Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

On Tuesday, a typical, but no less still unnecessarily combative, Omarosa Manigault spoke with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts about her role in the orgy of audacious idiocy and political amateurism known as the Donald J. Trump for President campaign.

As Omarosa spoke very seriously about an unserious person, I noticed that she was listed as the “Vice Chair of Donald Trump’s National Diversity Coalition.” Who knew such a thing existed? After I stopped laughing, I watched a noticeably ticked off Omarosa shoo, shoo away Roberts’ question about her referring to herself as Trump’s “Valerie Jarrett” in a Washington Post interview that ran earlier this month.

Omarosa claimed the statement was “paraphrased,” but what sticks out most about that interview is the logic she employed to validate her involvement in Trump’s increasingly polarizing campaign.

Although Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks says Omarosa “doesn’t represent the campaign in an official capacity,” she is undoubtedly one of Trump’s strongest surrogates. So, why would a black woman voluntarily speak on behalf of the political ambitions of a man whose ideology is marinated in at least three forms of bigotry? According to Omarosa, “I’m the person who pulls him back when he goes too far.”

Since anyone paying attention can confirm that that is not going especially well, again, why be a part of this campaign in any fashion?

Omarosa says that while she can elect to leave “the room,” i.e., the place where key decisions for the campaign are made, there is a reason she sticks around. To Omarosa, “anyone that thinks we don’t need to be in those rooms is naive.” It takes a lot of confidence to speak in condescension, but confidence alone doesn’t make dubious statements any more convincing than they actually are.

To her credit, Omarosa is quite adept at sounding like actions done out of self-interest are rooted in principle. In this instance, that would be the belief that Donald J. Trump would make a capable president and that she’s involved to make sure he places his best foot forward in convincing a skeptical public of that reality. Unfortunately, I am not one who has ever fallen for the GOP illusion that businesspeople are uniquely qualified to hold elected office. However, even if Omarosa did genuinely believe that Trump would make a better president than Hillary Rodham Clinton, her statement is rooted in a belief that being present matters more than it has largely ever proven to be with Republicans.

That’s why Omarosa’s assertions are not particularly new. There are plenty of blacks, Latinos, women and members of the LGBT community who work with Republicans who would make the same argument. However, what did Michael Steele’s run as the head of the Republican National Committee do as far as getting Republicans to be more respectful toward black voters? It certainly did not get the bulk of them in Congress to have any more urgency in restoring the Voting Rights Act. Likewise, it did not get many Republicans to skip the bad habit of being grossly disrespectful to our nation’s first black president.

When it comes to women’s rights, the GOP gets an F. Actually, the party gets an F and a U, but you get it. The same grade is assigned for its record on LGBT rights, though oddly enough, Trump is arguably the most progressive Republican presidential candidate on the LGBT community by the very low barometer that is merely acknowledging us without complete contempt. As for Latinos, the bulk of the Republican Party has worked to actively thwart immigration reform for years. Couple that with Republican primary voters electing a man who wants to build a “big, beautiful wall” along the Mexican border, and sorry to inform Latino Republicans, but they don’t love ya, girl.

Read the rest at The Root.

 

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

In the coming weeks and months and, surely, the years after President Barack Obama actually leaves office, much time will be spent examining his political legacy from all angles. Already, writers like me are examining the Obama record on LGBT issues, while others concentrate on his record on the economy, foreign policy and the environment. And although there are certainly some areas worthy of critique and debate—namely his record on deportation and tackling issues that directly speak to the plight of black people living in America—some have started to critique Obama for essentially not being a racism-solving unicorn.

Late last year, Issac J. Bailey wrote an essay titled, “Why Obama Must Reach Out to Angry Whites” for Politico. In it, Bailey, who is black, argued that in the wake of the political ascension of Donald Trump, it is up to Obama to solve lingering racial divisions in America. One assumes that a laugh track played in the background the entire time Bailey was writing, but that remains unconfirmed.

That said, Bailey claimed, “There is only one person who can unite the country again, and he works in the White House. Yes, President Barack Obama—ironically, the man who is the personification of the fear Trump is exploiting—is the one in the best position to quell the anger being stirred up.”

If you remember correctly, Obama’s historic presidential campaign was marked as the launch of post-racial America. White people predominantly said this while the black people they don’t speak to regularly, or ever, rolled their eyes and went about their days. It’s clear now which party won that argument.

