Saul Anuzis, one of the candidates for RNC chair, made the following comment on Twitter a couple weeks ago:

First woman in the U.S.Senate…Republican. First woman in the U.S. House…Republican. Same for African-Americans…GOP’s history strong.

He implies that because the first black and women representatives in both houses of Congress were Republicans, the GOP is somehow inoculated from criticism of their record on civil rights issues. This doesn’t come out of nowhere: Republicans make these kinds of statements because they feel the need to defend themselves.

First, if the facts Saul cites are the standard for a strong civil rights record, his argument doesn’t hold up today the way it may have historically. Let’s take a look at the balance in the 110th Congress: There are 42 black Democratic Representatives in the House vs. no black Republicans. 53 Democratic women Representatives in the House vs. 20 Republican women. While meaningful, the GOP having the “first” black or women representatives is no longer relevant to our modern political discourse.

Of course, the notion that the GOP, which absorbed the Dixiecrats, has a strong history on civil rights because of these “firsts” is absurd. The broader problem with Saul’s statement is that it reflects the GOP’s tendency co-opt progressive civil rights symbols for the purpose of justifying regressive policies.

Take Sarah Palin: by self-identifying as a feminist, invoking Hillary Clinton in her first campaign speeches, and as potentially the first woman Vice President of the United States, she adopted many of the symbols of women’s empowerment. Although she claimed the symbols of feminism, her actual purpose on the campaign trail was to reinforce existing gender roles. Culturally, she reinforced these existing gender norms by masking her ambition and “putting a skirt on,” as conservative commentators put it. In terms of public policy, she’s virulently anti-choice, opposes birth control and emergency contraception even in extreme cases, believes in abstinence-only education, and wouldn’t take a position on equal pay. She portrayed herself as a figure of women’s empowerment while undermining feminism as a movement.

Much like their attempt at subverting feminism in the 2008 campaign, conservatives use black politicians to advance regressive policies on civil rights issues. Ken Blackwell pushed to disenfranchise minorities as Secretary of State of the most critical swing state in 2004. Ward Connerly is the most prominent figurehead of the anti-affirmative action movement. As someone who supports policies that will lead to discrimination in the guise of advancing equality, he’s one of the best examples of appropriating the symbolism of civil rights for the purpose of undermining them. But as long as the GOP continues to blame black families for the financial crisis, engage in race baiting, oppose legislation to promote equality like affirmative action, actively antagonize the black community with discriminatory voter ID laws, and blame the victims of Katrina, these tactics shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Saul Anuzis’ comment neatly fits into this pattern — a superficial acknowledgment of progress that hides, and is even meant to legitimize, a much more disturbing value system. The next time you see the GOP using the symbols or language of civil rights, remember that they’re selling something very different than what they claim.

Given the weak field of Republican vice presidential candidates, it was inevitable that McCain’s final decision would raise some eyebrows. The selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did not disappoint. It did, however, add its own twist; instead of skepticism, the brows bear the mark of confusion. The befuddlement is almost palpable.

Still, no matter how unlikely it seems at first glance, further examination clarifies, and more than redeems, the choice. This is not to say that McCain’s found a gem, or that Dems rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of a Biden/Palin debate are jumping the gun. It simply means that, unsatisfied with the contestants in its tallest midget contest, McCain & Co. went out and found a taller midget.

Before I present my case for Palin as the right choice, I suggest you read Alex Thurston’s concise and crippling look at the Mav’s other options. If you already know how poor the crop was this year, continue apace.

• The Maverick and his Wing-Woman

An effective critique against McCain this election cycle has been that he is McSame, simply a continuation of the last 8 years of failed policy. It’s effective cause it’s true, but Palin as VP somewhat mitigates the force of the argument. She is a face that is ”both fresh and fierce.” In a sense (the geographical kind) she is the ultimate Washington outsider (unless, of course, Hawaii is further — I haven’t run the numbers). She gives pundits the opportunity to paint Biden’s ample DC experience as a liability, to paint him as the insider. Sure, it’s a weak counter-attack, but Republicans have effectively used weaker material in the past.

• Got Change?

Perhaps more importantly, and more obviously, Sarah Palin breaks up Obama’s monopoly on change in this election. Whichever side gets elected, we can claim a significant step forward as a nation. Also, as Ian pointed out, Palin may shore up some of those HRC supporters who lusted after a female in the White House.

