Garamendi over Speier: a response to Kyle

I just got an interesting comment below my post on primary endorsements for next week's California election.  "Kyle" writes:

How can you call yourself a feminist and vote for Garamendi? No one in that race has done more for women than Jackie Speier. She created the Office of Women's Health in the Department of Health Services, she authored the Contraceptive Equity Act, and even carried the resolution adopting the ERA in California. Her list of accomplishments in this area goes on and on, unlike those of her competitor.

(For those folks not following California politics, John Garamendi, Jackie Speier, and Liz Figueroa are all three solid Democrats seeking our party's nomination for Lieutenant Governor.)

I don't know if Kyle is a campaign worker for Speier, but his comment exasperates me.  I have never felt that holding feminist principles required that one always vote for female candidates.  There's no question that Speier (and state senator Figueroa, who represents the area in Northern California where my family has a ranch) both have solid progressive credentials.  On women's issues, Garamendi has been rock solid throughout his public career.  Indeed,  I know of no substantive women's issue where any of the three candidates differ from each other.

If the three were applying for a position as a women's studies professor, I'd likely vote to hire Speier based on her longer track record in feminist legislation.  But it's possible to be a strong and committed feminist and also NOT a single-issue voter!  I'm pro-feminist, yes -- but I'm also a long-time Sierra Club member and a fairly ardent environmentalist.  Garamendi has the Sierra Club endorsement and the best track record of the three on environmental issues.  From a broad progressive perspective, it ends up being a wash.

Feminism makes some serious political and personal claims on my life.  That's as it should be.  But I don't think that feminists must automatically vote for female candidates when they are running against equally qualified men.    Yes, I recognize that men still hold most elected offices.  We can and should do more to encourage women to run.  But that shouldn't mean that a progressive woman has an automatic claim on feminist support when she runs against an equally progressive male candidate.

If you think about it, it sure puts women of color in a difficult position!  If you're a feminist Latina, does that mean you must vote for Liz Figueroa?  Once we start playing identity politics, things get nasty fast.

I ought not to have been so flip as to imply that I had chosen Garamendi out of three qualified candidates merely because he was a former star Cal football player.  Former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum was a magnificent running back at Cal, but a far-right Republican, and I certainly was relieved when he was replaced by Gloria Molina, a Latina Democrat.  I would never, ever vote for a candidate based merely on his or her athletic history, especially if that meant overlooking serious problems with that candidate's record.

Ultimately, it was a close call. I went with Garamendi for his superior environmental record, and because I've followed his career for years. He was a good insurance commissioner, and I'm confident he would make a fine Lieutenant Governor; I suspect Speier or Figueroa would do well in this rather unimportant office as well.  But I resent the hell out of the notion that feminism requires that all else being equal, one always must vote for a woman. 

Comments

[Kyle]

Hugo-

I don't believe I ever said that you should vote for Speier because she is a woman and if I came across as sounding like I implied such a thing, I'm sorry. I merely was trying to prove that Jackie's record on feminist issues is better than Garamendi's, which you seem to relunctantly admit in your response. As like you, I consider myself a bit of a male feminist, but that does not mean I always vote for women. For instance, I probably won't vote for Hillary in '08, even though I think its about time this country had a female president. But I throw my support behind Speier because I truly feel she is the most qualified person for the job (especially in respect to women's issues) and also because I feel that she has the best chance of beating Tom McClintock in the general election.

So if I'm reading you right, you think the two candidates are a wash except on environmental issues, where you believe Garamendi is superior. Both candidates are supported by the Sierra Club, as well as the California League of Conservation Voters. But in reality the office, that you yourself called "unimportant", has no real influence over environmental issues. It seems to me that you are merely looking for a reason to justify your unreasoned bias towards Garamendi, simply because you know him better. This is fine for your personal vote, as I'm unlikely to be able to sway you to change your vote (even if it is illogical in my opinion), but I'd expect you not to paint a biased picture of the race to your readers for personal reasons. That is if you bloggers really want to be considered journalists.

Finally I support Jackie because she has the best chance to beat McClintock in the general. I came across a quote from McClintock's own local paper, the Ventura County Sun, which said that McClintock's biggest problem would be if Democrats nominate Jackie Speier for Lt. Gov. Polling numbers that I've seen in various papers seem to suggest that this statement is true. I was horrified when McClintock tried to run for Governor before and the last thing I want is for him to find a stepping stone to be able reach high office.