Still, Bailey went on to write: “What he needs to do is use the power of the office in a different way, one that matches the ruthless effectiveness of a demagogue with a private jet. Obama needs to go on a listening tour of white America—to connect, in person, with Americans he has either been unable or unwilling to reach during his seven years in office.”

Bailey proceeds to then offer his own anecdotal evidence of how this strategy works, though, spoiler alert: Bailey is not the first black president of the United States; thus, his comparison is inherently flawed.

Exactly one week later, another piece like Bailey’s surfaced. This one was titled, “Ending racism should be Obama’s life mission as he exits presidency.” Here, Leonard Greene, another black man, proceeds to make the same mistake as Bailey. Greene writes, “If Obama is really serious about attacking America’s original sin, he should immediately abandon any thoughts about creating some kind of post-presidency global foundation.”

So what should Obama do?

Greene says, “Instead, the nation’s first black president should dedicate the rest of his life to working exclusively on trying to heal the racial divide.

To quote Eeyore, “Oh bother.”

Read the rest at The Root.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Far too often, we are collectively thrilled with people conveying basic human decency or, in other cases, simply acknowledging the marginalized in ways typically not done by anyone who is a part of the majority. When I was a child, of all things I remember about Bill Clinton, one that sticks out most is this notion of him being our first black president. Clinton was called this because, as a Southern white man from meager means, he not only appreciated certain cultural mores typically associated with Southern black people but also perpetuated select tropes about blacks, like, say, coming from a single-parent household.

In the years following that comical claim, it’s been consistently noted that former President Clinton is not our first black president—notably in terms of both policy and the political ascension of our actual, first black president, Barack Obama. Unfortunately, in recent years, some members of the LGBT community—notably the white ones—have not learned from this mistake. In recent years, I’ve seen Obama hailed as “the first gay president.” This claim is rooted in Obama being arguably the most progressive president in our nation’s history with respect to LGBT rights.

It is a claim with complete and absolute merit.

In 2009 President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which gave the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute violence in which the perpetrator selected a victim based on many factors—including sexual orientation and gender identity.

A year later, Obama signed a memorandum that protects rights related to hospital visitation and health care decisions for LGBT people.

Of course, in 2011 the Obama administration ended “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the military policy that prohibited qualified gay and lesbian Americans from openly serving in the armed forces.

In 2014 Obama signed an executive order that guaranteed the protection of transgender federal employees from workplace discrimination, while setting stronger standards for federal contractors. That same year, Obama issued additional restrictions in the United States’ bilateral relationship with Uganda over its passage of its “Anti-Homosexuality Act.”

In 2015 Obama made history as the first U.S. president to reference transgender people in a State of the Union address. Later that summer, Obama lectured Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta about his country’s gay-rights record. In a joint press conference, Obama explained: “When you start treating people differently not because of any harm they are doing to anybody, but because they are different, that’s the path whereby freedoms begin to erode. And bad things happen.”

There are many, many other examples that speak to the testament of the Obama administration’s commitment to advancing the quality of life among members of the LGBT community. Just this year, Obama is set to declare the first national monument recognizing the struggle of LGBT rights.

Of course, this list of accomplishments goes far beyond simply being decent and willing to acknowledge the disenfranchised. And yet, as instrumental as Obama has been on LGBT rights, when it comes to anointing him with labels like “the first gay president” or “the gay president,” it is prudent to remember that Obama is a politician. Yes, Obama is a shrewd politician, for sure, but a politician all the same.

Indeed, let us never forget that in order for Barack Obama to even become president, he had to feign disapproval of marriage equality at a time when it was not widely supported by the electorate at large.

Read the rest at The Root.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

When it comes to the subgenre of punditry best described as “crotchety, delusional conservative white man,” Pat Buchanan has long been its shining star. To Buchanan’s credit, he’s been consistently curmudgeonly about America’s shifting demographics for decades. In 1992 Buchanan infamously spoke of a “culture war” plaguing the United States during a speech at that year’s Republican convention. In Buchanan’s mind, the Democratic Party represented a bunch of abortion-loving, feminism-peddling, “homosexual rights”-advocating deviants. His answer to the crowd was that “we must take back our cities and take back our culture and take back our country.”

