Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Democrats' Woman Problem

By Martha Burk, TomPaine.com. Posted June 2, 2005.


Is the Democratic Party's obsession with framing pushing women out of the picture?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Martha Burk

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told Tim Russert on "Meet The Press" last week that if he could strike the words "choice" and "abortion" out of the lexicon of the Democratic party, he would. Echoing George Lakoff’s influential book -- "Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" -- Dean said, "When you talk about framing this debate the way it ought to be framed... this is an issue about who gets to make up their minds."

Lakoff, the current darling of party strategists agonizing over what went wrong in the last election, says the Dems didn’t get their ideas out in a way that fit the emotional "frames" already in people’s minds about the role of government in their lives.

The Democrats put out reams of facts about Bush’s lies on weapons of mass destruction, his hypocrisy on Leave No Child Behind and his plans to dismantle Social Security. In spite of this overwhelming evidence that Bush is bad for the country, people voted for him anyway. Ominously for the future, women -- historically the largest bloc in the Democratic base -- voted Republican in greater numbers than they have in recent history. The gender gap, a mainstay for the Democrats since 1980, virtually disappeared, with Kerry beating Bush among women by only three percent.

Lakoff is probably right that Bush’s appeal to women and men alike was more emotional than rational. But the erosion of women’s support for Democrats was also a result of the Kerry campaign strategy. The Kerry campaign shied away from talking to women at all, choosing instead to go for the white male warrior vote. Women’s advocates were alarmed about this from the beginning, when the Democrats refused to fund a strategy to get women to the polls, while the Bush team had a person in every precinct who was responsible for turning out the female "W" vote.

Even female Republican pollsters like Kellyanne Conway admit that women lean Democratic "if left to their own devices." That’s because women depend more on the social safety net (the compassionate "parent government" in Lakoff-speak), and the Democrats have traditionally stood for better social services like expanding health care and child care, and ensuring retirement through Social Security (women’s main source of retirement income ). But the Democrats failed to exploit this natural advantage, instead trying to out-tough-guy Bush on the war and homeland security. According to the Votes for Women 2004 project, Republican women’s events were about how much the campaign valued women, while Democratic women’s events were about extracting money from female donors to use on general campaign themes. Significantly, among women who stayed away from the polls, homeland security ranked third behind the top concerns of jobs and economic security and health care security.

Leaving women out of the debate was not new for the Democrats. They have shown us in the last two elections that they don’t want to be too vocal about women. Every time George Bush said to Al Gore, "I don’t trust the government, I trust the people," Gore had the perfect opportunity to counter with "except for women in making their own decisions about their own bodies." He never once took that opportunity. In 2004, the Dems avoided "women’s issues" at every turn, even taking the Equal Rights Amendment out of the platform for the first time in 40 years. When their own internal polling showed the pay gap as one of the top concerns for women, the candidate didn’t want to talk about it publicly. As for the abortion issue, only those far inside the Beltway could decode Kerry’s rambling answer in the final debate to conclude he was -- sorry, Howard -- pro-choice. Even so, the DNC is now blaming the loss on "being forced into the idea of defending the idea of abortion," according to Dean.

It’s true most women don’t get up in the morning and think "I hope abortion stays legal today." More likely they get up and think, "I hope the baby sitter shows up, nobody gets sick, the car holds together one more year, the older kids don’t get shot at school, and the boss doesn’t pat me on the rear and promote the guy I trained over me." But unless the Democrats are willing to talk directly to women about those concerns -- in emotional terms, if necessary -- then "reframing" abortion won’t do the trick. And lifting "personal freedom and personal responsibility" from the Republican playbook -- as Dean is now doing -- won’t do any good either. When women get up on Election Day morning, they’ll still think about elephants.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Martha Burk is a political psychologist and author of "Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in Corporate America and What Can Be Done About It," released last month from Scribner.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Dean and the Dems
Posted by: Stephen McArthur on Jun 2, 2005 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic Party deserves everything it doesn't get. They will get outmacho'd every time they try the muscle approach. They will get hung every time they try the compromise approach. They will lose every time they waffle on women's rights, abortion, electoral reform, the equal rights amendment, social security, health care, childcare, parental leave, worker's rights, "free" trade, and so many others issues I can't name them all here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe this is Clinton's legacy.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jun 2, 2005 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only time the Democrats need to play tough is when it comes to standing up for what is right. Clinton would back pedal almost everytime he came up with an idea or program that the republicans later condemned. Then he got so sick later that he would condemn republican plans only to wait a couple of months and come out with a "new" idea that sounded almost exactly like the republican plan he was previously berating.

