-appointed spokespersons for women will not influence my vote by suggesting there is a war being waged against me. I am wise to the game and I'm too smart to waste my time and my vote by falling for emotion-based scare tactics.


If there is one thing a history teaches, it is that few things worth having can be gotten quickly. Today's hot-button issues - health care reform, entitlement spending, energy availability and cost, bloody wars on foreign soil - none of the problems developed quickly, and they won't be solved in short order or without someone experiencing pain. That is the simple reality of solving complex problems in a country with a population of 300 million souls.


But in seeking solutions to complex problems, I expect to to meet with disagreement; I expect to win on some issues and lose on others. I certainly don't consider a peaceful, organized protest against mandated employer-paid coverage for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to be a war on women. As a woman, I consider that protest to be the exercise of free speech, and the issue itself to be about economic and religious freedom, which applies to women and men.


When it was decided that I would stay home and raise our children rather than seek an job and income outside the home, that was a decision made by my husband and I together. It affected both of us, not just me. Women's work choices are no more or less important than men's. If anything, we have more options today than ever. Stay-at-home mothers know just as much about important national issues as mothers who work outside the home. All mothers, and all women, know that high national unemployment is a much bigger issue and affects many more people than the artificial discussion regarding individual choices of when and where to work during one woman's lifetime.


So don't try to tell me that there is a war on women. I personally support groups who are fighting against family-weakening policies, the continuing erosion of individual liberty and the strengthening of the welfare state. I think those people are fighting for all women and men. That is my opinion. My votes will be in keeping with this belief. If you believe differently, your vote may not be the same as mine. But whether we agree or disagree on a candidate or an issue, we all have a stake in the outcome. 


Incidentally, the math problem at the beginning does have a bearing on this theme. In the year 1878, the first bill proposing a woman's right to vote was introduced in Congress and was defeated. It took several more tries before the 19th Amendment was adopted, and it was not ratified until 1920. Thirty-two years is a long time - at the turn of the century, it was most of the adult life expectancy for a woman. Some women who gave their life to the cause of women's suffrage died before seeing this reality:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In almost 100 years, women have benefited from great changes in society and played a major role in bringing about many of those changes. Compare the living conditions of the average woman circa 1912 to our lot today, and I think you'll see that, as a whole, we have much to be thankful for.


There is no war on women. There is only a war for your vote, waged by slick propagandists and people who hope to achieve fame and influence by claiming to speak for you.


Speak for yourself. Study your candidates. Know your representative. Be your own researcher. Be your own advocate. Choose your candidates and representatives based on substance, not sophisticated media campaigns designed to confuse and exhaust you.


And, above all, cherish and value your right to vote, and make it count by being an informed voter.

I Don't Want A Poor President

Much has been made of the personal wealth of some of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates, both those still in the race and a few who got out in previous months. Almost no candidate in recent memory in either party has come from truly humble beginnings. And those who did found financial security, if not wealth, early in life. (Link to a brief but fascinating synopsis of all U.S. Presidents' financial fortunes and misfortunes here.)


The original crop of Republican primary candidates had a few millionaires, which has helped sustain the droning mantra of the left concerning the GOP being concerned only for "protecting the rich." John Huntsman, for whom money was no object at a broadly estimated $16 - 70 million net worth, needed more than money to attract voters. Herman Cain, a successful businessman with a fortune between $2 and 6 million, rode a wave of popularity until his campaign was sidetracked by accusations of improper conduct. Michele Bachman's personal wealth of $1 - 3 million also puts her in the Millionaire's Club. But those three left the field, so it's of no significance.


Of the remaining Republicans, personal wealth spans from the very rich to the barely rich. Current estimates of the candidates' net worth are as follows:

Mitt Romney $200 million

Newt Gingrich $6 - 30 million

Ron Paul $2 - 5 million

Rick Santorum $0.5 - 2 million

Since all four will receive a generous retirement from their various public service jobs, chances are none will die penniless like our 20th President, James A. Garfield.

For the record, President Obama's current net worth is estimated at $2 - 11 million, of which most derives from royalties earned from the sale of his books.

 

As a rule, presidential candidates are not from the "middle class" as measured by income.  And neither political party can claim to put forward candidates of average means. The list of the ten wealthiest presidential candidates is comprised of 5 Democrats  and 4 Republicans. An independent, Ross Perot,  actually came in at the top spot with a net worth of $3.5 billion. All the way down at number 10, former senator John Edwards rounds out the list with an estimated $45 million, although he still has some legal matters pending which may negatively impact that figure.