And unlike Ms. Lauryn Hill, Buchanan does not need new arrangements to perform his act. No, his political rhetoric is basically Mary J. Blige’s onstage dancing. To wit, Buchanan recently wrote an unintentionally hilarious essay about “the social disaster of white Middle America.” In the essay, entitled “The Great White Hope,” Buchanan laments a purported crisis among “middle-aged white folks” that, he says, consists of growing numbers of cases of “alcoholic liver disease, overdoses of heroin and opioids, and suicides.”

Buchanan’s explanation for this is twofold. In one instance he discusses white working-class voters being victims of depreciating wages and a lack of available jobs because of globalization. Typically, if Buchanan told me the sky was blue, I’d go outside with my phone to take a shot of the blood-orange moon that’s clearly more than likely to be present, but hey, there is some level of truth there.

Unfortunately, “Project Pat” then attributes the drug use, alcoholism and suicide rates to shrinking numbers of married white men. To Project Pat, “single white men are not only being left behind by the new economy, they are becoming alienated from society.” Moreover, the “world has been turned upside-down for white children.”

In this man’s mind, this is evidenced by select history books saying that America was “‘discovered’ by genocidal white racists, who murdered the native peoples of color, enslaved Africans to do the labor they refused to do, then went out and brutalized and colonized indigenous peoples all over the world.”

So, the crux of his complaints about education policy is that American children are being told the truth about the history of this nation. Whatever will these poor white kids do (well, besides continue to enjoy the perks of being white in a society that caters to white people)? Project Pat proceeds to argue that a call for diversity is meant to marginalize white people. If you really want to laugh, he also complains that “angry white male” is now “an acceptable slur in culture and politics.”

“N–ger” is a slur; “angry white male” is a pretty solid descriptor for the conservative-media-industrial complex that’s made Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and others millions of dollars.

In any event, Buchanan leaves us with this: “So it is that people of that derided ethnicity, race, and gender see in Donald Trump someone who unapologetically berates and mocks the elites who have dispossessed them, and who despise them. Is it any surprise that militant anti-government groups attract white males? Is it so surprising that the Donald today, like Jess Willard a century ago, is seen by millions as ‘The Great White Hope?’”

Read the rest at The Root.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz have as a much of a shot at becoming the Democratic and Republican nominees for president as Iggy Azalea does at being honored at next year’s Black Girls Rock.

And yet both Sanders and Cruz continued to dance with delusion despite more and more evidence that this just isn’t their election cycle to become president. It’s sore-loser season for the candidates and their supporters. To quote Rihanna, “Poor dat.”

Earlier this week, Sanders told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on New Day about his chances of scoring the nomination, saying, “It’s a narrow path, but we do have a path. And the idea that we should not contest in California—our largest state, let the people of California determine what the agenda of the Democratic Party is and who the candidate for president should be—is pretty crazy.”

I agree with Sanders on certain matters. He should not leave the race. He should try to do well—if not win—in California. He should stay in the race to push the Democratic agenda to better resemble real progressive politics, instead of the Republican-lite “triangulation” that Hillary Clinton and her husband push. Moreover, Sanders does not owe it to Clinton to convince his voters to support her for president in a general election.

However, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Sanders spoke of winning the nomination by way of superdelegates—a stance that seems completely antithetical to the spirit of his campaign. At this point, Clinton is hundreds of regular delegates ahead of Sanders and is millions of votes ahead in the popular vote. In other words, the revolution Sanders spoke of has limits—winning by turning to “the establishment” would contradict his outsider ideology. It would make him no better than the people he purports to be better than.

Sanders’ wife, Jane, has said, “At the end, you know, we’re not calling superdelegates and saying, Will you switch your vote?” And yet it’s been reported that Sanders has personally called some undecided superdelegates to win their support. Meanwhile, Clinton’s superdelegates have complained about being harassed by Sanders’ supporters.

Y’all. Y’all. Y’all. It’s one thing to keep on keep-keeping on, but it’s another to behave like a soft-baked bitch about it.

What frustrates me about Sanders at this juncture of the campaign is that there hasn’t been any real self-reflection, and, by extension, admission of failure on his part. As a southerner, I was vexed as hell by his repeated dismissal of his southern state losses. The typical southern Democrat isn’t white or conservative, but black and moderate-to-fairly-progressive depending on the region. Perhaps it’s due to him being a fairly new Democrat, but you don’t diss the most dedicate voting bloc of the Democratic Party—especially when you don’t mind championing your victories in lily-white states that are as much a Red State as Mississippi and Georgia are. Likewise, while it’s true that poorer Americans vote less, of those that did, they voted more so for Hillary Clinton. That means 1) Sanders’ populist message failed to connect with the poorer voters that do vote, 2) he failed to reach those that do not.