I thought the women of the US might be our only saving grace in this last election but I was deeply saddened by the numbers of them that voted for bush or republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cooperation please
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 2, 2005 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think Howard Dean is going to win this alone. His goal as DNC chair is to get more Democrats to win and yes he'll have to put up with one too many conceding Democrats who will as usual blame Dean for everything that goes wrong in the party. Except for his comment on the Iraq war in MN, Dean's pretty much stayed the progressive course. Unfortunately, the party is not cooperating with him in the House and Senate but instead caving in to Bush be it class action, bankruptcy, controversial nominations, Schiavo, questionable budgets, you name it. Already, the DLC and the Blue Dog wing, a few staffers for the Democratic Party in my state of VA have privately confirmed, re planning to recall Howard Dean by the end of 2006 if the Democrats don't win back the House and Senate and don't make significant comebacks on the state and local levels. I fear that it won't be long before Dean is replaced by another corporate type Democrat like Terry McAWFUL !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think everyone here is missing the entire point!
Posted by: Pepper on Jun 2, 2005 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also think Dean is missing it as well, however, he "got" it when he was governor of Vermont. Look, this nation is in the middle of the largest change demographically than we have ever seen before in the history of this country.

Our largest population section is older people (baby boomers), immigrants both legal and illegal, lower education levels across the board, limited access to higher education now, less access than ever before. More superstition, religious fanaticism, and more fear. That is why Bush won and the Dems haven't won.

Its like they are talking as if we are back in the 70's when we still had a manufacturing base. They are talking like these issues concern a majority of Americans, they don't.

I listen to many people in my town, on the net and believe me there are millions who are tired of working 4 months out of every year as a slave, listening to downright garbage on the tv, foul language, blatant sexual scenes and innuendos and they fear for their kids (those that have any). What about the 40% infertility rate amongst men? Is anyone addressing that? What about corporate farms that are destroying the environment and our food supply with hormones and antibiotics, changing the way farmers save seeds and then prosecuting them when they do. Who ever heard of such a horrible thing? I never heard any of the dems talk about the "truth" and tell it like it is except Dean and he got trampled by the party faithful who are not reflective of the rest of us.

No, not a word. What about the impact of Genetically engineered food on our bodies? What about the doggone chemtrails that are poisoning our air. Do you get the point yet???? Our issues are changing in severity, they are transcending normal politics and SOMEONE BETTER START TALKING LIKE THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON HERE CAUSE WE DO AND WE AREN'T GOING TO PRETENT IT ISN'T HAPPENING. If that doesn't change by next election I won't vote at all.

Someone HAS TO LEAD and tell the American people who are asleep what is going on here. They have to talk about the food supply, the water supply, the air and the impact on our basic fundamental rights to life. OK???? Does anyone hear me???? I hope so or we are doomed unless someone with courage arises to take the gauntlet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women's Burk Problem
Posted by: 4equalrights on Jun 2, 2005 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's rather late in the day for Martha Burk to be complaining about the Democrats abandoning women. As the leader of a prominent women's organization (the National Council of Women's Organizations) surely this can't be anything new to her nor something for which she bares no responsibility. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have ignored women and women's issues for decades. Yet she and the leaders of the other prominent feminist organizations (NOW and Feminist Majority) have consistently allied themselves so closely with the Democrats that they now find themselves in a similar position to the Democrats: visionless and powerless.
Because the NCWO membership includes many women's organizations which profess to be non-partisan, it had a unique opportunity to fill a gap by becoming a huge non-partisan women's organization. Instead NCWO squandered this opportunity. Instead of remaining truly non-partisan and focusing on building solidarity amongst women for non-partisan issues such as the Equal Rights Amendment (which would benefit all American women), the NCWO chose to add abortion and gay rights to NCWO's agenda. Had the NCWO remained removed from these "hot button" issues, Ms Burk might today be heading a women's organization that represents a majority of American women and one with the political clout to impact the agenda of both political parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women's Burk Problem Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Women's Burk Problem Posted by: 4equalrights
» RE: An Agenda Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Not an Agenda, A Vision Posted by: 4equalrights
» RE: A Vision is not a program Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: But not yet a Definition. Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: But not yet a Definition. Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Apology: Kim I didn't see it was you Posted by: AdamSelene40
Let's face it
Posted by: Iamnotafruittree on Jun 2, 2005 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If people really cared everything would change. Let's just admit that women are not people. We are extentions of men and they want to keep it that way. I give up. Let them take everything away from us. That's what they want. These men will never find happiness as they killed their own hearts from all the selfishness they laid onto the world. The End! Nothing changes if nothing changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amen
Posted by: hbw on Jun 2, 2005 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are so right. The Democratic Party is broken, but it doesn't realize how broken--and the only way to fix it is to break it more. If the women's rights groups defect in big enough numbers, preferably to the Greens, the Demos will be forced to adjust its message.
Hell, even the Greens have their internal gender problems, but at least we acknowledge them and work to correct them. The more women the party attracts, the faster these problems will be fixed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Green Party Posted by: AdamSelene40
What went wrong with the Democrats?
Posted by: Dianka on Jun 2, 2005 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What went wrong with the Democratic Party? It turned its back on its traditional base of support, and in doing so, lost all relevancy. Former president Clinton agreed to a social agenda ("welfare reform") that denied basic humanitarian aid to the needy---and that was just the start. On point after point, the Party earned its "Republican-Lite" epithet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Blame Howard
Posted by: JackieGiles on Jun 2, 2005 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As as a set-in-stone pro-choice woman, I think Dean is absolutely right to "frame" the abortion/choice issue as being about the right of a woman to make up her own mind about, and to control, her reproductive life.

We Democrats need to understand that as DNC Chair, Dean does NOT dictate policy and strategy to Reid and Pelosi and the legislators they lead. I supported Dean's candidacy for the Dem. nomination and agree with him on most issues, but I never bought the "great-man" mystique promulgated by many "Deaniacs" (talk about bad "framing" and terminology). He certainly has shown greatness in many instances, but he often embraces his human-ness with the imperfection that entails--a healthy humility that others in politics would do well to cultivate.

While I still wish he'd run for president in 2008, I'm glad he's DNC Chair, especially when I recall the alternatives. Whether the Democrats win or lose in 2006 and 2008, you can count on others grabbing for the credit and eagerly conceding blame to Dean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Man, I feel like a woman
Posted by: autolycus on Jun 2, 2005 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With apologies to Shania...

When I hear an issue being pitched as a "woman's" issue, I take it that it's an issue that's being pitched over against an issue that might be pitched as a "man's" issue. That is to say, "It's me (a woman) against you (a man)."

I also take it that women, on the whole, can be as low-down, no-count, opportunistic and self-centered as men and that, as a result, us genders have been divided and ruled for the benefit of those who do not regard our mutual welfare as among their highest priorities.

Back in '79, you go look it up, white men were read out of the protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment (Justice Brennan in Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum). I recall that some feminists and minority-ists cheered.

"Well," I grumbled, "if that's the way it's gonna be, the heck with the Constitution."

Years later, those chickens have come home to roost in the persons of Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and the other two who make up the Gang of Five that now call the shots on the High Court.

As I see it, there ain't but one issue and it ain't a man's issue or a woman's issue but a both issue and that's how well or poorly we're gonna get along. The Repubs have Frank Luntz to do their spinning for them. The Dems have George Lakoff. Which leaves the rest of us with each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women and Minorities Are Not the Problem
Posted by: thirdmg on Jun 3, 2005 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contrary to what some messages here seem to be suggesting, women, racial minorities, or gays who fight for equal rights are not the problem. And settling for second-class social, political or economic status in order to get along with others will never solve inequities or make a better society. It would only serve the interests of those who want to protect the status quo.

For decades, angry white males who feel left out of the system have been taught to direct their anger and resentment against others who are even further outside of the system. That's a classic scapegoating technique designed to direct attention away from who really holds power and who benefits from it.

It's not difficult to see which group holds real power. Look at government from the highest to the lowest levels. Look at the private sector, the big companies. Everywhere you look, do you see women or minorities controlling these institutions, or do you see mostly, even overwhelmingly, white males - conservative, heterosexual white males?

If angry white males want to address their own real problems and find real solutions, shouldn't they focus on who really has power and who really runs the country - other white males? Shouldn't they work with the rest of us to ensure a more equitable spread of privilege and status among all groups?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JINGOIST
Posted by: jingoist on Jun 5, 2005 7:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Real woman are Democrats or Republicans, fat or skinny, white, black and all shades in between. Some are married, some single. Straight, lesbian(and undecided). Some woman are brilliant while others are dumb as dirt. Real woman come in all shapes, sizes, and temperments. NO real woman is a feminist though !! After Clinton's 8 yrs. in the White House they lost any shred of credibility that still existed in my mind. The silence from the camp of fanatics known as Feminists was deafening !! Billy boy was a serial abuser, harasser(ASS) and probable rapist from Arkansas days. His misbehaviour epitomized the type of actions that femism was "designed" to prevent in the first place!! The incredible non-reaction of NOW and other "feminist" organizations exposed them for the frauds that they are. After those eight years of silence I will never listen to their dog squeeze again. Kindest Regards, JINGOIST

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear JINGOIST: Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Dear JINGOIST: Posted by: jingoist
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement