1 + 1

Added on by Rivers.

Last year, during the fever of the American presidential elections, I remember (very) actively and purposefully looking for and reading articles, watching videos etc, of why women (specifically) supported Hillary. I wanted what was clear to me, to be challenged or dispelled - that her primary focus was to serve and further enrich and empower economic elites and the industries they belong to and run, while further assimilating/consolidating herself (and her family) into that class while dressing that entire enterprise as a win for women, all at the expense of Palestinians. Libyans. Somalis. Iraqis. Haitians. Hondurans. Immigrants. Students. Black Americans. Black women. The poor. The abandoned. 

And to be really real ... nothing ever (even barely) satisfactorily challenged that ... the arguments were almost always distilled into either "She's not Trump" or "She'll be the first woman president".

I know there are a ton of interesting, interwoven political/sociological/historical reasons as to why, but just seeing it in action (especially by black liberals - which is a different story) was low key amazing. Like, "Wow, this is what their political analysis has been reduced to?"

Reading a book by leftist feminists that critically analyses the dissonance between Hillary's political career and her branding as some sort of feminist champion was really enlightening. The essays were sharp, incisive, thought-provoking ... one of my many favorite things about the book is the consistent push towards a more radical imagining of "politics", i.e. (in the American context) thinking outside the quadrennial reality show of a presidential race and beyond the tyranny of the two-party system and the tribalistic identities/belief systems they engender.

Some bars:

The potential first female president represents a purely cosmetic form of diversity that works against the structural changes that need to be made at every level of culture and politics to expose and depose a political class that has acted with impunity to promote policies that benefit wealthy donors and powerful multinational corporations.

The support of an elite sector of the black political class helped to legitimize hard-line anti-crime policy that proved devastating for low-income populations of color.

The powerful continue to justify their exploitation with everything at their disposal, including the language and platform of equality itself.

Mainstream, professional feminism's "can you have it all?" navel-gazing fixation on the issues of high achieving, mostly white and heterosexual Western women loves to talk about income and college debt in the narrow ways that Hillary's platform demonstrates. 

Let us have clear eyes about what Hillary Clinton represents - an authoritarian neoliberal status quo.