Theory : In my lifetime, which is now in its tenth decade, I have watched as men ruled the world. There have been few women during that time who have gained power. So far as I can remember, none of them — the few women — have embarked on stupid wars, indulged in genocide, engaged in conspiracies to disenfranchise or disembowel their own citizens, given orders for the killing of millions of people, or murdered their own compatriots.
OK, maybe Evita was a bit over the top, or Imelda with her 3,000 pairs of shoes, and Suu Kyi turned out to be something less than a new Virgin Mary. But nothing on the scale of the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, Nixon, Kissinger, Kennedy, LBJ, BushII, Milosevich, Mugabi and their ilk. By and large, where women have ruled, we have seen a leaning toward democracy. There has been peace. Where men have ruled we have seen carnage, slaughter, hatred, and destruction.
That’s on the international level. On the domestic front the economic crooks — the grifters, the scammers, the conmen, the major white-collar criminals — have been men. The jails are full of them. The courts are full of them. We have grown used to them. From the Trumps and Madoffs to the directors of Wells Fargo and Volkswagen. Today they have congregated in the White House. They come in all shapes and flavors. But among women, aside from a few with special flair, like Leona Helmsley or Imelda, they seem to be scarcer.
My conclusion : If we go to the polls next month looking for a general rule to apply (instead of trying to investigate the actual qualifications of the candidates, who can be expected to be no more truthful in their answers to our questions than Supreme Court nominees) we can do no better than simply declare this the year of the woman. I’m for Her could be an all-purpose campaign slogan, without the need for all that wasted posturing and postering we normally put up with at election time.
How to do it : Go into your voting booth and take a few extra moments to look over the ballot. Take up the felt pen provided. (Pick it up off the floor where the previous voter left it for you.) Circle the names of the women candidates. This will cut the choices down considerably, especially in places like New York and North Carolina, where smoke-filled-room government has been the norm for so long. That will ease your choices.
Where there is only one woman included among the contestants for an office (usually the case, unless there are none), just fill in the little oval for her and move on. If there are several women (This may happen this year more often than in the past; we have seen more activism lately) you may have to consider other factors, like color, wealth, or determination. My inclination is to favor a nice shade of café au lait and enough money to cover the costs of complying with all the obstructionist registrations and forms that will instantly be set up by the male establishment. In the cases where none of the women’s names are familiar, just make a random choice, and move on. Don’t sweat it.
If there are no women listed, just don’t vote for anyone. This is generally considered a vote for the incumbent, but there are risks to my program as there are in any political plan. You can’t vote for “none of the above”, the rules won’t allow it. The message you send by withholding your vote altogether is that you don’t approve of any of the people on offer. When the tallies for the women candidates come in and are seen to be greater than those for the men on their tickets, it will not take a genius analyst to get the message. Too late for this time, perhaps, but a lesson for the next.
Cons : We lose some good men with experience who have simply been frustrated by their distaste for the kind of all-out war practiced by the Republicans since Nixon. Some will be Democrats and some will be Republicans. Their expertise will be missed. If they are old, they will have to retire, which it may parhaps already be time for them to do. If they are young, they can welcome the broom that is sweeping the old farts out of the way. If they are truly desperate they can transition, as the modern expression has it. It is not necessary that complete emotional transformation accompany a strategic gender switch. Many Spanish Jews who converted in the 1500s landed quite successfully on their economic feet, and their descendants are still enjoying the fruits of their pragmatism.
Pros : We gain a whole fresh attitude on the part of our elected leaders — one more concerned with promoting sexual and economic equality than with backroom deals, at least to begin with. Women trying to level the playing field and give everyone the shot at the pursuit of happiness, though sometimes loud-mouthed and inelegant, have a better chance of rescuing us than the old-style cigar-chewers and pussy-snatchers we have grown to tolerate. There are no guarantees, but I’ll take my chances on the women.
P.S. : As an extra plus, you can make your own lapel buttons. “I’m for Her” is short, easier to spell than “Chantorella-Savoskowicz” and relieves you of any doubts about correct pronunciation. Same goes for the yard signs, although my preference would be to forget about those — they just fill the waste bins after the election, to no purpose. A generously proportioned “HER” lettered with a Sharpie on a shirt cardboard or a panel from an Amazon box, and placed prominently in a
front window should suffice.
But VOTE!
Vance Weaver 