October 4th, 2008- Are we in a civil war or what? I’m not talking about the Middle East conflicts either. I’m talking about the Sarah Palin factor.

The vitroil and criticism, from so many women, levelled at another woman who’s clearly successful and politically astute – what is with that?

Regardless of the validity of the criticism, seeing a person being attacked so aggressively in public makes some Americans, and too many celebrities, look really, really unattractive as human beings.

It makes America appear, to the rest of the world, as a country intolerant of diversity and people who come from the rural areas of America. My personal experience with Americans tells me otherwise.  But the political scene…it’s as gentle as a gladiator in battle.

Dishing her performance on the VP debate with Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden…aside from the accent which takes getting used to, she seems to connect with people tired of slick sounding politicians who lack the common touch.

I cringe listening to the ridicule being dished out on American TV to a woman who is running for America’s second highest political office. There is an element of urban snobbery and hidden elitism coming through, perhaps.

The sniping aimed at Sarah Palin such as the mantra “no executive experience”…makes it sound like she’s just come from running a fish and chip shop.

Having said that, some say, she’s treated far better than a black woman or any other minority woman would be.

For example, if Palin was a black woman, running for the office, with a pregnant, sexually active teenage daughter, can you imagine the sniggering stereotypical criticism that would be aimed right at this family.

In fact, the mother of Jamie Spears, sister of Britney, who was pregnant at the age of 17, has described the different reactions from America to her daughter and Palin’s daughter, as hypocritical

American Women Running For Office

Teenager dramas aside, does being a Governor of an American state not count as “executive experience”?

It’s a little known fact that in America, more than 30 women have run for the presidency of the United States.

The first was in 1872, Victoria Woodull, “a spiritualist turned successful Wall Street broker”, although

Victoria Woodhull, the first American woman, to run for the U.S Presidency.

women did not get the right to vote in America until early 1900s.

Consequently her name didn’t even appear on the ballot. New Zealand was the first country (it was in fact a governing colony at the time) to give women the vote.

By the way, for the last nine years, New Zealand has had a female Prime Minister and she’s standing again for office, at this year’s elections on November 8th.

American author Erika Falk, who wrote Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns, studied the political campaigns of U.S women who had run for president between 1872 and 2004 compared to their male counterparts.

She also did a pilot study of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in January 2007.

Here’s what she found with the media coverage:

Tracing the campaigns of eight women who ran for president through 2004–Victoria Woodhull, Belva Lockwood, Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Patricia Schroeder, Lenora Fulani, Elizabeth Dole, and Carol Moseley Braun–Erika Falk finds little progress in the fair treatment of women candidates.

A thorough comparison of the women’s campaigns to those of their male opponents reveals a worrisome trend of sexism in press coverage–a trend that still persists today.

While women have been elected to the highest offices in countries such as England, Germany, and India, the idea that a woman could be president of the United States provokes scoffs and ridicule.

The press portrays female candidates as unviable, unnatural, and incompetent, and often ignores or belittles women instead of reporting their ideas and intent.

Since voters learn most details about presidential candidates through media outlets, Falk asserts that this prevailing bias calls into question the modern democratic assumption that men and women have comparable access to positions of power.

The Novelty Factor

In her book, Falk discusses the “novelty frame”…the way campaigns of women presidential candidates are portrayed and suggests this framing makes them appear more risky as candidates and less natural in the political world.

This year, the New York Times noted that Senator Clinton was the “first woman with a real shot at the presidency.”

However, if you look back, the same was said about Elizabeth Dole in 2000. In that year, the New York Times described Dole as “the first woman to become a really serious candidate for President of the United States.”

Of course, back in 1972 the Seattle Times penned, “Representative Shirley Chisholm today became the first black woman to begin a serious bid for the presidency of the United States.”

The truth is that each woman who has run for the presidency has been framed as though her campaign was a first.

The problem with framing all women who run as “firsts” is that it suggests that women are perpetual anomalies in the political sphere. This makes women appear more risky as candidates, less likely to win, and less natural in the world of politics.

It feeds the stereotype that somehow women candidates are operating outside their normal place.

Indira Gandhi, Premier of India, campaigning for re-election in 1971, New Delhi, India.

Her research also looked at the stereotypes and says that press coverage of women may, in fact, suppress their political ambitions.

There was ample evidence that traditional sex roles and stereotypes played a role in the coverage. Women were more likely to have their accomplishments diminished by having honorary titles such as “Senator” and “Representative” dropped than were men.

In comparison to men, women were more likely to be described as emotional, described physically, and have their family mentioned.

Clinton – Obama Campaigns

Falk found the disparities that existed in the 1800 campaigns were also present in recent campaigns. In the pilot study she did of the Clinton and Obama campaigns, she says the results were mixed.