Its not very often that the best candidate also has the highest chance of winning, but in this case Jackie Speier fits both these categories. She is highly qualified and possesses all the qualities that voters appreciate, including a tendency for positive campaigning, which from the ads I've seen, is not the case for Garamendi. Therefore I call on you to atleast acknowledge that your endorsements are not based on reasonable arguments but rather by personal beliefs that, as John Rawls proves, "do not belong in the public discourse". Once again as a college professor, you should know better.

[Hugo]

Kyle, fair enough. But endorsements definitely don't belong in the classroom -- and when one is faced with equally excellent choices, one sometimes has to make a deecision based on "personal beliefs", a nebulous phrase indeed!

I am voting for Angelides, too, even though Westly polls better against Schwarzenegger.

[Hugo]

Oh, and I am definitely NOT a journalist.

[Stentor]

I'm also a long-time Sierra Club member and a fairly ardent environmentalist.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on environmental issues more often.

[Hugo]

Maybe someday, Stentor -- except I'm afraid I'm embarrass myself. You and Chris Clarke write so beautifully and thoughtfully; I'm just a knee-jerk supporter of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, slow growth (or no growth) movements everywhere. I'll try and write more about this sometime soon.

[mythago]

But I resent the hell out of the notion that feminism requires that all else being equal, one always must vote for a woman.

I imagine Kyle probably resents the hell out of your little shell game, where you pretend his argument "you should vote for Speier because she's better on women's issues" was really "you should vote for a woman".

[Hugo]

Amp pointed this out in his post today at Alas -- I misread (honestly) Kyle's remarks, and inferred something he wasn't implying. I stand by my endorsement of Garamendi, and the general principle that feminism doesn't have any "musts" when it comes to choosing between generally feminist-friendly candidates.

But I am sorry I misconstrued what Kyle was saying, and I apologize.

And in the end, once again, any of the three candidates would make terrific LGs.

[humbition]

Though I believe I agree with Hugo that there is no automatic moral imperative to go with a woman candidate over a male, equally qualified, candidate, I found that this dialogue (here and on Alas) actually catalyzed my own vote to change from Garamendi to Speier. Even though Al Gore, whom I respect greatly and want to run for President, made a "robocall" for Garamendi last night. Even though I have thought of the environment as my most important issue for 35 or so years.

I think Speier will be an excellent, determined, strong Lieutenant Governor, and she has been a "star" in the legislature. The one ad I saw from her campaign was very strong and effective without being negative. And the fact that the environmental groups endorsed her as well as Garamendi meant that this was not really a factor.

I think there is something to be said for Ampersand's idea of preferring minority voices (and in politics the women's voice is a minority one, look at the statistics on women's representation at any level). I don't take it as a moral imperative, as I'm kind of souring on the idea of moral imperatives -- that's a long story and one which detours through the Balkans. But it represents my wish that everyone be represented and part of the social dialogue, which is part of my vision of the world which I want to see emerge. So I used the Ampersand principle in voting for County Democratic Party Committee, where there isn't a lot of information about the candidates anyway.

So Speier it is -- not solely for being female but very much because she seems young and "hungry" (ambitious, strongwilled, outspoken). With Speier and Deborah Bowen in the state capital and retaining Feinstein and Boxer in the US capitol, we will be known as the state of strong women. Not a bad thing, actually, at all.

[Hugo]

I have no problem with Speier: if she wins (as the polls predict), I'll vote for her with enthusiasm in November. I am not so sure Bowen can beat Ortiz, but that's another race between good Democratic women.

I'm still likely to change my registration to Green before November anyway.

[Rokko]

Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.

[WebMan]

Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.

[jean]

Reading the posts it is clear that Speier really was the one to handily beat McClintock, as it stands tonight, McClintock and Garamendi are neck and neck! What a mistake Liz Figueroa is...she clearly made sure that both a Republican may win the Lt. Gov race, and that the best candidate will not be Lt Governor...whether it is McClintock or Garamnedi. The state of CA loses on either choice given for the General. Speier for Governor!