2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: A slightly more nuanced take on whether Hillary Clinton is "establishment" [View all]wildeyed
(11,243 posts)than men do. But I do not think that a politician being "establishment" is necessarily a bad thing.
To get great social policy passed, a politician needs to be part of the establishment. They need the relationships and to be able to work the system. LBJ did and so did FDR. Carter was an "outsider" and was also Republican roadkill. Tea Party are "outsiders" and get nothing done after they are elected.
Like it or not, politicians need to know how to pull the levers of power and that requires insider knowledge of the system.
I get that people are fed up with the system and the people running it. But what I think they miss is that you kind of need to be your own hero to fix that. To really get involved and agitate. That is how civil rights got done. And gay marriage. Activists who bugged the crap out of "establishment" politicians.
So for me, establishment politicians are not necessarily the devil. I just need someone I can work with as an activist.
I also think there is a TON of under-the-radar misogyny going on in this campaign already. I cannot tell you how painful it is for me to begin realizing how little some of my "progressive" male "allies" respect women. I can deal ok with the disdain from RW sources, but it is harder to ignore from people you thought were your friends.
So it helps to be reminded of the double standard involved for a female candidate.