In sum: aww man, homie, your bad.

Read the rest at Complex.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

would sooner have a threesome with David Duke and the ghost of Barry Goldwater than vote for Donald Trump, but there is something about his political ascension that I find somewhat inspiring.

Not the racism. Not the misogyny. And no, not the xenophobia. Trump’s frontrunner status reminds me – an ambitious but not exactly patient person – that dreams can come true, just not necessarily when I say they should.

There is an old saying: “It’s not the appointed time, but the anointed time.” It’s rooted in the Biblical passage, “For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay.” I have not been to church since the last Destiny’s Child album, but that sentiment speaks to me, and Trump’s trajectory this campaign season has served as a demonstration of that wise advice: wait for your time, however long that may be. Then seize it.

Trump, who won five more primaries on Tuesday, has been teasing a presidential run on and off since 1987. As in, Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions on record are a year older than the man I hope one day helps me play out my Beyoncé happily-ever-after scenario (although if he does me dirty, he’ll get the Lemonade treatment, too). I was impressed by Trump after reading Politico’s February profile of the reality star and real estate mogul’s plot-by-plot campaign to become a credible presidential contender.

Sure, Republican voters ought to know better than to be so enamored with a clownish political novice, but that’s not his fault. The point is, timing is everything, and Trump was shrewd enough to finally run when he had an actual chance at winning.

There are other examples of people achieving success later in life. I’ve loved watching Wendy Williams, whom I used to listen to on the radio, go off to daytime, succeed immensely and broaden her brand farther than past naysayers – who wondered whether her unfiltered radio style would translate well in the daytime TV format – ever expected. Similarly, I like that Viola Davis is finally being treated as the exceptional talent that she is, leading a primetime network show as a black actor in her 40s after years of actively working in Hollywood, too often relegated to supporting roles.

But there is something about Donald Trump’s political takeover that I find particularly motivating. He’s been thinking about this for nearly three decades now, but minus the false start in 2000, when he considered running as part of the Reform party, he stuck more with his businesses and television career. And somehow, this novice with no experience gauged his moment, and he has managed to yap his way into a credible chance at becoming president. It’s frightening, yes, but I still find it motivating for pursuing my own goals.

Read the rest at The Guardian.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

When it comes to criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I’m reminded of the way criticism is often leveled at Beyoncé, or “Bayoncé,” as Clinton has mistakenly called her.

In my eyes, Beyoncé is as close to perfect as this world is going to get. But no one is totally perfect. Now, I’m not in the business of speaking ill of my favorite Creole, but I can understand someone taking issue with select matters. Say, her being hyper-capitalistic. However, as is the case with Beyoncé, whatever legitimate gripes one might have about Clinton often gets lost in the noise drowning out what could be legitimate criticism.

Because Clinton elicits such visceral anger from her detractors, many look for any available reason to condemn her. The latest example of this would be people losing their damn minds because she mentioned that she keeps hot sauce in her bag during an interview with Power 105.1’s “The Breakfast Club.” Because she made this comment during a radio program that targets black people, some felt Clinton was pandering.

However, no matter what your uninformed faux politico or Donald Trump might tell you, Clinton has been talking about her love of hot sauce since the first Destiny’s Child album. Actually, she’s been talking about hot sauce since Girls Tyme. Clinton has mentioned her love of hot sauce to black and mainstream media outlets for more than two decades. So, to be clear, when it comes to her eating habits and the hot sauce she drowns her food in, she got that fire, she got that fire, girl, holla at HRC if you want that Oscar Meyer.

After some conceded just that, the outrage shifted to Charlamagne Tha God jokingly telling Clinton that her admission of her hot sauce habit on the show might seem like pandering. Clinton’s response was, “Is it working?” It was deadpan humor, but Clinton had a grin on her face. Why? Because it was a joke. You can either laugh or not, but to suggest that it connotes anything other than bad comedic timing is the kind of hyperbolic antics that I find headache-inducing. Clinton loves her hot sauce and there are plenty of folks out here that need to get drunk off some chill.

