
Tag Archives: politics

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

“There’s never been a colored, a Jew, a Democrat, a Yankee, a queer, or a woman as Mayor of this town and there never will be!”
I glanced up from my notes to study the odd little man in his Oshkosh overalls, Penny’s plaid shirt, knee-high Frye boots and Tom Mix hat.
His cohorts called him Red. I don’t know if he was christened that, or nicknamed for the color of his neck — but it certainly didn’t stem from embarrassment by him, or any of the men at that district Republican Committee meeting rewarding him with whistles and a rousing applause as I sat alone in the far back corner of the small auditorium, recording the forum as a favor to the absent president of our local Republican Women’s Club.
And, all I could think was — what luck!
I wasn’t a committee member, so I couldn’t object without risking the security of self. But I was born in the small town that hosted the first Republican convention, under the oaks on July 6, 1854. An obscure granite rock with a bruised bronze plague once sat on a tiny patch of treeless grass, three short blocks from where I spent my most mis-informative years.
Back then, the rites of passage included adopting both the religion and political party affiliation of your parents. My parents were protestant and Republican. I’m neither, but during my juvenescence, I feigned being both.
The reality is, religion and politics have never been roadblocks for me. I tend to accept that we’re all going to believe what we need to believe in order to survive our slippery slope slide from here into hereafter. However, the pretense of politics alarms me, and it is the reason I always encourage women to run for public office.
I have.
It’s easier than you think, and more satisfying than you dare to imagine.
After filling out the simple forms with the Americanized spelling of my last name and paying a nominal filing fee, I learned you aren’t required to raise money, put up signs, hand out cards, take out ads, stand on street corners in inclement weather inhaling exhaust while waving to commuters — or even to serve if elected. All of which I did not do.
Instead, I entered the citywide race for Mayor because I could. And, because I learned the Mayor was in charge of the police force that allegedly created computer software profiling every resident according to age, gender, race, religion, political affiliation, marital status and coded lifestyle.
I ran because the Mayor had the power to veto city council legislation.
I ran because the personal voting records of all residents, their addresses, and phone numbers can be made available to campaign camps via their candidate.
I ran because it’s possible for local elected officials to access sensitive census information about their neighbors.
Ultimately, I ran to be be given equal time to speak at all candidate gatherings, lunches, forums, debates, and media interviews, followed by unlimited time to answer questions. Places where I could tell the people about the profiling, veto capability, records reality, and potential for both discrimination and profiteering to the detriment of the electorate should the information be misused by unscrupulous officials with a personal agenda to advance.
But chiefly, I ran because I was told by Party heads, “You cannot.”
“And yet,” I said, “I can.”
“You can’t run as a Republican.”
“Unless I’m registered as a Republican. Then I can.”
“It’s a nonpartisan race, so no one will know.”
“Unless it’s leaked.”
“You won’t have the backing of the Republican Party.”
Aye, and there’s the sub rosa.
Most of us like to think we’re supporting a candidate who shares our convictions and has our best interests in mind.
Go.
Run for office.
That’s when you learn it’s the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and corporations funding them that dictates the conversation, feeds the media, and virtually runs this country in a Charlie-McCarthy-meets-Jerry-Mahoney-manner, where those connected contingents funnel all the money solicited from donors into the war chests of the candidates they’ve preselected to win.
I kid you not.
The nominees of both the RNC and DNC sign a Party platform pledge to toe the Party line, in order to receive the financial clout of the RNC, or DNC, because the chances of winning an election for those who don’t sign — even on a local level — are zip, zero, nada, nil.
And, get this: Those war chests can be used to funnel funds for phone banks to robocall citizens who have a voting history of going to the polls on odd, even, and off years. • They can funnel funds for surveys with contrived questions for the ostensible purpose of suggesting nonexistent improprieties practiced by the opposing party. • They can funnel funds for spamming newspapers with testimonial templates to praise one candidate, or deride the other, or push an agenda, or create confusion, or imply majority support, with each letter signed and sent by a party faithful — so it appears to the public as an original thought and legitimate concern rather than a parroted message. • They can funnel funds for business owners to be visited by party members offering recommendations on which candidates to support, along with a friendly suggestion of how valuable it is to have a customer base of political party members. • They can funnel funds for whisper campaigns, leaked to small presses, controlled by deep pocket party-pleasers, linked to online sites willing to post the disinformation.
And, get this: The strategies for beating your opponent are all recorded (or were when I ran) in an instruction manual detailing how to sway an election to a preferred candidate with news stories clouded by opinion. Where the media inserts the words ‘could, might, alleged, contend, claim, may, and if’ for ‘can, is, are, and will’ to report a ‘possible’ truth. Where newspaper corrections to falsehoods are buried in places no one reads. Where editorials aren’t required to be factual.
The old, paraphrased maxim still holds true: The most dangerous woman in the world is the one who can’t be bought.
That’s where running for political office serves as the American dream. Because running to lose by telling the unmitigated truth assures that your voice will be heard.
And isn’t that what we all want? To be heard?
When I ran for office, my words were so well heard, by the time election day rolled around they’d been stolen and used to further the campaigns of others running for even higher offices.
So, ladies, that’s how you make change happen. Not by sitting behind a safe screen, typing out rhetoric about what’s wrong with the country and who’s to blame. And, not by writing a check, convinced your donation will contribute to making this nation better and stronger.
Run for office.
Attend every avenue available for you to get up and speak. Recognize freedom of speech for the priceless gift it is. Say what’s in your heart. Ignore naysayers. Concentrate on connecting with real people. And experience the exhilaration that comes from putting your mouth where your mind is.
In the final analysis, the financial reports required to be filed by all candidates indicated the incumbent spent around one hundred and twenty-five dollars per ballot cast in favor of him to wage his campaign against me, while I didn’t spend a dime.
