why Brad Pitt should run for President

In an essay in last Sunday's Washington Post, Linda Hirschman waxes eloquent about the power of the female vote, and muses on why women so consistently fail to be a force in general elections. "My own theory," Hirschman writes, "is that women don't decide elections because they're not rational political actors -- they don't make firm policy commitments and back the candidates who will move society in the direction they want it to go. Instead, they vote on impulse, and on elusive factors such as personality."

Hirschman tested her theory on a small group of DC-area stay-home moms, women who listen to NPR, but also read InStyle and People. According to Hirschman, these women--who come to stand in for ALL white, affluent stay-home moms--get most of their political information from their husbands, not from mainstream media. Hirschman claims that the women in her very tiny focus group (which represents ALL women who vote in America) talked about character rather than policy: "Explaining why she did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000 even though she expressed concern over taxes, Hillary said: 'I just could not get past the fact that I didn't like the man.'" Hirschman doesn't press Hillary on the connection between taxes and character; she doesn't seem to see any link between this woman's concerns about the President's policies and her dislike of him. She sees only an irrational voter.

Hirschman was distressed by what she heard from these women, especially as they are reflective of ALL voting women: "I had such mixed feelings listening to these women describe their political selves. They're clearly idealistic, want to be good citizens, make an effort to get the information they need. It was hard not to like them. Their delight in seeing a woman so close to real power was palpable. Yet I couldn't escape the fact that they took in little of politics, especially compared with their husbands, that their decision-making seemed impulsive and that their response to Clinton's candidacy was driven to an amazing extent by personality." But Hirschman never talked to these women's husbands, never asked them about the distinction between personality and issues. She never examined how they were voting because clearly, these six women are the entire picture.

In today's New York Times, Judith Warner takes issue both with Hirschman's approach and her conclusions. Warner concedes that to an extent, Hirschman has a point: "Survey after survey shows the consumers of news today to be disproportionately male. In my own anecdotal forays through the living rooms of America's suburbs, I'’ve often been struck by the degree to which women--particularly mothers of young children--don'’t keep up with world events." But she goes on to point out irrational voting-priviliging of "character" over "issues"--is not limited to women. "Just look at the presidential election results of 2004: a solid majority of voters said they disapproved of George BushÂ's handling of the war and the economy. Most voters, furthermore, said they believed the country was headed in the wrong direction. But 70 percent of voters also rated the president as 'likeable.' They overwhelmingly said they'’d rather have a beer with him than with John Kerry and would be much more likely to trust him to walk their dog. No matter where he was on the issues, Kerry's 'personality gap' just couldn't be breached."

It wasn't irrational women who reelected George Bush; it was irrational American voters at large, who chose character or "likeability" over policy. "Singling out women voters for alleged soft thinking," Warner writes, "is misguided, and a little bit bizarre." She goes on to say that "Hirshman's disdain for the way many women live their lives today shouldn't lead her to underestimate their cognitive skills--or overestimate those of their spouses. Our country may well be sliding towards idiocracy (to borrow from the title of Mike Judge'’s recent dystopic), but it's not just a girl thing."

I think Warner is right, and I think that the best evidence that we are a nation of idiots is the mainstream media itself, particularly it's portrayal of women. It's no wonder women are not relying on the news for useful information; stories about women focus either on our failure to live up to some imaginary ideal (Good Mommies Don't Drink) or on our success at being powerful AND female Vote for Me--I'm a Mom). We turn away from the media because we are tired of those images.

But we also turn away because of pundits like Hirschman, who seems to think that if she berates women enough we will change our ways and become . . . what? More engaged? I suspect not; instead, I think attacks like this cause women to turn even more firmly away from mainstream media, and perhaps from politics in general. I agree with Hirschman, and with Warner, that mothers of small children are far too willing to disengage from the larger world, but I don't think that pointing the finger at these women and blaming THEM for the way we ALL vote is the answer. I don't think insisting that they take direction from a media culture that doesn't respect or value what they do all day is the way to bring them back into the fold.

I don't think calling women irrational is the way to win our votes.