On one hand, Clinton got less coverage than Obama-consistent with past patterns. Clinton also had her more prestigious title (Senator) dropped in favor of the less prestigious “Mrs.” or “Ms.”

It happened much less frequently that Obama’s Senator title was dropped in favor of “Mr.”

On the other hand, there were ways in which Clinton was treated better than historical women (though not as well as typical men). For example, historically, the appearance of women is mentioned in about 40 percent of articles about them.

For men the percent is much lower (14 percent), but Clinton had her appearance mentioned 29 percent of time.

On the question of polling and whether voters would actually vote for a woman presidential candidate, namely Senator Hillary Clinton at the time, the results were interesting:

In a real election, people may have sexist attitudes, but they are put together with party preference, the issue positions of real candidates, and the characters of the people running.

Research I conducted with a colleague indicates that party preference is a much stronger force than sexism.

During the last election we asked Democrats who said they would NOT vote for “a woman” president, for whom they would vote if Senator Hillary Clinton ran against President Bush.

The majority of those saying they would not vote for “a woman” preferred Clinton to Bush in a real head to head match-up.

Does Beauty Matter?

Finally, appearance and beauty, as irrelevant as they are to whether one is fit to run for office, it is clearly a constant issue for women in public office. Falk found it’s more important for women candidates to worry about their appearance than for male candidates.

My research indicates that women are described physically four times as often as equivalent men who run in the same race. The press gives a lot of attention to what women candidates wear, their hair, and their beauty.

The more time the press spends focusing on how women look, the less space there is available for information that might help voters make up their minds.

The focus on appearance may also be a subtle way to cue voters that the candidate is not a serious one.

My suggestion: women candidates should come up with a wardrobe strategy that is designed to minimize comment. Dress conservatively with as little change as possible so as to minimize focus.

Racism: Will It Hurt Obama’s Race To The White House?

Have a look at the different way that each candidate is portrayed by the different magazines on this page.

Both give flattering portrayals of Palin and Obama, respectively, although only Obama’s cover on the Times Magazine focuses on running for a presidential office.

While the treatment of Palin shows sexism is alive and kicking,…the other side doesn’t have it any easier, if you look at other relevant election issues.

Obama, in fact, may have the biggest challenge of all: overcoming deep-seated racism in his own country.

How many white voters will vote for him? Though he’s half caste, as we say, he is, by all appearances, a black man.

Despite criticisms that he’s got an easy ride with the media, he does, in fact, need all the help he can get.

The fight against racism is a real one in any country.

It is perhaps, actually it is, bigger than sexism. Why? It affects not just one gender, but an entire race and colour of people: in fact, entire generations of families along with their hopes and dreams.

Racism is largely an unspoken battle for most families of colour who straddle both worlds, in the mainstream and in ethnic minority communities.

It’s spoken about in the privacy of people’s homes, around the kitchentable, with kindred spirits.  In this election year, overcoming racism in America is talked about with coded phrases like…electing the first black American President.

Oprah Winfrey – The Next Black Presidential Candidate?

In terms of black women running for office, what about Oprah Winfrey? if media popularity is any indicator, she could win the popular vote like Senator Hillary Clinton did for the Democratic.

Her backing Barack Obama, however, suggests that she’s clearly not interested in running for White House now or in the near future.

Of all the media, Oprah has been the most upfront about who’s she’s backing and who won’t go on her show during the political campaign.

No wonder she’s at the top of the game: her decision is an astute one for herself as a professional and also as a concerned citizen.

Oprah’s been upfront about her endorsement of Barack Obama.

I remember she first interviewed him in 2006 and in that interview she did talk about him as the man who could be our next President.

This year, after Palin entered the national scene, she declared openly that she will not interview Sarah Palin, or any other politician on her show, until after the election.

That’s her choice to make.

What I admire about her stand is that is she’s unwavering  on that, and the dream to have Barack Obama win the White House.

Still, it didn’t stop Palin’s team, and other pro-Palin media outlets, from trying to drum up widespread public opposition to Oprah’s decision.

It didn’t work.

She stuck by her guns, Oprah that is.

That’s to be admired.

A black man being elected President of the United States will be a coming of age for America.

From that point of view, there’ll be a need by Obama’s most ardent supporters to protect his path to the White House. That’s why Oprah’s decision is the right one for who she is and what she represents.

Race Relations & New Zealand Politics

In New Zealand, also holding its national elections in November (Saturday the 8th), the leader for the National Party John Key likened himself to Barack Obama. New Zealand media had a field day with it.

Political editor Barry Soper says Mr Key gave an interview to the influential Financial Times of London where he made the comparison. Mr Key is reported as saying he is a bit like Barack Obama, in that he is not institutionalised in Wellington.
[Newstalk ZB]

John Key’s personal story makes him likeable:…childhood challenges particularly growing up in a single mother home. It’s a touching story.

