More bonus content coming this week but you can access last week’s now! It’s a chat with Erin Neff of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) about dating while socialist.
If you like my work, and want to support independent writing and podcasting that isn’t afraid to make liberals angry (from the Left) you can support me! Like lots of people who are independent media makers, I have a Patreon, which is kind of like a kick starter but monthly. If you pay $5 a month, that’s $1.25 a week or less than 17 cents a day, you get bonus content like behind the scenes, extended interviews, and videos. So, just go to Patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow
Extras you can access right now includes a segment on “Dating while socialist,” an extended interview with Ben Jealous, an extended interview with Freddie DeBoer, Amber A’Lee Frost and Juan Mejia.
It’s definitely worth it! Though I’m biased…
I had a great time discussing my Paste article with the very funny and talented and menschy Jimmy Dore on The Jimmy Dore Show!
Born, raised, and still living in NYC, Katie Halper is a writer, radio show host, filmmaker, comedian and former history teacher who identifies as a feminist Bernie Bro. You can find her writing and videos at Rolling Stone, The Guardian, The Nation, Vice, and catch The Katie Halper Show. Show on on WBAI Wednesdays at 7pm, the podcast on Soundcloud and iTunes and extra bonus content at Patreon, and follow her on Twitter.
Dear Susan Bordo,
Your recent Guardian op-ed, “The destruction of Hillary Clinton: sexism, Sanders and the millennial feminists,” based on your new book The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, seeks to explain “how the most qualified candidate ever to run for president lost the seemingly unlosable election.”
Your findings are clear: my generation of millennial feminists who supported Sanders lost Clinton the election. As a feminist, philosopher, and professor of women’s and gender studies, you ground your analysis in theory and your experience teaching millennial women. I would like to offer commentary that could help you learn more about what we millennial feminists think—to indict us more effectively or exonerate us for destroying candidate Clinton and creating President Trump.
The most puzzling part of your piece was how it contradicts its own thesis, which is that sexism, Sanders and millennial feminists were responsible for Trump’s election. “These people,” you write, referring to your “younger feminist colleagues (and other left leaners)” played a “big role” in Trump’s election. Because . . .
While Trump supporters hooted and cheered for their candidate, forgiving him every lie, every crime, every bit of disgusting behaviour, too many young Democrats made it very clear (in newspaper and internet interviews, in polls, and in the mainstream media) that they were only voting for Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils, “holding their noses”, tears still streaming down their faces over the primary defeat of the person they felt truly deserved their votes. Some didn’t vote at all.
You blame Sanders for smearing Clinton as more establishment and less progressive than he is:
Bernie Sanders splintered and ultimately sabotaged the Democratic party—not because he chose to run against Hillary Clinton, but because of how he ran against her… [T]aking advantage of justified frustration with politics as usual… Sanders was taking Hillary down in a different way: as an establishment tool and creature of Wall Street. “I think, frankly,” he said in January, campaigning in New Hampshire, “it’s hard to be a real progressive and to take on the establishment in a way that I think [it] has to be taken on, when you come as dependent as she has through her super PAC and in other ways on Wall Street and drug-company money.”
What makes Sanders’ criticism of Clinton especially unfair, you argue, is that it’s simply not true. The two politicians, you claim are equally progressive and politically comparable:
When Sanders denied that [progressive] badge of honour to Clinton he wasn’t distinguishing his agenda from hers (their positions on most issues were, in reality, pretty similar), he was excluding her from the company of the good and pure….
And yet, in this same piece you cite and agree with a journalist who wrote in a Huffington Post article that Sanders is not only more progressive than Clinton, but more progressive than all Democrats:
As Jonathan Cohn wrote, in May: “If Sanders is the standard by which you’re going to decide whether a politician is a progressive, then almost nobody from the Democratic party would qualify. Take Sanders out of the equation, and suddenly Clinton looks an awful lot like a mainstream progressive.”
