The Hillary-ization of Michelle Obama

By Kathy G.

Before I get to the main subject of this post, I wanted to share my enthusiasm about my favorite new blog: Ta-Nehisi Coates. Though Ta-Nehisi's blog centers on politics, he is also the author of a fascinating-sounding new memoir, The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood. (You can watch an engaging video about the memoir here). He's had some especially smart things to say about the presidential race. Read this post, for example, about Hillary Clinton's instantly infamous "hard-working white people" remark, and why "the obligatory 'not a racist' defense" is irritatingly beside the point, and offensive to boot.

All this is by way of introduction to my favorite of his most recent posts, this expert takedown of Christopher Hitchens' recent nasty, dishonest, and embarrassing attempt at a hit job on Michelle Obama (which appeared in Slate, wouldn't you know. And just when I thought Slate couldn't possibly suck any harder). Ta-Nehisi has a much, much higher opinion of Hitchens than I do (I think the man descended into disgraceful hackdom long ago), but that doesn't stop him from seeing very clearly what Hitchens was trying (and pathetically failing) to do in that piece, and calling him on it. Among other things, Ta-Nehisi points out that if you want to smear someone for the non-existent radical views they allegedly had in college, it would help matters if you yourself don't have a lengthy and well-documented past as a Trotskyite Trotskyist, as Hitchens himself does. D'oh!

The Hitchens piece, contemptible piece o' shite though it is, a surefire sign that, now that it's clear Hillary's presidential campaign is all but over, the right is proceeding apace with its attempt to Hillary-ize Michelle Obama. We have, of course, all heard about how "unpatriotic" she is. Maureen Dowd has already cattily attacked her for not being sufficiently deferential to her husband. And now we're being treated to Hitchens' exegesis of how her college term papers prove she's really Stokely Carmichael in drag. Delightful! But hey . . . radical, unfeminine, unpatriotic -- remind you of any other right-wing caricatures of a certain prominent Democratic woman with a famous husband?    

It's not surprising that they're doing this to Michelle, because it's one of the most basic moves in the wingnut playbook. All Democrats are radicals who hate America, of course; in addition, all female Democrats are ballbusting beeyotches (just as all male Democrats are girly-men). The gender crap, sadly, is probably still going to be an issue for any Democratic first lady. The only first ladies who seem to  be noncontroversial and enjoy wide popularity are the ones who, like Pickles, resemble Stepford wives. But overwhelmingly, it seems to be Republicans, not Democrats, who marry that sort of woman.

The role of first lady tends to be a poor fit for today's Democratic wives, many of whom have been outspoken women with significant careers of their own. Though, of course, virtually any modern woman would chafe against the ridiculous 19th century-style confines of the role. Even the title itself -- "first lady" -- has the musty odor of an antique about it. It's a term that sounds like it's straight out of the 19th cult of true womanhood.

And speaking of the cult of true womanhood -- here is the classic article on the subject, by the historian Barbara Welter (I took her undergrad course in the history of American women, more years ago than I'd care to remember). This is the opening paragraph of that article:

The nineteenth-century American man was a busy builder of bridges and railroads, at work long hours in a materialistic society. The religious values of his forbears were neglected in practice if not in intent, and he occasionally felt some guilt that he had turned this new land, this temple of the chosen people, into one vast countinghouse. But he could salve his conscience by reflecting that he had left behind a hostage, not only to fortune, but to all the values which he held so dear and treated so lightly. Woman, in the cult of True Womanhood presented by the women's magazines, gift annuals, and religious literature of the nineteenth century, was the hostage in the home. In a society where values changed frequently, where fortunes rose and fell with frightening rapidity, where social and economic mobility provided instability as well as hope, one thing at least remained the same - a true woman was a true woman, wherever she was found. If anyone, male or female, dared to tamper with the complex of virtues that made up True Womanhood, he was damned immediately as the enemy of God, of civilization, and of the Republic. It was the fearful obligation, a solemn responsibility, which the nineteenth-century American woman had - to uphold the pillars of the temple with her frail white hand.

I always did love that phrase about the true woman holding up "the pillars of the temple with her frail white hand." "First lady" is a term which originated in the 19th century, and the role of first lady was very much part and parcel of the cult of true womanhood. But, as we see, the cult of true womanhood was very much a racial construct -- that was (a lot of) the point. So if Michelle Obama ascends to the role which is the apotheosis of the cult of true womanhood -- the role of First Lady of the United States -- I predict that wingnut heads will explode throughout the land. And there will be a whole other layer of bullshit Michelle will have to deal with. In addition to the anti-Democrat bullshit, and the sexist bullshit, there will be, of course, the racist bullshit.

My heart goes out to her. The road she will be traveling on will be a difficult one, in particular because there is no one in the history of America who has trod that particular path before. She is an exceedingly courageous person to have chosen such a public role. Just by sheer virtue of being black and female, and daring to live a public life, she will be highly controversial. She will attract a hell of a lot of ugly hatred. Even for a person as strong as I am sure she is, there are sure to be times when that will be very, very hard to take.   

What I'm wondering right now is, what can we - as Democrats, as feminists, as people who are deeply committed to racial equality -- do to help and support her? Here's the thing: we have, to an extent, the benefit of hindsight here. We know what the right did to Hillary, and we can expect them to do a lot of the same things to Michelle. How do we combat this?