And since we’re on the subject of pandering, for the love of God, let go of Hillary Clinton dancing on Ellen. Clinton was appearing on a daytime television show in which she was asked by the host —who often makes dancing a central component of the telecast—and her black DJ to try the latest dance trend (to that audience, anyway). That’s why you do on daytime TV: silly-ass shit to relate to Americans who don’t really know a great deal about policy, but tend to be way too into the idea of voting for a candidate’s charisma. Like I told y’all before, the game is the game.

Moreover, there’s the reality that, if Hillary Clinton didn’t go directly to outlets that appeal to black voters, she—and, for that matter, Bernie Sanders—would be accused of ignoring key Democratic voting blocs. You know, like Republicans. If anything, I find Sanders’ dismissal of southern voting states—which also happen to encompass large black populations—to be more offensive than Clinton dancing off beat and talking about hot sauce on a morning radio show.

Pandering is Mitt Romney asking black kids, “Who let the dogs out?” A better example of a politician being condescending is Rand Paul taking a field trip to Howard University and trying to lecture students on issues the students understood better than he did.

Make no mistake: this is not me declaring #ImWithHer. I don’t despise her as some of my friends do, but she’s not exactly my favorite candidate. For the record, neither is Bernie Sanders. As of now, I’m planning to vote for “Bayoncé.”

What I will advise, however, is that for those who detest Clinton and want to let it all out day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute on social media—shall you proceed? Yes indeed. Only, can you try to limit your criticisms to policy? There is plenty of reason for condemnation there.

Read the rest at Complex.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

What song do you think Marco Rubio cried to after his crushing defeat in his home state of Florida on Tuesday? An admitted 2Pac fan, I would put money on Rubio reflecting on his career with a loop of “So Many Tears.” While some claimed to be moved by his “heartfelt” remarks about the brutishness of Donald Trump and his campaign, offered days prior to Rubio’s exit, I felt nothing.

Rubio deserved to lose because he was an abysmal candidate. You may hate me, but it ain’t no lie (baby, bye bye bye).

Rubio, like Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and every other floundering Republican candidate during this election, condemns Trump with insults like “carnival barker,” “clown,” “con man”—insults meant to convey that Trump is too much of a showman to be taken seriously. What these slights get right is that Trump campaigns like an entertainer. In fact, Donald Trump is basically running his campaign the same way one would orchestrate a reality show.

Trumps treats his political opponents the same way nemeses treat each other on any Real Housewives franchise. There is a genius in how Trump can encapsulate a political adversary’s greatest flaw in as few words as possible. Ask Jeb! Bush about his “low energy.” Trump referring to Ted Cruz as “Lyin’ Ted” is akin to NeNe Leakes coining the name “Wig” for Kim Zolciak on Real Housewives of Atlanta. Or how I have referred to Leakes in my writing and tweets as “Baloo.” These insults stick because Trump is able to disparage a foe in an entertaining way.

And like any bitchy reality star (this applies to men and women alike, FYI), Trump loves a tit-for-tat, which is why every Republican debate has mirrored a reality show reunion. When he announced that he would not be attending the now-canceled debate Fox News scheduled for March 21, all I could think of was Draya Michele bowing out of the Basketball Wives reunions because she was tired of talking about the same bullshit. To wit, Trump tweeted: “How many times can the same people ask the same question?”

Trump is narcissistic, dramatic, and completely out of his depth in terms of actual policymaking. However, what Trump’s critics continue to misunderstand is that that last issue doesn’t matter—his narcissism and intuitive understanding of drama make him great at campaigning. By centering on the theatrics of the campaign trail, he is presently winning winning winning.

Trump’s critics may cry that his approach prevents debates from digging into anything substantive, but is this a stance rooted in reality? Does anyone want (or recognize) substance? We live in a country where, as of September 2015, 43 percent of Republicans still believed that President Obama is Muslim. A 2012 study found that one in three Americans could not pass a naturalization civics test. And when it comes to the GOP candidates, a lot of them are just as empty on policy as Trump—notably on domestic issues like health care (they want to repeal Obamacare but provide no clear alternative) and the economy (we don’t want debt, but let’s give rich people huge tax cuts).