You and Cohn agree that Sanders is uniquely principled and progressive. I would agree. But that undermines your entire argument which is based on how similar the candidates were. If Sanders is so much more progressive than Clinton, the enthusiasm gap between him and Clinton isn’t a mystery. It doesn’t require a conspiracy between sexism (which was undeniably present) and Sanders. It’s perfectly logical.
But you don’t seem interested in logic or the facts. If you were, you would have done what Cohn did in his piece, called “Hillary Clinton Is A Progressive Democrat, Despite What You May Have Heard.” You would have made the case for Clinton without distorting the truth. In a part of the article you didn’t cite, Cohn writes,
The ideological gulf between Sanders and Clinton is real, and it’s easy to spot. Sanders thinks everybody should get health insurance from the government and be able to attend public universities for free. He thinks taxes must go up to pay for these programs, mostly on the rich but also on the middle class. Clinton has rejected those ideas as impractical, as policy or politics — or simply ill-conceived. Their histories are different too. Over the years, Sanders staked out a position so far to the political left that, until this year, he didn’t even formally identify as a member of the Democratic Party — and preferred to call himself simply a “democratic socialist.” He was an original critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He gets his campaign funding almost exclusively from small donors, and has basically no ties to corporate America.
It’s not just that honesty is a standard in journalism and academics. It also happens to be much more persuasive if you want to reach readers who don’t already agree with you. I know that I take Cohn’s argument much more seriously because he is willing to engage the facts and respect the reader.
Unfortunately, your piece does neither. Impressions and feelings and memories are your primary data. You present yourself as the wise, rational professor with access to knowledge and history and an understanding of Hillary Clinton your students lack.
But this isn’t about history or knowledge or even the election or Hillary Clinton. It’s about how much you identify with her. It isn’t about Bernie Sanders. It’s about how much you associate him with men of the left from your past. Your piece sets out to blame millennial feminists and show us what we did wrong in supporting Sanders, but it winds up illuminating your own failings, sadly not uncommon among certain Clinton supporters, especially those who chose to blame everyone and everything but Clinton for her loss:
– An over-identification with Clinton and her biography that eclipses appreciation of young women’s lives and hardships and the political differences
– Basing an argument solely on personal impressions, vague remembrances, mental and emotional associations
– A condescending tone with occasional unconvincing gestures of respect and understanding for your younger sisters
– Misleading statements, omissions, falsehoods or indisputable error, here related to Clinton’s statements on superpredators and warranting an immediate editorial correction
It is indisputable that Clinton has always and will always face sexism, misogyny and double standards. But as a feminist philosopher, you are well-positioned to see that attributing Clinton’s so-called destruction to sexism alone infantilizes her, casts her as a mere victim and denies her of agency. It ignores the (hard) choices she made as a rational actor in the realm of policy and politics, the words she chose, the people she surrounded herself with, the states she chose to visit or not visit.
While the personal is, of course, political, it is worth considering how much your own personal identification with Clinton and your shared experiences prevent you from seeing her for what she was and is: a former senator, Secretary of State, primary candidate, presidential nominee and human being. Is it possible the feminists who weren’t and aren’t as enmeshed in the journey of Hillary Clinton might have a clearer, more rational and less self-centered view of her and her policies, political activity and campaign?
I would like to honor your feelings while at the same time being true to my own. Though I cannot speak on behalf of all my fellow millennials who supported Sanders during the primary, I know that when you find us responsible for Trump’s presidency, it makes me feel like you actually don’t see us as “no less feminist” than you. This in turn makes me feel like you are not being sincere or honest. It had always been my understanding that sisterhood requires open communication, honesty, and trust.
Few of [the young women who support Sanders]—as I know from decades of teaching courses on feminism, gender issues, and the social movements of the 60s—were aware of the “living history” (to borrow Hillary’s phrase) that shaped the woman herself.
Could these young women have based their preference for Sanders on their own realities and living histories? Does it not make sense for women facing stagnant wages, crushing debt, curtailed opportunity, to support the candidate who called for free higher education and a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour over the candidate who preferred a $12 minimum wage and had to be pushed to support the higher one?
