When She's Like That

by Molly Ivors

I've been ruminating for a couple of days on the Maureen Dowd "Don't ask me, I'm just a genderbending girl!" defense, and have come to the conclusion that my argument over the last several months has been basically accurate: the problem is not that Dowd is liberal or conservative; it's that she's relentlessly shallow, a Mean Girl enforcer of the rules of the Village which, she is given to understand, are basically conservative. If Time Russert was Captain of the football team, Maureen was Homecoming Queen--and that's about the depth they expect of themselves. Or, you know, expected.

My issues with Dowd have little to do with whether or not she has the right to be shallow, bitchy, and vapid. Of course she does. The question is whether that shallow, bitchy vapidity belongs on the editorial page of the paper of record. Because that particular piece of real estate is pretty fucking valuable. I've said it before: think what Digby could do with that space. Or Katha Pollitt. Or Athenae. Or Liss. Or Amanda. Or Echidne. The mind boggles, doesn't it? There are real women out there, real feminists who think deeply and intelligently about the issues of the day. Women with concerns much greater than who gets to sit at the lunch table with the Kool Kids Klub. Women whose first line of political analysis is not "what would my daddy think about this?"

I generally leave Maureen alone when the objects of her scorn seem appropriate to me. Today's column, for example, takes on the faux-populism of the Republicans and actually..... (Sit down. You'll need to.) says something nice about Barack Obama.

Rove’s mythmaking about Obama won’t fly. If he means that Obama has brains, what’s wrong with that? If he means that Obama is successful, what’s wrong with that? If he means that Obama has education and intellectual sophistication, what’s wrong with that?

Many of Obama’s traits are the traits that people in the population aspire to.

I know, I know. Here, have a blanket. Would you like a cup of tea? I know it's hard to downshift that fast. There, there. It'll be okay, honey.

I realize, however, on a certain level, that when she calls George Bush "Richie Rich," or asks of Karl Rove "When was the last time he kicked back with a corncob pipe to watch professional wrestling?" that she's playing the same game, rhetorically speaking. And it's a shitty game. She sees the rules are changing; she's changing with them. This isn't principle; it's expediency, and don't ask me to praise it.

(Corncob pipes are the sine qua non of populism? I admit: I did not know this.)

The problem with such an attitude--no matter who it's aimed at--is the relentless trivialization of our national discourse. Regular readers will recognize my mantra: we have a lot of work to do. We have an infrastructure to rebuild, an economy to resuscitate, and a stupid war to end. Thousands upon thousands of young men and women are going to come home damaged and need help putting their worlds back together. We need a sane, people- and earth-centered energy policy, which would create jobs, reduce reliance on foreign resources and loans, and be, well, smart. We need an industrial base: decent jobs for people. And we need it yesterday.

I wonder sometimes whether Maureen Dowd lays awake in bed at night thinking about the damage her incisive political analysis of haveabeerwithability has wrought. I expect the Ambien helps with that, or the merlot. Or both.

Because you may have turned all this into a nice condo in Georgetown, Maureen. But the rest of us are paying for it. And somehow, I don't think your daddy would approve of that.

Comments

[Chris Rich]

Well, if you want to undermine a robust feminism, what better way than to park a bimbo in the catbird seat?

[dave™©]

I wonder sometimes whether Maureen Dowd lays awake in bed at night thinking about the damage her incisive political analysis of haveabeerwithability has wrought.

She lays in bed at night wondering why no one will fuck her.

Is that shallow? Tough fucking shit, MoDo. You've earned it.

[Filth]

I'd love for Digby to have MoDo's spot. And I'm a big fan of several of the other people you mentioned. In fact, shit, I'd be satisfied if they put a conservative female thinker in MoDo's place. Even if it's not someone whose views I agree with, at least it wouldn't be inches wasted on prattling about who's girly and who's tough.

[Mo MoDo]

Dowd is picking on Rove because he is picking on Her Man. Only she gets to trash Democratic candidates. It's a turf thing.

As I say in my blog today, given that Barack freely admits using drugs in the past, the less we associate pipes with him the better.

[Kyle]

What I have learned is that Maureen Dowd is not the only bad writer in the world.

[Jay B.]

I think Somerby nailed it today. She's suddenly turned around her Obambi mantra because she was called out by Clark Hoyt this Sunday.

As you say, she's nothing but shallow.