In January, Robert Gates, the former Defense Secretary for President George W. Bush and President Obama, said of those candidates who had promised to “carpet bomb” ISIS: “Well, they—first of all, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Carpet bombing would be completely useless. It’s totally contrary to the American way of war. Total disregard for civilians. So I mean, part of the concern that I have with the campaign, particularly when it comes to national security, is that the solutions being offered are so simplistic and so at odds with the reality of the rest of the world, with the way the world really works.

Read the rest at Complex.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Last night, I found myself singing an impromptu rendition of Toni Braxton’s “How Could An Angel Break My Heart?” upon word that the legendary Foxy Brown had endorsed Donald Trump for president. I mean, that’s some sh-t I would expect from Smooth or Sylk-E. Fyne, but certainly not Fox Boogie. The New York Daily News, which has such a hard on for Trump right now, published the story, leading with “Move over, Stacey Dash.”

Oh my God, the disrespect.

They quote the rapper claiming that while she loves Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, she’s supporting Trump’s presidential bid.

Foxy apparently says: “No matter how many people sabotage his campaign, it keeps growing and growing and growing. I know so many people won’t agree with me and will try to change my mind, but I’m a smart girl. I’m excited … I haven’t been this excited in so long. I know people say he’s a racist, but that’s just crazy.”

With this quote came many of us who grew up with her music bewildered, promising not to return to the Hot Spot or bar, y’all until Inga Marchand took a hard look at herself and her choices. Alas, there is now no reason to fear the politics of Foxy Brown.

Foxy took to Instagram to refute report, writing: “I am in no way endorsing Trump. What I said verbatim was Trump had tenacity, much like I said Hillary Clinton I love dearly and Bernie Sanders I absolutely adore.”

You see that? The evil, vicious media tried to turn Foxy Brown into Azealia Banks, who actually did endorse Trump for president. I can understand why the linkage in theory. After all, Azealia Banks is just Foxy Brown without the hits. And you know, Foxy Brown has been accused of spitting on folks, which is sort of a Trump supporter thing to do. Trump and Foxy would probably have an enjoyable dinner of Trump steaks, talking about “the haters” and losers.

Read the rest at VH1.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Here’s what’s fascinating about Caitlyn Jenner: Since undergoing her transformation, she has gone from being part of the most fortunate and privileged group on the planet—wealthy, white, and male—to a community which is more susceptible to violent attacks, poverty, and varying forms of discrimination than any other. Despite her status as a trans woman, Caitlyn is still rich, still white, and certainly more famous than ever. Even so, she is considered a minority now, and one shouldn’t expect the demographic shift to go completely smoothly. On the other hand, who would have thought she’d have the hubris to step into the spotlight and serve as a de facto spokesperson for a community which, as it turns out, she knows very little about.

Perhaps it’s problematic to reduce a woman to one voting issue. But when that woman is outspoken on national TV, and positioning herself as a representative for others like her—one who is already more privileged than many people she represents—yes, she should be held to a different standard.

To her credit, though, Caitlyn Jenner wants to learn. And through her reality show, I Am Cait, she is getting schooled by her trans sisters on national television. Yet there is a stubbornness to Jenner that is increasingly painful to watch. During the show’s season premiere, which aired earlier this week, Jenner defiantly defended the GOP as a party of tolerance.

 In a heated debate, trans activist and writer Jennifer Finney Boylan asked Jenner who among the GOP presidential field would be most supportive of trans people. In response, Jenner claimed, “All of ‘em.” Jenner said this without adding “SIKE!” or howling in ironic laughter. Instead, Jenner continued, “None of the Republicans say, ‘Oh, I hate trans people,’ or, ‘I hate gays.’ Nothing like that. They do more, ‘I want a thriving economy so every trans person has a job.’”
When Boylan noted that conservatives were behind efforts to repeal the anti-discrimination ordinance known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), that offered broad non-discrimination protections, Jenner said, “Don’t go there.” Jenner went on to say, “Republicans and conservatives are not these horrible people out there trying to oppress people… I don’t know anything of what they said down there, but I’m not blaming it on Republicans and conservatives.”
Jenner admits she knows nothing “of what they said down there,” but speaks on the issue anyway. Meanwhile, Boylan was right: Conservatives and religious leaders managed to defeat the anti-discrimination ordinance by preying on voters’ transphobia with signs like “NO MEN in Women’s Bathrooms.”
Interestingly enough, when the subject of Hillary Rodham Clinton came up, Jenner dismissed her, arguing, “[Hillary] couldn’t care less about women. She cares about herself.”
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone