Andrew Sullivan Crosses the Line With Clinton “Tears of a Martyr” Post
January 13, 2008
Andrew Sullivan recently wrote a deeply tongue in cheek post about Hillary Clinton’s tears last week in New Hampshire:
The people know the real selfless Clinton behind the media’s hatred, the selfless balm for the poor and hope for the oppressed, the woman who endured all the trials of being First Lady and a multi-million book contract just for the sake of others. And they reached out and touched their merciful benefactress. How could she do anything but weep?
Sullivan’s political critiques of Senator Clinton are usually dead on. His observation that her age and Washington insider status adds considerable weight to her divisiveness was part of what convinced me to support Obama. But in this instance, his approach deserves some unpacking.
Specifically, he attacks Senator Clinton for claiming that she is “other-directed.” He points out the personal benefit she has derived from her years in the public eye and mocks her claims of caring for other human beings.
It’s true that Senator Clinton is no Mother Teresa. She lives a life of comfort and rare privilege. But does that justify Mr. Sullivan’s making her the target of such condescending rhetoric? After all, he lives a comfortable life with his husband in their beautiful beachfront house in Massachusetts. His books and speaking engagements bring him substantial income and prestige.
There is nothing wrong with acting simultaneously in one’s own self-interest and in the interests of the American people. Mr. Sullivan rightfully derives revenue, status and privilege from his work. He also adds considerable value to the lives of his many readers by asking tough questions and posing nuanced arguments. His additions to the marketplace of ideas make him as much an American hero as any pamphleteer of old.
The fact that Mr. Sullivan is so quick to castigate Senator Clinton for engaging in the same self-other balance that he does himself indicates some gender bias on his part. After all, women are expected to be more selfless and other-focused than men. When we find ways to take care of ourselves while working for the good of others, we are treated much the same way Mr. Sullivan treats Senator Clinton: with vitriol and disdain.
Mr. Sullivan has admitted in the past that his tone toward Senator Clinton often crosses the line. I believe he did that here with particular ignominy by looking unfavorably at her self-other balance through the lens of her gender. As a gay man who opposes affirmative action, he often writes that he wants no special treatment, just equality. He would do well to extend that same consideration to Senator Clinton.
Agreed - although the problem is that Clinton made a claim to selflessness. That sounded shallow to me. We all materially gain while doing socially productive things. I just don’t cry about it on TV and claim that the utter purity of my love of country drives me every minute of every day. Thats where Clinton probably provoked criticism and arguably justifiable criticism.
Arjun: And if Sullivan had pointed that out the way you did — with respectful clarity — I wouldn’t have had such a problem with it. My reaction is to the tone of his commentary. He often crosses that line when it comes to the Clintons, and in some cases I see real gender bias in the way he reacts.
One of Dan Savage’s readers once wrote:
This is a great post, and while I disagree, it’s good that you’ve looked deeper. However, it’s unclear exactly what about his tone carries a gender bias.
I don’t think he’s saying that because she’s benefited from being motivated to help others and still help herself that he has issue with her. Instead, it’s much more so that she so often touts her record as being so motivated by others and raises it up on the biggest flag on the world’s largest soapbox, but has so many times done so much that screws over the American people and only furthers her own career. Shady real-estate dealings, moving to New York because that’s where she had the highest chance of being elected to the Senate, voting for the Iraq War, etc. are where people who lambaste Hillary like this chafe the most when they hear Hillary’s campaign speeches. It does carry a high level if vitriol, but it’s not because of her gender, but because of her actions.
Ethan: Hillary Clinton is absolutely self-serving. She lusts for power. She makes moves of convenience and passes them off as being for the benefit of the American people. In short, she’s a politician.
The problem is that people seem to chafe more when Hillary Clinton does those things because she’s a woman. Her husband is just as self-interested, but fewer people attack him. And when they do, it’s in more logical and less personal terms.
It’s not the content of the criticisms leveled at her that reveals a gender bias. It’s the tone and the level of indignation.
Hum. This has not been my observation, and I’ve actually been going out of my way recently to try to justify it, because initially I believed the same thing you do. I haven’t observed this gender bias though, no matter how hard I try (with the exception, perhaps, of people’s response to her crying on national tv).
I’ve been mostly surprised actually to find that the vast majority of people’s complaint with Hillary has been her actions themselves and how self-serving she obviously is.
I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, if you’ve got some choice news and/or quotes.
Patrick: You need to go no further than her husband. He’s every bit as self-serving as she is, but people love him. They hate her. He’s a lovable and patriotic old cad. She’s a frigid bitch — possibly a lesbian — who only does things for personal gain and never because she actually cares about Americans.
If that’s not gender bias, I dunno what is.
Guys - the truth about Hillary is most likely in the middle. I don’t believe in demonizing her. The tears were fake. I think she wanted to put on a facade of sensitivity in the face of Obama’s genuineness. I don’t think shes evil, overly lustful of power or a lesbian. She lusts for power in the same sense that we are all ambitious but no more. She wants to live up to her full potential. The tears though - those were definitely fake. And Hillary - we know it was fake. So stop the water works.
Teresa:
Teresa… I’ve not seen anyone respond positively to his interference (participation….?) in her campaign. In the past couple of weeks he’s been accused of worse things than even during his presidency, because of how he keeps going off on Obama. It’s unprofessional, unpatriotic and especially unbecoming because of his position in the party.
Maybe I’m reading the wrong things… Andrew Sullivan, TNR, and others they link to, are not responding positively to Bill at all.
Patrick: I agree with you recently. But think about how things stood before this recent spate of attacks by Bill.
You’ve got a point.
I’ll admit it’s incredibly hard to separate whether people dislike her behavior because of her behavior, or if they dislike her because she’s a woman displaying said behavior.
Patrick: As my colleague Jason put it yesterday, there are a lot of confounding variables here. It’s incredibly hard to say for certain. But I think gender bias is at the very least a plausible hypothesis for why people hate her so much.
After all, women in male-dominated industries (like politics) are often held to a higher standard than their male counterparts when they are competing for the same jobs. They have to be better just to be on the playing field in the first place. Is asking Hillary Clinton to be less selfish than any male competitor for the top slot in her chosen field any different than asking a female software engineer to be twice as competent as the guy she’s competing with for the same promotion?