[bobbo]

The problem is, if you're Digby, or Katha Pollitt, etc., you don't get to the OpEd page of the NY Times unless you start writing like Dowd. Liberal hero Rachel Maddow has done her share of authority ass-kissing to get to her spot on MSNBC (and now you hear it in her Air America work). It's the modern day media equivalent of "power corrupts."

["Fair and Balanced" Dave]

Corncob pipes are the sine qua non of populism?

You bet. Douglas MacArthur: Populist

[Batocchio]

The problem with such an attitude--no matter who it's aimed at--is the relentless trivialization of our national discourse.

Exactly. But great throughout.

As to her losing sleep, my take has always been that she mainly dreams of being quoted. She's never been afraid to mangle a metaphor, make a completely inaccurate cultural allusion or push a shoddy argument if she thought it made for a good quip.

[Monica_A: Dammit]

Dowd... nice... Obama? Someone bring my smelling salts.

[Jemand von Niemand]

...think what Digby could do with that space. Or Katha Pollitt. Or Athenae. Or Liss. Or Amanda. Or Echidne.

-- All of them, on a rotating basis, in the NYT! I'd walk a good distance, barefoot, on a cold morning to buy any copy of The Paper Of Record when they start printing these Women (and there are others) on the Op-Ed. And I wouldn't be alone.

You'd think Sulzberger would get it, by now; but...

[Stuart Eugene Thiel]

Corncob pipes? Unseen since the demise of Hee Haw and Li'l Abner (both of which could be pretty funny, actually). Surely the rubes (again, see Hee Haw, Jack Burns v. George Lindsay) use boughten pipes, or more likely, cigarettes by now.

And my kids say I live in the past. . .

[flory]

You nailed it.
The real damage that Modo is responsible for is the trivialization of our civic discourse.
And the fact that she's not only got away with it, BUT HAS FUCKING BEEN CELEBRATED FOR IT, for a decade or more, says all that needs be said about teh Village.

[Captain Goto]

You'd think Sulzberger would get it, by now; but...

Oh, he "gets it", all right. What he "gets" is the ironclad rule that the DFH's shall never be permitted within sniffing distance of those hallowed pages, lest they upset the tender sensibilities of the Very Serious Persons™ (h/t Blue Boy).

Fuck.
I just got done reading TBogg and Josh Marshall re: the wingnut loon who was in charge of vetting US Attorneys, and I'm about ready to scream.

Again.

For about the eighty-frack-jillionth time in the last eight years.

[aimai]

There's something going on down there that cuts in a slightly different direction. I don't think Dowd is engaging in exactly the same thing when she criticizes Rove for not having a corncob pipe and when she criticizes Obama/kerry/gore for whatever she criticizes them for. The accusation, as applied to Rove, is that he is a machiavellian, faking sympathy for the common man. That's true enough, as it goes. The accusations applied to Obama/kerry and gore are that they are elites, perverts, and weak sisters whose very aspirations to power are suspect and dangerous. Maybe she uses the language of elites vs populists to talk about both Rove and O/K/G but the valence is slightly different. After all she is only accusing Rove of being a faker in the service of the republican party. She never really challenges the republican party's right as a matter of policy to arrogate to itself the standard of champion of hte working class. Whereas she relentlessly ties the imagined sexual and other fallibilities of democratic candidates to the party as a whole. When she makes fun of Obama she is making fun of the party, the voters, and telling republican voters that its ok to vote against that fake black/elite/gay guy. When she briefly criticizes a republican she pulls back before she ties them to their entire party or to the party's voters.

aimai

[Batocchio]

That's a sharp analysis, aimai. It reminds me of FDR being accused of being a "traitor to his class," and some of the similar (but differently worded) smears thrown Edwards' way. We have a millionaire press corps that consistently accuses rich Democratic candidates of being inauthentic and untrustworthy, while Republicans who practice class warfare for the rich and powerful are somehow preferable when they try to pass legislation that will benefit themselves and their pals. Oh, and the GOP is somehow trustworthy even when they lie about their policies. There's a very deep disdain for the DFHs and reformers, but what's particularly maddening is how it's reflexive, a given assumption, and to a degree unconscious among the pundit class. Dowd might have made a few decent points for once, but as always, she's still doing so in the larger framework of implicit, false assertions with dangerous consequences.

[mwg]

Every couple of years, I read a Dowd column that's worthwhile. She's due again in 2010.