As some of you know, I posted a rant four years ago here: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=158425.msg3405535#msg3405535
Now, I was still forming my political views and I've started to identify what bothers me and what doesn't. One of the things I dislike about the democrats is not women qua women but rather the loss of local-minded politicians. Guys like Emanuel Celler would, for instance, come home to Brooklyn on the weekend and have constituent services in his house
, often uninvited. It seems in those days, almost everyone in the district knew you by name and what not.
This is the point the pro-term limit people miss. It prevents you from getting to know your congressman and instead - leads to a sort of Manchurian Candidate type of thing. I also think the OMG HILLARY CLINTON IS CORRUPT people also miss the point. It's not that she's corrupt per se
but that she seems manufactured. Guys like Jim Wright and Rosty were corrupt - but they were also guys who were friendly and not the type to be so caged in there responses and have a kajillion consultants telling them what to say. While it is true that neither Wright nor Rosty had much private sector experience - they seem like the type of guys who would have been working in the private sector had they not held elected office. They didn't have the sort of overeducated air to them that Clinton had.
Also, I'm of the view that ideology is the problem and that politicians should focus more on cutting ribbons, and bringing home public works projects. This is what I call "town and gown" issues. Looking at old almanacs, it is mentioned that a lot of older congressman dislike having Nader and his cohorts showing up to committee hearings and flooding the house/senate members offices. It seems that what Nader did was to change the house from a "all politics is local" type of deal to a pet-issues heavy legislative body.
This kind of factors also into education, for whatever reason people who are "educated" tend to be more partisan than those without an education and it seems that less educated people who are not stupid per se but have a modicum of common sense seem to be more reasonable in voting. It also seems that they are more likely to want the kind of "town and gown" type figure rather than a miseducated wonk. This ties back to the fact that the "educated" states of Colorado and Virginia seem to have less of the "town and gown" type of pols and the more overeducated NGO-manufactured type of candidate seems more the case. These type of people are also married to people who are also part of that class and its rare that they met there spouse in a non-governmental way (i.e. working at the same manufacturing business).
Now, do these trends have anything to do with the rise of women in politics (especially in the democrats)? I don't know, but it does seem too much of a coincidence that the rise of "pet issue politics" happened at the same time second-wave feminism began. It seems for whatever reason that women pols don't have the sort of "old school pork-barrel" type of feel to them (not that many male pols are like that either anymore but most of the remaining town and gown dems are male). Mary Landrieu, when she was in office, seemed like the only dem that fit that description.
Anyone here agree with me or sense what I'm getting at?