• Grounding the McCain Campaign

The McCain campaign has reveled in its down-to-earth appeal, knowing the middle-class is key to any general election. It paints Obama as the out-of-touch celebrity, McCain as the humble war hero. But, with the recent attention given to McCain’s definition of rich, his ignorance of the palaces he keeps, and the transformation of his Straight-Talk Express to the No-Talk Jet, the appeal’s been tarnished. Palin’s the perfect spit-shine; She fishes. She hunts. She started her career as a sportswriter. Her eldest son Track enlisted in the army on September 11, 2007, and, in a perfect media moment, will be deployed to Iraq on September 11, 2008. Her husband is a champion snowmobile racer, and is often referred to in Alaska as First Dude. Lastly, as an added bonus for those who are worried that McCain would lose the evangelical flock, Palin is a conservative Christian who opposes abortion.

In short, for all her inexperience, Palin brings some formidable qualities to the table. Her selection is a nod to the reality of the American electorate in some key states and, once the dust clears, I think it’ll be apparent that McCain made the best of his limited options.

So, what do you think is the best attack against John McCain? But first, last week’s results:

To test the statistic that women decide to run for office less often then men, last week we asked you your gender and whether you’d consider running for office. Of the males that responded, 56% would consider running for office while 44% would not. Of the females that responded, 54% would consider running for office while 46% would not. Clearly, those numbers are so close as to prove little. At least among Seminal readers, women will consider running for office just as much as men.

This week, we want to know what you think will be the most effective line of attack against John McCain. That’s right, you have to pick one! Voting begins now in the sidebar on the left.

Ask anyone who knows me and they’ll tell you I do not support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president.

Having said that, as a woman, I appreciate and commend Hillary Clinton for her service to my gender. By putting herself out there as America’s first serious female presidential candidate, Clinton has endured more gender-bashing — explicit and implicit — than any other female in America. Moreover, in the course of this presidential race, she has faced more nitpicky, tedious, insidious scrutiny of her hair, her makeup, her fashion sense, her tone and pitch, her figure, her choices surrounding family vs. career, her marriage, and her personal demeanor than any other presidential candidate in American history.

First, here are some examples of the abundant, overt sexism that has been levied at Hillary Clinton during this race. The most egregious instances have come from people in the media, like Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan, who make their distaste for the former first lady evident not through substantive comments about her policies but rather, by making negative comments about her voice, appearance, or political profiteering from her husband’s success and/or infidelity. Yes, “let’s not forget” these classic television moments:

“Certainly in the next 50 years we shall see a woman president, perhaps sooner than you think. A woman can and should be able to do any political job that a man can do.” – Richard Nixon, 1969

Almost 40 years later, Hillary is the first lady with a chance of being put in the position to validate Nixon’s prediction. When accounting for this, sexism is the most cited reason. While that’s a legitimate answer, perhaps the most legitimate answer, it’s not the only one.

Predominantly Muslim nations such as Indonesia, Turkey and Pakistan, have all elected female heads of state. If sexism were the only thing in play when electing a female leader, it would naturally follow that U.S. citizens hold a less progressive view of women than those of Indonesia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Looking at the whole of each society, that argument seems inadequate.

No, the reason women in these Muslim nations achieved electoral success defies simple explanations like “sexism,” or “the absence of sexism.” It’s too intricate, just like reasons women have failed to achieve the same success in the U.S.

An adequate look at the matter is better suited for books and theses than a blog post, so I’m going to focus on one specific case (Chile), which points to one of numerous intricacies at work; the different treatment our media affords to female. I’m not referring to the allegations of inordinate attention paid to Hillary’s pantsuits, but rather the amateur conduct that extends to any potential presidential candidate who’s not a Caucasian male.

You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the Presidency. And it is indeed historic. Clinton is the first women candidate to really have a shot at winning the White House. While other women like Angela Merkel in Germany, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, and Pratibha Patil in India have busted through the famed “glass ceiling” in their respective countries, America’s remains intact.

In fact, a glass ceiling seems to exist throughout American politics. In federal and state positions, women hold between 16% - 24% of positions, despite making up half the population. Most Americans chalk up this difference to the sexism ingrained in American society. The real picture is far more subtle.