So what does all this have to do with the voters? Considering that the POTUS has not been elected from the lower rungs of the financial strata for several decades, not much. We, the electorate, can only elect those who choose to run for public office and have the financial resources to stay in the campaign long enough to garner votes. If we deem it important to vote for someone who understands us, understands our challenges, our dreams, our fears, we may not get that opportunity, because people of modest means usually cannot afford to run for public office.


But someone has to do it. For many participants, the deciding factor is the level of sacrifice involved. The time and energy required, the financial and organizational resources needed, and the unrelenting scrutiny from the public and the media make the life of the public servant unattractive to all but the most dedicated of campaigners. I'd venture to say that only the most power-hungry and the most service-driven see their political aspirations through to fruition. For many, politics is a calling - an inescapable tug of the conscience to employ their talents and abilities for the greater good of their community or country. For others, politics is a gateway to power and influence. For some, both motivations play a role in their ambitions.


But is the fact of being rich necessarily a bad thing in a candidate? Well, since we've established that very few poor people can or do run for office, it would seem that our choices are somewhat limited to people with the financial means to run.  Which brings me to my main point.

The press seems to love jumping on any utterance of Mitt Romney's that hints at his personal fortune. The pundits aren't content with stringing him up for being a successful businessman, which wasn't always the kiss of death it is today. No, as is the case for almost anyone seeking public office, his words, be they serious statements of policy or lighthearted utterances, get run through the blogophere drag-and-drop context blender, and late-night comedy spin to reflect poorly on his sense, judgement or grasp of reality.

One version of the current spin is that Romney is suffering from a surfeit of "gaffes," telling comments that reveal what a truly rich, evil person he is. In case you've been (wisely) ignoring the day-to-day coverage of campaign minutiae, here are few of the ripe comments the former governor let drop in recent weeks:

Just like us boring, everyday folk, Mitt knows about NASCAR; he has friends who are team owners.

As a staunch American car industry supporter, Mitt's wife owns a couple of Cadillacs.

As a business owner and manager, he took pleasure in firing greedy, incompetent employees.

He can't be blamed for the crass but obvious-to-everyone statement, suggesting that campaigns go through stages, and candidates adjust their message like hitting a reset button or shaking an Etch-A-Sketch. Romney's communications director, Eric Ferhnstrom, served up that tasty nugget, and can only be blamed for telling the truth with an alarming lack of awareness of the potential for damage. For more on campaigns reinventing their candidates, google Hillary Clinton campaign hairstyle, Ronald Reagan 1982 tax increase, Barack Obama flag lapel pin, to name a few noteworthy changes mid-stream.


Back to Romney: his current estimated net worth of $200 - 250 million places him among the nation's 3,140 richest people, in the top 0.001% of Americans. Compared to him, Rick Santorum and his large family look like paupers. But this is America! The favorite destination of wealth-seekers for four centuries and counting! Why is success and wealth considered a liability in this particular election?

It seems that if the media likes a candidate, it's okay if they are wealthy; if they don't like a candidate, their wealth works to their disadvantage. I feel a song coming on - sing along!

♫ If you’re wealthy and you know it, hold your tongue! ♫

Let's be clear. I'm not poor - far from it. I don't worry about my next meal and I'm not plagued by foreclosure notices and utility shutoffs. But the recession, the steady rise in the cost of food and fuel, and difficulty saving apace the rising cost of college expenses have been hard on my family. We're middle class in assets and income, but our outgo is getting dangerously close to our income. 


But I, and most thinking Americans, don't automatically blame the rich and successful for the problems of our economy and rising costs. I believe that I'd be worse off if the rich and successful were prevented from making and spending their money to grow businesses and corporations that feed the consumer economy in which we all exist. Yes, I believe that there are a few evil rich people who'd like to steal from me, but I also believe there are a few evil poor people who'd like to steal from me, and quite a few unsavory types between the extremes.

However, I'd be more disturbed if Romney tried to pretend to know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck, or affected an affinity for the poor, or the uneducated, which he couldn't sincerely achieve. What the left calls "blunders" and "gaffes," I would simply term "efforts." We all attempt to empathize with situations we've never personally experienced. I've committed gaffes when I've tried to comfort friends grieving the death of a spouse, or attempted to identify with the challenges of a parent of a special needs child. I don't always say the right thing, but that doesn't stop me from trying to empathize or sympathize when I want to make a human connection.


I want a president who can get the job done. The only way I know if he can do the job is to look at his past successes and failures and judge how those will enable him to handle future challenges.

I haven't been on the Romney bandwagon, and I'm not necessarily jumping on now. But we're looking to elect a leader, an executive, a person who can analyze complex problems with multiple variables and make trustworthy decisions. He's running for President of the United States, not Mr. Congeniality. I'm prepared to cut him some slack for not being able to hide the fact that he's lived life as a wealthy man.