On election night I lost by less than 100 votes.
No, not once.
Twice.
Because the next time around I ran for school board, losing by lesser votes.
Whew!
#. # #.
Seriously, Mom, you didn’t know? By Marguerite Quantaine • Copyright © 2018
HUSH, HUSH SWEET CHARLATAN
MY SISTER KATE BELIEVED IN THE TRUTH. She thought she recognized it, practiced it, and that it would always prevail.
But I’m not sure truth ever was or can be. Nor am I certain of its prevalence in society today since all alleged truth stems from whatever was written beforeus, as if verified as absolute fact.
And given that even the most inspired of wordsmiths are writers-at-soul, we each must choose from multiple abstracts of speech, edicts, merged thoughts, external influence, doubt in some entities, unbalanced confidence in others, and a necessity for meticulous punctuation in order to advance beliefs — all while knowing the end result will be subjected to individual interpretation using multiple mediums regardless of the author’s intent.
Enter the innate willingness for many to automatically believe whatever is being told them and — worse yet — parroting those narratives as if each utterance was an original thought from which errors can be justified by citing a misdi- rected faith in the charisma of charlatans dressed in fleece.
Please don’t get me wrong by taking me out of context.
I harbor no objection to faith. It’s an effective, convenient, efficient, popular, time-honored tradition that’s both easier to embrace than most of us are willing to admit and necessary for the survival of both the fittest and unfit.
What I question is an inclination to believe the worst in others, as if in doing so we’ll esteem ourselves to those whose alliance we crave.
What I find dubious is our rallying to deny rights to those unwilling to join school cliques, group cliques, office cliques, organization cliques, political cliques, and awards cliques.
What I cannot fathom is the instant exclusion of those we’ve never met nor ever spoken to based solely on what’s been heard from a friend, relative, or associate about a stranger.
Think of how many times you’ve united against bullying in our schools over the past decade, assailing the abusiveness of name-callers as detriments to society.
And yet, sixty million Americans voted for a name-caller to lead this nation and participated in the notion of locking up a person who has never been indicted, arrested, booked, tried, or convicted of any crime in her lifetime while another hundred million Americans capable of taking action chose to do nothing at all.
In a patriarchal society (which ours is) I can understand how misogyny can flourish among males. But the implausibility of misogyny is such that I cannot understand how it thrives among females!
Except… I do?
Perhaps it’s because every news anchor, commentator, journalist, politician, and figurehead over the years fail to question the ecclesiastical elephant in the room.
I first recognized the enormity of its presence forty-two years ago when I refused to attend my brother Michael’s wedding.
At the time, I’d been in love with my Elizabeth for seven years, a woman who’d not only been crucial to saving my life after a catastrophic car crash, but had eagerly, earnestly, and single-handedly tended to my long-term recovery for five of those seven years. Nevertheless, the invitation to my brother’s nuptials didn’t list Elizabeth’s name, nor did it include her as a plus-one option.
As a result, I declined the invitation.
Now before you feel any indignation on my behalf, please, don’t. Remember, it was 1977. Homosexuality had only recently been declassified as a mental disease, while me and mine remained labeled by law as felons at risk of being sentenced as such. We were outlaws, social misfits, deviants, and — worse yet — a cause for embarrassment.
Even now, there are communities in America where being homosexual is portrayed as justification to detain, although not prosecutable; municipalities where dissident gender profiling can divert police from responding to assaults, or delay ambulances from arriving in a timely manner; where medical treatment is subpar and getting away with causing a death as a result could go unnoticed or be ignored altogether. (It’s at this you should take umbrage.)
My brother’s wedding was viewed as a big deal because, of six children (all of us then in our 30s), only two were married. It was likely his union would mark the last chance for my mom to be a mother-of-the-intended ever again. So, even though it was discreetly discussed and agreed that my Elizabeth should have been invited, I was nonetheless demonized for my decision not to go — right up until the portion of the actual ceremony where the bride agreed to obeyher husband. It caused my sisters and mother to storm through our front door several hours later echoing each other.
“Thank God you weren’t at the wedding, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, oh my God, thank you for not coming! You would have caused an uproar. Even we nearly did!”
It’s true. They knew me well. I’ve never taken kindly to being submissive to, or even particularly respectful of, male authority. At very least, any sacred pledge to obey would have made me gasp conspicuously, if not trigger an audible spontaneous, “No-o-o!”
Which returns us to those questions unwritten by journalists, unspoken by news anchors and commentators, unsought by pollsters, unaccounted for in election booths, unstatesman-like in Congress, unaddressed by constituencies, unadulterated, unanticipated, unalterable, unapologetic, unassuaged, unappeasable, unsettlingly, unstudied, and (perhaps) unassailable, untouchable, untenable, and even unrighteous in the final analysis.
But not unaskable.
Does a woman’s pledge to obey her husband require being dutiful to his choice of candidates when she is casting her ballot? And if so, does that mean America has become a Silent Theocracy?
###
This is an excerpt from
Seriously, Mom, you didn’t know?
by Marguerite Quantaine ©2019
First published as an essay © 2016 @margueritequantaine.com
Marguerite Quantaine is an essayist and novelist who values your opinion and appreciates you for sharing this with others.
Please select LEAVE A REPLY by clicking below the Hush. Hush Sweet Charlatan headline.
•
BOOKS BY MARGUERITE QUANTAINE ON KINDLE & IN PAPERBACK CAN BE FOUND ON AMAZON & AVAILABLE IN BOOKSTORES NATIONWIDE. You are urged to LOOK INSIDE for a try-before-you-buy for a FREE READ of the first 3 chapters on Amazon.


