The GOP's "Masculine Mystique" -- What IS it, and how do we fight it??

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-13-07 09:44 AM
Original message

The GOP's "Masculine Mystique" -- What IS it, and how do we fight it??

I'm calling it a "Masculine Mystique" because it seems to be about traits associated with "manliness." It's what makes Tweety swoon. It's what makes pundits assert Republican candidates are "tough" and "strong" without ANY basis whatsoever.

What the Hell IS it?? I think we have to start by looking at where it comes from.

Obviously it goes back to the Vietnam war era, when Republicans set up the "John Wayne vs. Alan Alda" stereotype. The revival of the word "hippies" points straight to that. But what does it mean that veterans of that war are considered "weak" if they're Democrats, and draft-dodgers are considered "strong" and "pro-military" if they're Republicans? It means the stereotype itself has taken root and grown up to the point that it overshadows all facts -- facts from both decades ago and facts of TODAY.

Going back a little further, H2S describes the "culture wars" as a clash of the 1950s and 1960s that's still with us -- Republicans are of the 1950s, we are of the 1960s. And that's all about tolerance and civil rights -- racial equality and women's equality. Half a century later, and that's STILL the basis of so many differences between the parties. It's evident in the GOP's favorite dirty button-push: "hand-outs" to "lazy welfare queens."

I think it goes back even further -- to fears and resentments leftover from the Civil War. The GOP has leveraged southern white men to the point that it practically goes without saying. We consider it a plus to nominate a southern white man, in order to get the votes of southern white men. Speaking very generally, others -- northerners, racial minorities, women -- are more willing to vote for someone unlike them. We build intolerance into our political equations, automatically.

The north/south divide, according to election stats, has now spread to an urban/rural divide. In general, more densely populated areas are more likely to go blue; more sparsely populated areas go red. Talking heads speak not only of north vs. south, but also of "Heartland" and "Regular Folks" vs. "Elitists" and "Secular Progressives." The same stereotypes apply.

So a man who wants to be president need only put an "R" after his name to get an instant load of "Masculine Mystique" -- he's strong, pro-military, brave, tough, no-nonsense, firm, "regular." He taps into key fears and resentments, developed and wielded expertly throughout our history by people now called "conservative." He's defined by the unspoken things he is NOT: not "feminine;" not "soft;" not "risky" in the sense of making change. He stands firm against the progress that frightens his admirers, "conserving" the power of the Christian white man.

The liberal view rattles that old cage. It empowers not only people who aren't Christian, not only minorities, but also (gasp!) women, which may be an even greater fear. Hence the whole image of *physical* strength and courage looms large; hence the hysteria over homosexuality; hence the resurgence of "family values" rhetoric and organizations bent on pushing women back.

This is why the image of hyper-masculinity is so crucial to the modern Republican. It's completely hollow, but the shell has so many layers built up over so much history, it's ingrained in the American psyche. Would Tweety swoon over a Fred Thompson or a Rudy Giuliani if they had "D's" after their names?? Would Bill O'Reilly lecture a 4-star General on military strategy if that General were a Republican?? Would a decorated veteran running for president be defined as an insecure "flip-flopper" if he were a Republican up against an AWOL fratboy Democrat?? Of course not, and that's the power of this GOP Masculine Mystique.

That one initial -- "R" -- now builds in the all-important image of "Strong on Security" (they'll "keep us safe!") despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

How do we fight back? Ends-justify-the-means suggestions may be distasteful, but necessary:

1. Much as I wish we could change the precepts of the whole thing right now and argue on different territory, that'll take much more time; and winning elections will help. So fight them on the territory that's there, and identify THEIR candidates as "weak" at every opportunity. (Remember how they flipped out when Poppy was labeled a "wimp," and lost to Clinton?) I don't know if we need to take it all the way to the obnoxious "girly-man" insults, but you get the idea.

2. Argue for our candidates on that ground. Clearly a lot of people care less about experience, intelligence, vision, effectiveness... (They stayed with the Chimp because he was "resolute," remember? "Even if he's wrong, he stands for something" blah blah blah.) We can't overlook the importance of hyper-masculine imagery -- even if our candidate is a woman -- in the minds of voters.

3. Don't be afraid of holding to liberal positions! There are people we will NEVER win over, and we have to let them go. There's more to lose in coming off "wishy-washy" than in standing our ground.

4. Embrace and display our own "conservatism" -- our fight to conserve the principles of the country, and American life as we know it, against the radical forces of the rightwing. It's they who are threatening what's "regular" and "normal" here, not us. In so many ways, they've eroded our founding principles and we MUST point that out!!

5. Show who's really "anti-troops," who's really "weak on terror," who's really clueless when it comes to military matters and foreign policy. Our candidate needs to be three steps ahead and challenge theirs relentlessly, never letting a hollow slogan stand. Don't be afraid to call into question THEIR fortitude, courage, military experience, and the fact that it's they who've effectively "aided and abetted" terrorists and played into the hands of our adversaries.

These battles would be fought most effectively by a southern white male with strong military experience, in direct defiance of their memes; but we as Democrats should wage them no matter who our candidate is. We have to tear the mask OFF of their Masculine Mystique.