Jackson Free Press

Margaret Thatcher opposes the war in Iraq, and Miers can't count on her gender to win her support among feminists. It's a sad day for groupthink.

From a fascinating Washington Post article on how feminist groups haven't rallied behind Miers and what that means ("The Sidney Poitier phase is definitely over") comes this interesting tidbit:

It's easy to forget that Margaret Thatcher -- whose "Don't go wobbly on me, George" famously stiffened the spine of Bush One before the Persian Gulf War in 1990 -- was there first, even down to a husband who was not so much invisible as comical. England's Iron Lady celebrates her 80th birthday tonight with a guest list dominated by the adoring circle of powerful male admirers whose loyalty she rewarded with seats in the House of Lords when she was prime minister.

The former chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Lord Palumbo, who lunched with Mrs. T six months ago, told me recently what she said when he asked her if, given the intelligence at the time, she would have made the decision to invade Iraq. "I was a scientist before I was a politician, Peter," she told him carefully. "And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof -- and then you check, recheck and check again. The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."

As for the article's more general argument: I'm not quite as hard on Miers as the author is, but her overall point resonates with me. Seems to me that the feminist movement has advanced to the point where it's possible to move beyond group identity without putting the cause at risk. I can't help but see this as a sign of strength, of progress, of maturation. Maybe one day the rest of society will catch up.

Previous Comments

ID

103190

Comment

Good one, Tom. The quotes from Thatcher are amazing! As for groupthink, I think this is a vital point. Yes, I am a feminist, and I support affirmative action and efforts to equalize opportunities for groups that historically have had fewer opportunities. HOWEVER, I hate groupthink that defends members of that group no matter what ó whether that's Democrats defending Clinton's idiocy (and lies and obstruction) or it's those who believe that you cannot criticize a person of color (say, a Condi Rice or a Frank Melton) because they're black and, thus, accomplished and beyond reproach. I think that the ultimate equality, for lack of a better word right now, is for "minority" groups (meaning who have had less power) to achieve a place where the members of those groups are held to very tough standards. For instance, with my paper, I support efforts at racial reconciliation and expanding opportunity; however, I refuse to pull. a. single. deserved. punch because of someone's gender or race. That would be condescending, not to mention irresponsible journalism. And a serious risk we run in allowing this groupthink to flourish is that folks, who are not champions of equality, use the groupthink in a cynical, negative way. It reminds me of Melton's supporters, for instance, who were so proud of themselves for supporting a black Democrat, or of Orrin Hatch's comments about the "high-tech lynching of an uppity black" forthe people who criticized Clarence Thomas. It's the same reason that I cannot support Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman. Another example of groupthink are supporters of the Bush administration just because he's their Republican man -- not based on actual qualities and successes. And anyone, regardless of ideology, who is a blind partisan is the worst example of a group(non)thinker. Blech.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-14T23:05:50-06:00

ID

103191

Comment

Amen, sister. Which is why, every now and then, I make a point of taking on a "leftie" idea, too--just so I don't get too comfortable in my role. I loved Jon Stewart's segment on Crossfire because he really nailed what's wrong with the way folks discuss politics in this country. It's all about putting on the correct helmet and uniform and going out and playing for the correct team. It's become too sportsy, and that's probably why it's so dumbed down. Which is not to say that we should pretend to be further to the left or right than we are, just to achieve "credibiltiy." But it is to say that we should be free to be ourselves. Christopher Hitchens, who I've been very critical of in other areas in the past, might actually be one of the best examples of that. I mean, he really does hate Mother Teresa, and by golly, kudos to him for having the guts to say so. By the way, am I the only one who finds it funny that W. is, in effect, pulling a Thomas-Souter here? Giving us a mystery candidate, and playing the "this is a member of an oppressed group" card...? Who was it who said that history repeats itself as farce?

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-15T23:35:29-06:00