I realize the Republicans and the right are going to do the same disgusting things they always do. But one thing we need to be hyper-vigilant about is not letting the media get away with repeating right-wing memes and narratives about Michelle (or Barack, or any Democrat, for that matter). Close scrutiny of the media coverage of Michelle Obama, as well as some energetic media-centered activism, will of course be  crucial. Do readers of this blog have any more specific ideas? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Comments

[Chris]

The headline of this post alone made me swear out loud. I guess it's inevitable, and I hate it.

I think Michelle ought to go on Limbaugh once or month or so. Those fuckers are cowards. They'd have a much harder time talking shit about someone they had to confront in real life.

[Jefffrane]

I have no specific suggestions, but I wanted to thank you for the link to Coates and thank you for your own excellent insight and writing. And to agree that, yes, Hitchens has been stone batshit for years and has degenerated from a superb writer and critic to a useless, lying hack.

He enrages me, largely because of that descent; I view it, absurdly, as a personal betrayal.

[drip]

I have already heard calls to C-SPAN's Washington Journal from people who cannot vote for Obama because Michelle Obama is unfit to be first lady, hates America, etc. I hold out no great hopes for the results of this election, but if we get to Labor Day and Obama is polling well, we are going to see some racist, sexist slams at him like we've never see. This includes the "you must be a sexist if you support Obama who beat Hillary", the "you must be a racist if you think white folks have advantages" as well as the "you must be an elitist if you don't burp after swilling bad beer".

Obama's solution seems to be to stay above the fray. We'll see how he does when hit with some mutation of the attacks on Jane Muskie (foul mouthed drunk), Rosalyn Carter (stupid hillbilly), Kitty Dukakis (unstable Jew) and Hillary Clinton (need we say more).

Your call to support is noble. I do believe that Americans see themselves as inclusive, open-minded and tolerant. I expect a full frontal assault when the journalists, pundits and moderators discover that Michelle Obama is taller, stronger, smarter, richer, and more beautiful than they are. A constant reminder that we are a beacon on a hill may be the answer.

[Johninpt]

Excellent post and great tip on the Coates site -- thanks!

[winer]

Excellent post. I wonder if Michelle Obama will be treated differently if Barak chooses a female running mate. I haven't really thought this one through, but if, say Kathleen Sibelius were to run as vice president, would Michelle be less of a lightning rod? As the only woman covered day to day, the potential first lady would be compared to Laura Bush and Cindy McCain, and in the measure of some she might be portrayed as "unfirstladylike," but if there were another liberal, professional woman on the ticket, Michelle might be compared to her and be treated as the competent human being that she is. I'm just thinking out loud here, but I do wonder if the presence of a woman on the ticket would dilute the sexist gaze.

[Tony Cohen]

Humm...the "Hillary-ization" term has an implication of an unfounded brutal attack on a victim...and while I agree, based on recent conduct I am just not sure how I feel. And that is the real tragedy, that her recent behaviour has been so horrid that I am loosing the ability to care about a brutal injustice that had been previously done to her...I feel sad and dirty

[mn]

i'm not sure what can be done but i know that i cringed when during the whole jeremiah wright firestorm chris matthews made the suggestion that perhaps it was michelle obama who had chosen their supposedly radical church and barack like many husbands just kind of went along with it. the the groundwork for narrative of michelle as an america hating, abrasive black woman had already been laid, and he stepped into it without a second thought. i personally think michelle obama is wonderful, and i'm not at all looking forward to discovering just how awful they will be to her. she's a strong, intelligent woman and i love that barack is married to someone like her,i wish them all the best & am bracing myself for the revelation of just how ugly this society can, i hope they come out the other end victorious.

[Glenda Dickerson]

Thank you for this thoughtful and timely post. I am so pleased to see that some of you young women (I am a 60 yr old black woman) are thinking ahead and being proactive. Michele is wonderful and we should "have her back" all the way.

One other thought, I tend to agree with the writer above who is disgusted by hillary's behavior recently. she is not a feminist.

[Ken Houghton]

You mean Michelle "it's now or never" Obama? Michelle "don't go into Corporate America" Obama (whose salary is something over $300K)? That Michelle Obama?

(Let's ignore, "for the first time, I'm really proud of my country," though it looks more and more like a fair shot than the usual "taken out of context"just as the shots at Corporate Lawyers from the ex-S&A attorney were intending to hit HRC and be teflon on Herself.)

Laura Bush proudly declares her experience as a librarian. Hillary Clinton talks about her lawyering experience--for instance, her pro bono work for children and familiesand doesn't deny her past.

Michelle Obama pretends she isn't an Ivy-educated corporate lawyer cum Health Executive. When she stops doing that, then I'll start giving her credit.

But if she's going to deny her public history, why should we have the least sympathy for her being attacked for what she is?

Links:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/michelle_obama200712

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=290127980171083

[Chi]

Thank you for this post. We should, absolutely and without question, "have her back"- all the way. all too often too many women have been singled out by the media for not "knowing their place"- it is long past time for that to end. keep up the good work!

[KRK]

The term "Hillary-ization" might seem more apt if commenters at some of the more polarized pro-Clinton blogs weren't joining in on the slurs on Michelle Obama, all in the pursuit of a very specific form of "feminism" I guess.