There is no question that America has a history of gender discrimination. American women at points in our history couldn’t own property, vote, or hold a corporate job. The attitude of the domesticated, servile wife - as portrayed by the “good wife’s guide” from 1955 - was widely held by the general population. Even today, a woman make only 75.5 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Still, these facts do not completely explain why more women don’t hold public office. Countries like Chile - with its culture of machismo - have been able to break through some of these glass ceilings. Indeed, some countries - like Rwanda, Cuba, and Mexico [pdf] - with the highest percentages of women in elected office are hardly known for their feminist-friendly stances.

The real reason more women don’t hold elected office is both more simple and more complex: They don’t run for office as often.

If you’re looking for inspiring Democratic presidents before FDR, I’m afraid you’re in for some real disappointment. Clearly we need to judge politicians partly according to the realities of their own times, but I have deeply mixed feelings about someone like William Jennings Bryan (who probably would have made a better president than McKinley). And with Woodrow Wilson, my feelings aren’t even mixed: Wilson’s despicable record on issues of race and segregation and his ineffective, meddling foreign policy are enough to sink the man’s legacy in my eyes.

But Wilson’s second wife, Edith, is another story. The say that behind every great man is a great woman - it turns out that sometimes you find impressive women behind not-so-great men as well.

Wilson met Edith not long after the death of his first wife. The fashionable and independent Edith, widowed herself since 1908, was known for driving herself around Washington and shrewdly managing her own financial affairs.

After a brief courtship, the couple married at the end of 1915. As First Lady, Edith took a remarkably active role. At her husband’s side during a presidential campaign, a war, and an illness, she put aside many traditional hostessing duties and concentrated on helping manage Wilson’s affairs, acting as secretary and even handling classified information. She participated publicly in fundraising and volunteer efforts during wartime, and joined Wilson on two official visits to Europe after the conclusion of the war.

It was after Wilson’s stroke in 1919, however, that Edith took on real power. Historians debate the extent to which she made important decisions, but many have felt that she was nothing less than acting president. In any case, she tightly controlled access to her husband: “She screened all papers, business and visitors and for a time almost no one saw Wilson except Edith.” Edith denied that she handled anything more than routine administration, preferring to use the term “stewardship” to describe her role. However, the evidence suggests that Wilson was tremendously weakened by the stroke, and even if Edith only decided what matters reached him, that in itself constitutes tremendous power.

I’ve stayed away from the gender in politics (and politics of gender) debate surrounding Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the White House to now for the same reasons I’ve also stayed away from discussing issues of race surrounding Obama’s bid. Frankly neither ‘race’ nor ’sex’ qualify or disqualify someone from holding the coveted presidential position. But in trying to differentiate between a candidate’s personal qualities and those ascribed to her by social expectation, long-time feminist Gloria Steinem makes the wrong point about gender and the White House.

Stumping for Hillary Clinton in Austin, Texas, Steinem drew attention to McCain’s military record and the praise he has received for his experiences as a POW. As the New York Observer reports,

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

Sure, the scenario Steinem describes isn’t far from the realities of millions of women’s lives—women who become punching bag for the release of their spouse’s frustrations; or innocent victims of a larger society’s preference for males—but in arguing against the bravery and military service McCain claims, Steinem seems to lose her way.

In criticizing the praise McCain’s service record receives, the Observer notes later, “Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises.” I agree, that our nation and our media and our politics focus on military campaigns and the strength of tradition weapons and warfare, rather than the non-militaristic battles we should be fighting, but in denouncing militarism, Steinem seems to perpetuate gender stereotypes. If McCain and other ex-military serviceman reflect a militaristic attitude in the media, then Clinton offers the opposite with her femininity. At least that’s the take-away message the seem to lie beneath the surface…

Today we debut our March issue: Women In Politics.

In honor of Women’s History Month in March, we will be looking at everything from up-and-coming female political rising stars to the stereotypes women face in the public eye, and we’ll see if we can’t tease out some interesting anecdotes, examples, and questions to ponder.

The first article will be coming up shortly…

In honor of Women’s History Month in March, The Seminal will be examining women and politics. From up-and-coming female political rising stars to the stereotypes women face in the public eye, we’ll see if we can’t tease out some interesting ancecdotes, examples, and questions to ponder.

Stay tuned, the issue debuts on March 1st.