From a Republican-Gov. Palin more a token than a feminist

Caille Millner
Sunday, September 21, 2008

Election 2008 is the gift that keeps on giving to American identity politics. First Hillary swept in the hoary 1960s "debate" about feminism. Then Barack reminded Americans that we remain illiterate on the subject of race. And now - just when I thought I was safe - Sarah Palin has somehow turned Republicans into feminists and the rest of us into sexists.

Fine, I'll take the bait. As a young woman who did not support Hillary Clinton, and is quite convinced, unlike Mrs. Schlafly, that "victimology" can be a philosophy that knows no bounds of gender, race, class or creed, I am happy to posit exactly why Sarah Palin is not a feminist. The reasons have less to do with her politics, odious though they may be, because if my understanding of feminism is correct, she has as much of a right to her views as I do mine.

What, then, is "unfeminist" about Palin? Start with her selection. Even her supporters do not deny that she would not have been chosen had she been a man.

Palin is the neophyte governor of a sparsely populated and eccentric state. Few people had heard of her before the announcement. She has few substantive accomplishments to point to on the issues that are important to voters right now - the economy, health care, education.

In interviews, she has exhibited a total lack of genuine interest in foreign policy, John McCain's one great passion during this campaign. (The problem with her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is isn't that she didn't understand the concept; the problem is that she wasn't interested enough to pay attention when it was being discussed.)

What she brings to the ticket is her personal story, her conservative social views, and - most important - her gender.

This is not feminism, it is tokenism. And even allowing for McCain's cynicism in deciding to choose a woman - it was clear that he was aiming for the mythical class of Hillary Clinton voters who are so disgusted by her loss that they were just looking for an excuse to vote for another, presumably whiter, man - he could have chosen an option who met his own threshold of a vice president who would be ready to lead on Day One.

A couple possibilities: Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But these women, substantive though they may be, lack the "freshness" and sex appeal of Palin, a former beauty queen.

It is challenging, especially after being bombarded with the sight of so many "Coldest State, Hottest Governor" buttons during the Republican Convention, to avoid the feeling that another reason McCain picked Palin was for the chance to have something easy on the eyes around during his policy meetings.

Then, consider the behavior of hers that we have been allowed to witness thus far. She gave a spectacularly small-hearted speech at the Republican National Convention that trashed her opponent but did little to make the case for her own capacities. She lies on the stump - she lies about "Troopergate," she lies about the "Bridge to Nowhere," she lies about her own record, she lies about the amount of energy Alaska supplies to the United States.

One of the reasons why "Troopergate" is so compelling to the public is because the details - Palin dismissing the state public safety commissioner because he would not fire a man she believed had wronged her sister - paint that stereotypical portrait of a woman so in thrall to her emotions that she cannot govern effectively. If one of the ideas behind feminism is that women should be able to compete based on their abilities, then Palin's record here is not convincing.

Finally, consider how the McCain campaign has been shielding her from public scrutiny. Their reasoning is that until the press treats her with "deference," she will not be questioned. But "deference" is a quality that people should reserve for royalty, not democratically elected leaders; a quality that the media should reserve for the public, not the public's servants.

If Sarah Palin is a vice presidential candidate, she should have the mettle to handle a news conference. If Sarah Palin is the governor of a state, then she should be strong enough to handle an unscripted event. If Sarah Palin is a "feminist" woman, she should be able to speak for herself. This concept of her as some kind of delicate flower to be shielded from the bogeymen of the press is insulting to women and to the American people in general.

It should be insulting to her, too, but we do not hear of her complaining. We do not hear of her attempting to rebel against the McCain camp, to clarify her own positions, to set forth her own ideas, to hold her own press conferences. Instead, she defers to the stronger men who have plucked her from obscurity and fashioned her into one of their own. She smiles, she stays on script, and she stays behind closed doors. How retro.

Caille Millner is a Chronicle editorial writer. E-mail her at cmillner@sfchronicle.com.