Sanders made Clinton more electable by moving her towards more popular positions. If her supporters didn’t like seeing Sanders push her towards better policies, they needed to push Clinton themselves.
I had assumed, perhaps falsely, that every feminist to the left of Sarah Palin sees a living wage as a feminist issue, given that two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. But you didn’t even address this significant difference. It’s your prerogative to focus more on the gender dynamics and micro-aggressions that you perceive to be at play between Clinton and Sanders than a policy that will improve the lives of millions of people, the majority of whom are women. But that’s a very entitled feminism.
As the daughter of a second-wave boomer feminist, I have a deep appreciation of the subjugation that my mother and Hillary and their whole generation suffered and the advances they won for my generation. And, as often happens, people who benefit from sacrifices made and struggles won before them take these gains for granted.
But your discussion of sexism and of the generational divide flatten women into a demographic pancake. Women, like men, have different political outlooks and ideologies. In fact, my mother and many of her friends, who include pioneering feminists in many fields, supported Sanders, not Clinton, in the primary. Female professors, writers, lawyers, organizers, scientists and doctors of a certain age—they, of course, identified with Clinton’s struggles against sexism and applauded her bravery. But in 2016, their views were shaped by more than biography and demography: their own, Clinton’s or Sanders’. They looked at what Sanders and Clinton were doing and offering and saying, not just at who they related to. They saw Sanders as more progressive in terms of policy impacting women’s lives. Had the two candidates been equal in their political orientations and agendas, they, and I, would surely have supported the one who could be our first female president. But recognizing the diminished resources and security my generation, and their own aging generation, faced from decades of unbridled greed by banks and mega corporations, they chose the candidate who called it like they saw it.
But back to your distortions of Hillary Clinton’s record.
These young women weren’t around when the GOP… began a series of witch-hunts that have never ended. They didn’t witness the complicated story of how the 1994 crime bill came to be passed or the origins of the “super-predator” label (not coined by Hillary and not referring to black youth, but rather to powerful, older drug dealers).
Here are Clinton’s exact words:
“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel’.”
My plan here was to gently urge you to rethink your interpretation of Clinton’s words by pointing to scholar and The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander, who, in a piece for The Nation,describes Clinton’s language as “racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals.”
But as I reread Alexander’s piece, I encountered, once again, the famous super-predator quote in its context. It turns out I don’t need to gracefully unpack your argument because you completely misrepresented what Clinton said! She was undoubtedly talking about kids! Forgive the exclamation points! I’m writing with such urgency because I know that an established scholar, writer and professor such as yourself would be mortified to have made this mistake and would want to know as soon as possible! Sarah Jones, another millennial feminist, also caught this error. So, you will want to fix this before more people point it out.
Back to your living history.
As I watched Sanders enchant the crowds, it was something of a deja vu experience to see a charismatic male politician on stage telling women which issues are and aren’t progressive.
So, something about the dynamic between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders resonates with your personal living history with men on the left. And because of that, those who see Sanders as a progressive politician, rather than as a stand-in for problematic men, are the bad feminists, who mean well but just don’t get it?
More living history:
In many ways the [1960s] decade was more male-centric than the 50s; it just privileged a different sort of male. Those men loved having us as uninhibited sexual partners and helpers in their political protests, but they never let us forget who was in charge of creating the platforms or who belonged in the political spotlight.
That sounds unfair. I’m also not sure we can pin that on Sanders. But not for lack of effort, on your part:
Sanders was the perfect vehicle to revive political passion both among the older left, revitalised by being on the side of “the revolution” again, and a younger generation . . . Here was this guy who had lived through it all, who looked like a grandfather but spoke like a union organiser . . .
