Mid-terms: Mom read-out

Following up on my Falling-Mama Grizzlies blogpost, here’s a quick bit of post-match analysis...

Female political representation has taken a pretty bad knock this election.  In line with predictions I reported in my earlier post, all the fanfare around women candidates has amounted to little. Female Republican wins have been off-set by Democrat losses overall and the number of women in Congress is down by three - the first decline in 30 years according to an NPR report.   

Regardless, it might be argued that the whole ‘its cool to be a mom’ tone that was present throughout the campaign has been in of itself a victory of sorts for gender equity.  In last week’s New York Times supplement Judith Warner described the ‘new momism’: ‘being a mom is now frequently spun as a prime career asset... “Mom” in both Democrat and Republican speak is political shorthand now for good common sense and authenticity, an antidote to the effete sensibilities of the so-called Washington elite’.  

But the problem with seeing this election as a success for women even in these terms is that a lot of the candidates who became most associated with the ‘mom’ brand faired particularly badly. The electorate apparently didn't buy the whole authenticity, common sense thing. My favourite young-blood Democrat mom Krystal Ball suffered a harsh defeat in Virginia’s 1st District.  And from the twenty or so Mama Grizzly candidates Palin endorsed, first time women won governorships in three states but the most high profile candidates (Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell...) floundered.  Terms such as; shrill, rational, stupid have increasingly been used to describe these women. Deserved or not, this is far from new momism - negative maternal stereotypes have been reinforced. 

One final observation: the greatest impact of this election on moms, and on all of us, will be through policies taken forward - yet the precise shape of those policies is still largely unknown. Much of the uncertainty is down to split party control. Healthcare reform is unlikely to be repealed though is sure to be compromised, but nobody knows by how much. Gridlock is expected on whole range of tax and spending issues - helpful explanation here from the Brookings Institute.  All this has been heavily reported, yet the unpredictability is not merely down to the result... 

The Republicans, whilst repeatedly calling for cuts, have been very elusive about where exactly they’d like to see the axe fall.  When challenged some murmur 'discretionary spending' whilst others, more bold, say 'federal entitlements'.  Stunningly, no-one has managed to pin them down about whether its education, social security, defence or what.  There was a similar scenario in the run-up to the UK election but ultimately politicians were forced to get into far greater detail so that people knew what they were voting for.  The fact that this hasn't happened in the US suggests to me something about how the negative (masculine?) style of campaigning which currently prevails in American politics can obscure important democratic principles.

Fall-ing Mama Grizzlies

Sweet, shiney toffee-apples abound, pumpkins sit on doorsteps and the leaves are luminous. Yet amidst Campusville’s clear, crisp autumnal air, there’s an unmistakable whiff. For as sure as Fall is upon us, the US political season has arrived. 

The mid-terms are in less than two weeks - campaign posters are popping up in front yards and every time Little Teadrinker and I pass by the mall, we’re accosted by canvassers - “Are you a Campusville voter ma'am?”.  The asker yesterday morning was a Green Party activist, keen to let me know about the threat to the town’s skyline from large billboards. But in spite of the wide eyed little face staring up at us from the stroller, he failed to make the obvious argument: that I should vote Green for the sake of my child’s future.

   

This is not the kind of mistake you'd expect these days from an activist from either of the two main parties.  Both Democrats and Republicans are keener than ever to appeal to voters’ maternal instincts. With their swing-voter tendencies, moms have long been a key target. But since Sarah Palin arrived on the scene in 2007 they have risen dramatically in the consciousness of US electioneers and spin doctors.  

On the Republican side, the approach has been less dog-whistle politics and more a loud-as-you-can-bare-it cat call.  Palin’s Mama Grizzly video  is a case in point. Speaking in San Diego last week she made a rallying call for all Grizzlies to “rise up on our hind legs and say no”. The party is now trying to capitalise on her fan-base with Palin endorsed Mama Grizzly nominees standing for office across the country.  But while their brand is unmistakable, their policies are pretty indistinct from the wider far-right/Tea Party movement within the Republican party.  They tend to be driven by Christian values (most are anti-choice) and are fiscally conservative (all oppose the Health Bill).  They provoke a mixture of devotion and scorn but it is not very clear how their demands will meet the needs of America’s great many over-worked, under-paid and currently financially insecure moms. NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently described them as “the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate”.

The Democrats were late-comers to the momification of political marketing but have now cottoned on that while the Hilary Clintons and Nancy Pelosis of this world are  highly skilled champions of women’s policies, to win votes younger female faces are needed from outside the traditional political elite.  The most promising poster girl for this is the Democrat Congressional nominee for Virginia’s 1st district.  She is impressive 28 year old mother of two, entrepreneur and software designer Krystal Ball who has nobly fought off  sexist internet smears.  If she wins, she will be the youngest ever female congress woman. However, much of the Democrat effort to win female voters is based on slating the Palinites and even Ball seems shy about using her platform to tell a positive story about what has been achieved and where we must go next in terms of issues such as fair pay, education investment, health reform and maternity rights.     

Before the last leaves turn, we will know much more about whether all this mom-talk has really changed anything.  But looking at some of the polling data from the last few weeks, prospects do not look promising.   Three major points of note: 

• Beyond Palin herself, the “mama-grizzlies” are failing to win-over Republican women. For example, Fox has reported that in  in Connecticut, Delaware and Nevada, Palin-backed Republican female candidates are polling behind Democrat men. 

• Women across the spectrum are becoming disaffected with politics, more so than men. Since the mid 1980s women in the US have turned out to vote in greater proportions than men, and the gap in voter participation between male and female eligible voters reached its widest in 2008.  But the latest data from Gallup suggests all that might be about to change.  When asked about their enthusiasm to vote, US women now lag 13 percentage points behind men.

• The number of women in Congress looks likely to fall for the first time.  Independent analysts are predicting 5-10 fewer women, despite the Republican party putting up a record 128 female candidates.  Susan Page of USA Today explains that this is to do with voters, both male and female, turning away from the Democrats (who have greater female presence) and opting for what they believe to be a “safe” pair of male hands in these tough economic times. 

So, after all the noise it seems as if America may be no closer to achieving a political system which is genuinely responsive to the needs of women.  Disappointing? Yes. Inevitable? Maybe.  The idea that the huge appetite for change that existed in America in 2008 has crumbled under the weight of financial crisis is now widely accepted.  Just as Obama’s Rooseveltian moment has passed, so it could be argued has the moment for a new mom-politique. But this explanation on its own feels too fatalistic. Even in hard times, it must be possible for politicians to speak directly to the needs of moms, and women in general. But, unlike a lot of what we've seen, the approach needs to be serious and content driven. Eye-catching and insubstantial is fine for a toffee apple, but it won't do for women.

Health, wealth & happiness

Little Teadrinker has had an ear infection this week initiating us into the wonders of US health care. Having taken our lead from Campusvillemoms.com, we chose a recommended pediatrician down the road who works from a primary care clinic. The clinic is open 7 days a week and has specialists from 35 fields, all available at short notice. An impressive array of educational toys and a tropical fish-tank kept us entertained in the waiting room, although within 5 minutes we were whisked away by a nurse in Mini Mouse scrubs for a temperature check and a weigh-in.  Next it was straight to Dr Kim for an unrushed and comprehensive examination.  After writing a prescription for antibiotics she typed up a detailed note containing a number of practical tips for managing the pain until the antibiotics kicked in. We were asked to come back in ten days for a follow up,  and booked in for comprehensive 9-month and 12-month check-ups.

It seems that for those able to access it, US healthcare provides a top-rate service. Contrasted with the sort of treatment we have been used to on the NHS, it is nothing less than luxurious. Obama’s Health Reform Bill, much of which came into force last week, promises millions of less well off American families access to such services for the first time.  

Stunning as it might seem to a Teadrinking Mom from the old country, the Bill is proving one of the most divisive in years. The latest polls show that over half of the country are opposed.  A majority believe that it will benefit the poor exclusively, and that they’ll pay the price in taxes. Two thirds don’t think it will benefit them at all.  Most shockingly, 1in 3 elderly people still claim to be influenced by the ludicrous socialist death panel accusations which were put about by some of the rightwing press and members of the Tea Party last year.  The Republicans say that if they do well enough in the November Mid-term elections they will repeal the Act.

Its tempting to put this down to a political culture that is instinctively more individualist and hostile to the state than we are used to in Europe, where the ethos of collective responsibility is generally an accepted wisdom. (See Seymour Lipset’s 1996 book on American Exceptionalism for a brilliant explanation of the roots of these values). Wasn’t Obama always going to struggle, as Bill Clinton did before him, with a Bill that prioritised state regulation as a means for helping the poor?

There must be more to it than this though.  After all, America voted for Obama only two years ago and healthcare reform was one of his stated priorities.  The proposed reforms are small fry compared to welfarist policies successfully sold to the American electorate in the past such as the introduction of social security. 

What’s more, the Democrats have made a good crack of ensuring that the reforms benefit the many and not just the few.  Their analysis shows that the estimated $940 billion outlay will be more than recovered over 10 years through a package of measures in the bill, although some contest their figures.  And there will be a serious clamp down on the most ruthless practices of insurance companies that anybody can fall prey to. No longer will US parents have to endure sleepless nights because they can’t get cover for a daughter with a minor long-term health issue, or can’t foot the bill for a chronically ill son who’s been dropped by an insurer who deems them too costly.  

A quick Campusville dinner party poll reveals a good deal of consensus about what’s really going on: the Democrats are failing to get their message across to “the squeezed middle”.  A plethora of books have come out on the subject in the last couple of months penned by US politico-celebrities such as Arianna Huffington, Robert Reich and Joan Williams.  The thinking is that majority in the middle of the income distribution, and most particularly the white lower-middle/working class, have seen their lifestyles and opportunities decline over the last 30 years and are now being pushed to the limit by the economic crisis.  They are in no mood for listening to reasoned arguments by mainstream politicians, least of all Democrats. 

A little more scrutiny is needed before we accept this theory.  Nonetheless, it is unusual for Americans to make a class analysis - more often they seem to think of class as a quaint British habit, that has no meaning the Land of the Free.  The fact that they are arguing now that a significant class fault-line has emerged seems worth focusing on. If they are right, the Health Reform Bill won’t be the last we see of it.  One for Teadrinking Mom to return to...