Obama, Hagel, feminism and the Middle East: A progressive’s dilemma.

Obama-hagelAs a born-and-bred Progressive and long-time advocate for both Israeli-Palestinian peace and women’s rights, I’m used to having to pick my battles. My positions are to the left of pretty much every national leader for whom I’ve ever had the opportunity to vote, in Israel or the U.S. Barack Obama was the first candidate to even come close.

Whatever the President’s opinions were and may still be regarding Israel/Palestine, though, they’ve come to seem of little importance, as his actions have thus far been little but repeats of mistakes made by past Administrations.

On the question of women’s rights, however, the record is much more to my liking: the Lily Ledbetter Act, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, health care reform, his consistent refusal to treat rape as anything less than a crime—these policy decisions and public attitudes are making America a better place for women and girls (and men and boys), right now, today.

So the record is mixed, as far as I’m concerned. Which brings us, of course, to Chuck Hagel.

From the moment that Administration sources whispered the name “Hagel” into the ether, the neocon wing of Hagel’s own party came down like a ton of bricks, spinning anti-Israel and anti-Semitic conspiracies as fast as their words could spin. It was untrue, it was ugly, and it was never really about Israel—it was and remains about the neocon vision for American power, a vision that Chuck Hagel neither shares nor respects.

As I wrote last month, I’ve long appreciated Hagel’s approach to Israel/Palestine, and his preference for diplomacy over war more broadly. As a lifelong Illinois Democrat, I don’t expect to agree with a Republican from Nebraska on much, but I’m certainly glad that we could at least agree on that.

This week I learned, however, that Hagel and I don’t agree on a whole lot else.

Far from being a feminist, in the Senate Chuck Hagel acted to prevent servicewomen from having access to abortion (even at their own expense) if they’d been raped and impregnated, and that frankly horrifies me; the Republican Party’s willing dehumanization of women generally and callousness toward rape survivors specifically is a big part of what got me so involved in Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts this fall. Like other progressives, I’m also nervous about Hagel’s positions regarding the civil rights of LGBTQ Americans, particularly (as Rachel Maddow and my colleague Sigal Samuel have noted) when the Pentagon is poised to deal with so many LGBTQ-specific issues.

But this is where I come back to the guy who hired him: Barack Obama.

I trust the President’s feminism, which I believe has been proven time and again, and while I will agree that Obama’s dedication to LGBTQ rights is less well established, I do believe that it is solid (though it should be noted that as a straight woman, I don’t have to live with the consequences of the President’s positions on these issues, and thus my awareness of them is likely not as keen as that of Americans who do). On the other hand, I am deeply concerned about Obama’s policies in the Middle East.

It is my opinion—and I cannot stress this enough: I do not pretend to know for sure—that a Defense Secretary Hagel serving under President Obama the Feminist will find that his opportunity to oppose basic human and civil rights for women and/or LGBTQ Americans will be sharply limited by his boss’s policies and positions, whereas President Obama the Failed Two-State Facilitator might have appointed a Defense Secretary Hagel precisely in order to help create movement on the ground regarding Israel and Palestine (and Iran) that will lead to real, desperately-needed change in the region.

Do I love the pick? No, and I love it even less now that I know more about Hagel’s record. But I still like Hagel better than Michele Flourney, for reasons that speak very directly to the Defense Secretary’s primary mission, and I do think that as an official in the Obama White House, there’s greater potential for him to do good, than harm.

None of which is to say that we shouldn’t hold the President’s feet to the fire on these issues, because we should—indeed, I hope the Senate questions Hagel very closely at his confirmation hearings. In a democracy, it’s the job of citizens and our elected officials to insist that government reflect our highest values, and I’m pretty sure that “equality for all” is top of the American list.

And of course, my cautious optimism might be proven wrong. But for the time being, I remain an American-Israeli progressive feminist peacenik who is cautiously optimistic about Chuck Hagel. So it goes.

Crossposted from Open Zion/The Daily Beast.

Conservative “feminism” for Flournoy.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Flournoy_official_portrait.jpg

Michele Flournoy

Despite what you may have heard around the internet, I’m no fan of anti-Semitism, and I am (to top it off) an actual-factual Zionist—and I am furthermore a big ol’ feminist, so I’m also no fan of power structures that shut out women.

One might think, then, that I would like the idea of a Defense Secretary Michele Flournoy, particularly when her biggest competition appears to be in the form of former Senator Chuck Hagel, a man who has just been declared an anti-Semite by folks (like Bret Stephens and Jennifer Rubin) who like to declare such things. A not-anti-Semitic lady! What could be finer?

Well, prepare for a shock: I actually like Hagel.

Aside from anything else, I don’t buy the right’s anti-Semitism argument (so neatly eviscerated by my boss Peter Beinart yesterday), or its sudden-onset feminism. Indeed, I have very little time for either.

As I’ve said before, the false equivalency between opposition to right-wing Israel’s political agenda and anti-Semitism is a-historical, intellectually insulting, and frankly offensive. If American conservatives don’t know what 21st century anti-Semitism looks like, they could always check in with Hungary’s Jewish community. But hey—at least this is an argument I’ve met before.

But Conservative demands for more women in Obama’s next Cabinet? Am I the only one gobsmacked by the unmitigated gall?

I don’t know if you recall, but waaaaay back last week, there was every reason to believe that President Obama was considering a woman for a high-level Cabinet position—but Susan Rice wasn’t, apparently, the right woman. So she was hounded out of the running, with neocon darling John McCain at the head of the pack.

Moreover, the party for which American conservatives cast their votes is the same party which until very recently was trying to win control of the country so that it could do things like limit abortion rights, redefine rape, and repeal a health care law set to roll back an enormous amount of gender-based health care discrimination. So you will excuse me if I don’t take the call to grrl power all that seriously.

No, this sudden interest in Flournoy, Obama’s own former under-secretary is (if I may borrow a term) Lady-Washing, at its most crude.

Neocons don’t like Hagel on Iran. Full stop. (Well, they don’t like him on a lot of things, but they really don’t like him on Iran). And neocons want us to believe that being pro-Israel (and, ipso facto, not-anti-Semitic) is identical with supporting a strike against Iran.

But here’s the thing: It’s just possible to love Israel and the United States and believe that starting a war with Iran would actually be bad for both. It’s just possible to believe that the people who sold us the Iraq War shouldn’t be trusted on Iran. And it’s just possible to be a feminist who thinks a man happens to be best choice for a particular job (optics aside).

One caveat: I don’t actually know that Michele Flournoy would be a bad choice for Defense. I know that I don’t agree with her idea that the U.S. military is in danger of becoming overly cautious as a result of a new “Vietnam syndrome,” and as regards her assertion that “we have to be willing to fail,” well, I’d say our military establishment has done enough failing in the last decade—but as Abe Foxman himself has noted, “the Secretary of Defense is not an independent contractor.”

But I do know that I agree with Hagel’s instinct toward diplomacy, and I have long admired his willingness to speak frankly about Israel and the difference between being pro-Israel and being in thrall to a particular set of Israeli policy positions. Regardless of what Bret Stephens might think, there is actual courage involved in taking that position in American politics—as anyone who paid any attention to the last Presidential campaign can attest.

So please, conservative Americans, miss me with your appeals to my feminism, or to my Zionism, when you try to criticize this President. The bloom is off the rose for fact-free smear campaigns (as anyone who paid any attention to the election’s results can attest). You’re embarrassing yourselves.

Crossposted from Open Zion/The Daily Beast.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,813 other followers