I just feel the need to interject, as the granddaughter of a union organizer, that those two categories are not actually mutually exclusive.
read the rest at Paste
Born, raised, and still living in NYC, Katie Halper is a writer, radio show host, filmmaker, comedian and former history teacher who identifies as a feminist Bernie Bro. You can find her writing and videos at Rolling Stone, The Guardian, The Nation, Vice, and catch The Katie Halper Show on on WBAI Wednesdays at 7pm, the podcast on Soundcloud and iTunes and extra bonus content at Patreon, and follow her on Twitter.
Image: Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (Flickr Creative Commons)
Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. To be fair, I guess I should wish “Sorry it’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day” to the people who don’t believe it should be a holiday and the politicians who voted against making it one. I’m talking to you, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA).
While both parties attempt to claim Dr. King, the Republicans have a much harder time doing so without distorting history and the truth. But the truth is, most politicians would distance themselves from Dr. King’s stunning (and spot on) indictments of capitalism. There are, of course, a few exceptions, here and there.
As we celebrate Martin Luther King Day, let’s look at some of the things he said challenged capitalism and are left out of most history books.
- “I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” – Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.
- “In a sense, you could say we’re involved in the class struggle.” –Quote to New York Times reporter, José Igelsias, 1968.
- “And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” –Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
- “Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis.” –Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
- “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.
- “We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.
- “The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” –Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.
- “I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income… The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” – Where do We Go from Here?, 1967.
- “You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
- “[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.
- “If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.
Donald Trump has been branded a bigot. Yet his acceptance speech suggests a radical rejection of heteronormativity and an embrace of radical queer identity politics.
By opposing both Islam and heterosexism, and using the phrase LGBTQ, Trump may have positioned himself as a woke nominee. For the sake of the unwoke reader who doesn’t know what woke means, MTV News defines it as “Being aware — specifically in reference to current events and cultural issues.” Urban dictionary says, “Being Woke means being aware. Knowing whats going on in the community. (Relating to Racism and Social Injustice).” If we include– as we must– homophobia in our definition of Social Injustice, we must also frame Trump’s seeming Islamophobia in its rightful woke context.
Trump clearly grounded his Islamophobia in a fierce, even fabulous, commitment to LGBTQ rights as he addressed the RNC Thursday night at Cleveland’s Quicken Loans arena:
Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBTQ community. As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.
A cursory textual analysis reveals the problematic nature of Trump’s argument. There is no proof that the man who murdered 49 people at the Pulse night club in Orlando was influenced by Islam. And Trump conflates Islam with an inherently violent and hateful ideology. Perhaps most troubling is Trump’s exoneration of the homophobia, violence and hate perpetuated by his own religion, Christianity, and by his very own running-mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, who self- identifies as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.” And yet, despite his intersectional self-definition, Pence’s record, which includes pushing through the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” allowing businesses to turn away and corporation to deny health insurance to LGBTQ people, suggests he has not freed himself of the shackles of homophobia.
But Donald Trump, at the very least, is laying bare what we talk about when we talk about intersectional identity politics. And he should be commended for initiating this much needed conversation.
In order to further support his subversive rejection of heteronormativity , we must push Trump even further, empowering him to use his unique voice to give voice to the voiceless. Of course, we must do this in a way that honors his authenticity, uniqueness, and agency. What better way to do this than by turning to Trump’s own words and recasting them in the radical voice he has already discovered. Here is just one example of how he could apply his woke and intersectional framing to things he has already said:
“I will build a
great wallsafe space– and nobody builds safe spaces better than me, believe me –and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great safe space, and I will make straight, cis, able-bodies, men Mexicopay for that safe space. Mark my words.”
It is incumbent upon us to thoroughly reflect on, process and unpack the potential wokeness of Trump. And yet, we would also be remiss if we failed to interrogate this question. I will be offering more thoughts and sharing some concrete suggestion in a follow-up post.
In the mean time, I urge readers to share their own ideas on Twitter. Please tag me, @kthalps, and use the hashtag #WokeTrump.
Given Melania Trump’s surprising choice to plagiarize Michelle Obama, we have high hopes that The Donald will lift some language of his own when he accepts the nomination from the Republican party tonight. Below are some works Trump would do well to incorporate into his historic speech.
1. “A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.” – Hannibal Lecter, Silence of he Lambs.
2. Here Comes the Hotstepper, iNi Kamoze.
Here comes the hot stepper, murderer
I’m the lyrical gangster, murderer
Pick up the crew in-a de area, murderer
Still love you like that, murderer…
No no we don’t die, yes we multiply..
Extraordinary, juice like a strawberry
Money to burn baby, all of the time…
Come juggle with me,
I say every time
Start like a jackrabbit,
finish in front of it
On the night is jack, that’s it, understand?
I’m the daddy of the mack daddy
His are left in gold, maybe
Ain’t no homie gonna play me, top celebrity man
3. “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” Shylock, Merchant of Venice. Continue reading “Here are 9 things we hope Donald Trump plagiarizes in his RNC speech”
Originally published July 12, 2016 on RawStory
As everyone by now knows, Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton today. If you’re feeling a little down about Bernie Sanders stepping down from the race, this farewell speech may make you laugh instead of cry. I’ve written about the comedic duo behind the Trump Vs. Bernie show. Here is James Adomian’s Bernie Sanders explaining what he and Hillary share and encouraging the movement to keep on keeping on.
The original draft of the Declaration of Independence indicted the institution of slavery. Spoiler alert: it didn’t make it into the final version.
On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of five men—Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston—to write a document declaring the independence of the colonies. The gang of five tasked Jefferson with taking the first crack, which he did, writing a draft, which included a litany of grievances against the King, the last of which read:
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
The paragraph starts out great, condemning, as it does, the evils of slavery. It turns into a cop-out towards the end. Jefferson, absolves his fellow slave owners by blaming the King for bringing slavery and selling enslaved people to the colonies. Even worse, he criticizes him for offering freedom to the slaves who managed to escape, in exchange for their fighting with the British. Both the sides of the War used the promise of freedom to entice slaves to fight for the opposing side.
But even this self-exonerating and hypocritical critique of slavery was too much.
The Committee of Five didn’t mind it paragraph. John Adams was particularly enthusiastic and would write in a letter decades later, “I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning Negro slavery.”
When the document was presented to the Congress on June 28, certain delegates were less than supportive. As Adams explained, Jefferson’s “Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress… They obliterated some of the best of it… I have long wondered that the original draft had not been published.” In the next sentence Adams declared that the “the reason is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery.” (Well, there you go, John). To be fair delegates from Northern States, whose merchant economies benefited from the slave trade, also objected. By the time the document was signed, on July 4, the criticism of slavery had been dropped.
While we don’t know what exactly the delegates said to make their case, I imagine it was something along the lines of….
Tom. John Adams* is right: you’re a really good writer. Not sure you’re ten times better than he is. That seems unnecessarily self-critical on John’s part. But, great rhetorical flourishes. And don’t pay attention to John’s criticism about tone**. It’s perfect. Not too critical, not too passionate. That’s his issue. Not yours.
There’s a lot of good stuff in here and we know some of this is just spit-balling so, the following tweaks shouldn’t be too much of a hold up. It’s no big deal, but we’d love you to cut a part of the document. Of course, it’s totally up to you. But if you want us to pass this thing, the whole slavery-is-against-nature graph is going to have to go. It’s a nice sentiment. It may be true. But the slave trade is kind of our thing. Besides, the “all men are created equal” is a nice enough gesture. And getting rid of the paragraph will make you feel less awkward about your whole slave-owning situation.
We don’t have to resolve this issue now. We can table it. For a century or so.
Good work! Keep it up and you’ll really go places!
*In the same letter Adams recalled telling Jefferson, “you can write ten times better than I can.”
** Adams also confided that there were “expressions which I would not have inserted if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal, for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature; I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the Atlantic, and in his official capacity, only, cruel. I thought the expression too passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document…”