But it’s an inappropriate comparison to Barack Obama for a white palagi man like Key to make…he’s now a successful multimillionaire, a former investment banker with Merrill Lynch.

He’s never experienced racism.

He’s also a palagi man with no community grassroots or intimate personal experience working for, and alongside, black or brown communities anywhere in the world.

Walking around the Otara markets, the largest gathering place for Pacific and Maori on a weekend, in the lead up to the elections doesn’t count.

His world and Obama’s couldn’t be more different.

That’s what sets his opponent, a female Prime Minister apart for many in the Pacific community who back her.

Labour’s Prime MInister Helen Clark, yes America, we got there first with a women leader...her interest and connection to Pacific people in the community, not just in politics, is what helps the Labour Party.

She has walked the South Auckland markets in years before the elections and, of course, is a regular visitor still.

Her active support of things Pacific is evidence of her commitment to Pacific people.

No-where in National’s history, has there been a commitment to things Pacific…except of course, the dawn raids of the 1970s.

That’s a story on its own.

If you think I’m wrong on what National’s done for Pacific, please email me. If I’m missed something, then most of us have.

But I welcome an honest challenge on this.

Former National MP Arthur Anae can vouch for his awful experience as a Pacific MP as a member of a National-led Government.

These days, he’s scathing of the National Party and given that National’s front bench has changed little….same ones are still there…can we expect anything different for Pacific people under a National Government?

The Stones And The Earth Wept
Ua Tagi Le Fatu Ma Le Eleele

Remember Jenny Shipley’s comments in 2000. She was the last National Prime Minister before Labour came into power.

Her comment referred to Pacific people climbing through windows.

Mark Gosche, Pacific Affairs Minister at the time spoke out, calling on Shipley to withdraw her comments and apologise.

Her commentswere were made during a snap debate in Parliament.

Jenny Shipley’s outburst in the house yesterday demonstrated her intolerant and prejudiced attitude towards Maori and Pacific people the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs Mark Gosche said today.
“Her claim that Pacific Island people are like Maori because they cause trouble and climb through the windows of New Zealanders at night shows a side to the former Prime Minister that is deeply disturbing and offensive,” he said.
“Jenny Shipley has finally shown her true colours, her outburst is inexcusable and she should apologise to all Maori and Pacific New Zealanders if she is to retain any shred of credibility,” he said.
“At a time when we as a nation need to work together we have the leader of the opposition inflaming racial tension. She should be ashamed of herself.”
[Media Release: Pacific Affairs Minister, Mark Gosche, 16 May 2000]

Then this parliamentary term, it’s been National MP’s Bob Clarkson’s offensive and racist comments during a tribute in Parliament to a Samoan family, the Muliagas of Mangere, who have suffered much tragedy and the loss of privacy after their mother passed away last year.

Clarkson’s comments during a tribute being given in Samoan by Pacific Affairs Minister Winnie Luamanuvao Laban: “pay the bill, pay the bill…” and later more heckling, “speak in english, speak in english.”

I know Bob Clarkson’s racist phrases by heart because I was the acting editor for Pacific Media Network at the time…it broke my heart hearing the recording from Parliament’s debating chambers.

I couldn’t believe that would be acceptable in any Parliament of any land. I couldn’t believe it was being spoken in our Parliament.

I still can’t.

National’s response, which was to say it was inappropriate and unacceptable, wasn’t enough of an apology, it didn’t go far enough at all…given the background to the Muliaga’s tragedy and the way they were treated by people in authority.

Clarkson got off far too lightly.

More should have been done against him.

I called John Key’s press secretary after I listened to the recording and after double-checking with others.

I can’t remember the name of Key’s press secretary but he was pleasant and obliging.

I asked: what action will John Key be taking as leader of the National Party?

Common sense answer: Clarkson would be dealt with, reprimanded. Key wasn’t impressed with Clarkson’s outburst.

Next Question

Do you think it’s acceptable for a National MP to do and say what he did?
Answer: “What do you think? [That's not the answer you give when someone is asking for accountability from an MP]
My response: ” You tell me, it’s your MP.”

I must admit, that story felt very personal as a Samoan woman, in particular.

It is the height of indignity to do that to a family in grief, particularly the Muliaga and what they had suffered.

How could anyone, of any culture or profession, talk like that during a tribute of mourning while someone is expressing the deepest sorrow of the heart?

As he heckled “speak in english, speak in  english”, Pacific Affairs Minister Luamanuvao Winnie Laban was paying the following tribute:

There is a Samoan proverb that goes like this: “Ua tagi le fatu ma le eleele”—the stones and the earth wept. The expression designates great sorrow at the death of a loved one.
“A ua toe fa’e’e le manuia ma le filemu tumau”—after the event, peace and tranquillity prevail.

His earlier outbursts…”pay the bill, pay the bill.”

Not an National MP anymore after he stepped out from political life at this election.

Still, he should have been publicly humiliated, that’s my honest view….like he publicly did to Pacific people when he heckled as he did.

He refused to apology and later did.

How genuine was that?

It’s clear former National MP Arthur Anae will never stand for them again.

His comments suggests he wants no bar of National and he’s scathing of their attitudes to Pacific issues such as immigration.

Key’s comparison to Barack Obama got brown people talking about the Hollow Men again. I have never read the book. But after that story, and the Tranzrail one, someone suggested I watch the film, The Hollow Men.

The secret to success is sincerity and conviction
Once you can fake that you’ve got it made”
Peter Keenan, National Party Political advisor and speech writer.

From The Hollow Men

That helped explain why some palagi politicians find it easy to make unreal statements like that.

Just because Clarkson has gone, does it mean those racist attitudes have also disappeared?

I do wonder.

Another Related Post: Vinepa Aiono

September, 2008

OBAMA AND THE RACE FACTOR IN THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Whatever your views on Barack Obama, and the outcome of November’s US Presidential Election, he has already claimed his role in American history.

Obama, who turned 47 last month, is the first African-American, the first person of colour, to stand on a major party ticket. He has overturned the political tables in a seismic way. In doing so, he’s ignited a firestorm of interest among minority communities around the world including New Zealand’s Pacific populations.

I know from my time as Acting News Editor for New Zealand’s NiuFM and 531pi Radio Stations, the audio grabs from Obama and former Presidential contender Hillary Clinton…both exceptional speakers…like mana from heaven to listeners used to hearing moving oratory in a Pacific language or from among its own ranks.

During the Presidential primaries, I’d regularly hear talkback callers and hosts on Samoan language radio stations debating the Obama – Clinton factor. Anyone who thinks New Zealand’s Pacific communities or those abroad are uninterested when it comes to politics…underestimates a valuable resource. They need to feel a connection in some way. The U-S political experience provides some interesting insights for New Zealand and the Pacific when it comes to ethnic communities.

CNN Co-Founder Reese Schonfeld, in a blog on the Huffington Post, says ethnic voting remains one of the important factors in American politics.

My first point is that of course the Democratic Party Primary nomination was decided by African-American voters (let us call it the black vote). Using the 2004 Presidential election vote count as a reference point, approximately 7 million blacks voted in the primaries. Media reports on state-by-state exit polls over the course of the primaries indicated that Barack Obama received between 80% – 90% of votes cast by blacks. If those numbers are correct, Obama ran up a 5.6 to 6.3 million vote lead over Hillary among black voters.

Schonfeld points out that with Senator Hillary Clinton’s 17 million primary votes, she apparently beat Obama almost 3 to 2 amongst non-black voters. That, he says, is Barack’s first problem.

He must find a way to convert almost all those voters to his own cause because in the 2004 election George Bush received 58% of the white vote on his way to victory. If McCain were to exceed that, he’d almost certainly win the Presidency.

There is, however, one caveat from Schonfeld…

…poverty trumps ethnicity as a factor determining voter preference. In 1932 as the Depression began, Jews, Italians, and Irish all voted against Herbert Hoover. If in 2008 unemployment continues to rise, if the stock market continues to decline, if the dollar continues to sink and if gas prices continue to rise…voters will vote their pocketbooks rather than their prejudices and Obama will glide into the Oval Office.

GlobeComment Writer Renee Martin is scathing of the apparent lack of indigenous and minority consideration by either Republican John McCain or Democrat Obama. In her column titled Race Is More Than Black and White, she delivers a blunt message to politicians and, in particular, those who pigeonhole minorities under one umbrella:

Neither of the candidates, nor mainstream media has made an attempt to specifically address the needs of Muslims, Native Americans, Asians, or Latinos. The aforementioned are the bodies that have become erased. Colour cannot and should not be solely represented by blacks.

Martin asks:

…since both candidates are concerned with getting women’s votes, why is there not a specific address to Native women?

The reference Martin makes to Native women refers to Native American Indian women.

Native women do not count. Though they are indeed bodies that are racialized, neither of the candidates, or the media has seen fit to include them in our so-called conversation of race and inequality.

Compare this depiction of indigenous women with the glarring visibility and attention given to McCain’s running mate, Vice Presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin.  Her burden isn’t race but gender and religion can’t be easy to deal with in the national spotlight.

As much as the media treatment of Palin is a story on its own, at least she’s not invisible and she’s still included in the national conversation. And, as much as that’s still a stretch for some Americans when it comes to women, at least Palin’s included.

Thoughts to ponder.