Avoiding all-or-nothingism discussing female politicians

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had a somewhat tense encounter with some young Green New Deal activists recently. I haven't seen the video of the encounter but I find the headlines of the commentary pieces illuminating. Either Feinstein is a doddering old fool who condescended to passionately idealistic youngsters who would have preferred she help them change the world, or, as the subtitle to an Atlantic piece put it, "Confronted by passionate schoolchildren, the senator held a master class in patience, grace, and asserting her well-earned authority".

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has been accused of abusive behavior by (anonymous) former staffers, first in BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post, then in the New York Times. Again, the commentary has been illuminating (especially since I've read some of it), with opinions split between "there's no excuse for throwing stuff at your staff, no matter your sex" and "isn't it odd that female senators top the Senate's 'bad boss' list?". An example of the latter comes from Laura McGann in Vox; her piece is, "The suspiciously sexist views of Amy Klobuchar's management style, explained".

Yes, it is odd and troubling that, as McGann notes,

Of the top 10 “worst bosses” in the Senate in 2016, seven were women and just three were men. At the time, then, about a third of female senators were worse bosses than nearly 96 percent of all male senators. That could be objectively true. Or maybe there’s something else going on.

The accusation that sexism underlies Klobuchar's former staffers' complaints does not sit well with them since so many of those who spoke to reporters were women. As McGann notes, "Their point is that women can be bad bosses. They should be held accountable for their actions, even if men have gotten a pass for too long."

Then McGann continues:

At an individual level, this makes sense. ...

In aggregate, though, there’s a red flag waving above the Klobuchar narrative. The breadth of complaints extend beyond egregious behavior. The handful of truly bad boss moments from the last decade-and-a-half are dwarfed by more modest complaints that are taken to an extreme. Klobuchar once quipped that she was so thirsty she’d trade three of the staffers next to her for a bottle of water. Is it the nicest thing to say? No. Is it probably a joke? Yes. Is it proof a decade later that she shouldn’t be president? Come on.

That second paragraph is an example of what's wrong with the defenses of Klobuchar I've read.

There are more serious complaints about Klobuchar that merit discussion and consideration. She blocked (however passively) one of her aides' opportunity to work in the Obama Treasury Department, McGann notes. That may, in the end, not be relevant to how she'd do as president, but offhand I can say I'm glad I know that happened. She threw a binder in anger; it hit one of her staffers. She apparently wasn't aiming at the staffer. These things are good to know. Whether binders hit anyone or are intended to hit anyone might not matter: some might wonder whether throwing binders at all is something a president should do.

McGann points out, correctly, that men who are objectively putzes are seen as "strong" leaders, with the famously volatile and abusive Rahm Emanuel being the quintessential example of an asshole who nevertheless hasn't been hurt by his eruptions.

Maybe he should have been.

Maybe we should have been less than happy that Obama chose Emanuel as his chief of staff. Maybe we should have registered our disgust with Emanuel's bothersome track record.

Maybe Congress should have refused to seat Rep. Greg Gianforte after he body-slammed a reporter. You might think he's a man's man (and if so you and I should not socialize) but is that kind of quickness to violence what you really want in the guy supposedly trying to work with other elected reps to get stuff accomplished?

Maybe it's not good enough to give Klobuchar a free pass just because a bunch of men have gotten away with just as bad, or even worse, behavior. Maybe it would be better to stop holding men to a laxer standard.

As to Feinstein, the Atlantic piece by Caitlin Flanagan makes her out to be the patient, wise elder teaching a bunch of ignorant, misbehaving children that the world isn't all unicorns and rainbows.

It’s the most wildly transgressive thing you’ve ever seen. Children are our future! They must be coddled and exalted, their ideas about politics and the environment received as though they are the unpublished thoughts of Bertrand Russell. Seeing their rudeness treated in the measured and unyielding way that adults use to speak to misbehaving children is weirdly thrilling.

The condescension that oozes from every line of Flanagan's piece is difficult to stomach, especially since it emanates from a sense that women past a certain age have a wisdom that does not permit contradiction. In fact, the problem with Flanagan's piece isn't Feinstein's attitude so much as Flanagan's. Feinstein might well have been justified in lecturing these kids, but Flanagan asserts not just that Feinstein has earned her right to be dismissive, but that the kids had it coming to them for being so entitled as to insist on a meeting with their senator.

Flanagan's piece characterizes those who demanded the meeting as "[a] group of jackbooted tots and aggrieved teenagers". Oh, that was your attempt at humor? Ah. Well. It flopped. As did your whole argument.

Maybe it's possible to admit that Feinstein was justified in being exasperated with her very young constituents' stridency, even while admitting that their concern is about as justified as anything can be. Maybe explaining all the reasons she thinks she can't help was less useful than figuring out how she could.

For crying out loud, you don't have to be a raging misogynist to think Klobuchar's and Feinstein's critics might have a point. You also don't have to think Klobuchar or Feinstein is unfit for public office to be one of their critics, either.

It is not an attack on women, or female politicians, or even these female politicians, to admit to being troubled by these stories. Not, anyway, unless you relish ass-kicking and consdescension when perpetrated by a man. Which I don't, and which I'd bet a lot of others don't, either.

Can we get a little nuance, people?

(I have a suggestion that might help, especially with the Klobuchar situation. Can we get a few stories about why the men on the Senate's "bad bosses" list go through staffers so quickly? Do they throw binders, too? Or do they do even worse things, perhaps?)

Trusting Trump is fatal

Andrew McCabe's book, to be released tomorrow, is already being pilloried by Trump supporters. They're pointing out that he's an alleged liar (the FBI's inspector general accuses McCabe of lying to department officials about leaks to reporters) and accuse him of attempting a coup against Trump by contemplating removing Trump from office via the 25th Amendment.

So the choice before us is, should we trust Andrew McCabe or Donald Trump?

That's not a choice that should comfort Trump or his supporters. In fact, Trump's supporters really should question whether their trust in him is well-advised.

First, let's consider the 25th Amendment story. The 25th Amendment requires buy-in from not just the Vice President but a majority of the Cabinet. Trump picked every one of these people. Could they have been enticed or coerced into taking such action?

Well, if they could have been enticed, they wouldn't be trustworthy or loyal. That would speak poorly of Trump's vetting process and/or his judgment of character.

If they could have been coerced, that would suggest the Deep State (TM) has truly frightening power. Yet consider this: nobody has tried it. If the Deep State (TM) has that power, why hasn't it acted?

The more logical interpretation of McCabe's 25th-Amendment story is, Trump's outward behavior and statements were so at odds with U.S. national interests that senior government officials whose job it is to watch for threats to national security had to consider the possibility that he was acting with ulterior, dangerous motives.

Now, as for McCabe the alleged liar, let's assume he did lie as the FBI inspector general says. That's one proven lie. Trump has lied hundreds if not thousands of times, in public. He lies as readily as he eats.

Even if McCabe is found to have lied as the FBI inspector general alleges, his credibility is infinitely better than Trump's. Trump has zero credibility except among his own supporters.

Trump lies to justify his misbegotten policies. He accuses legitimate experts, including his own Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, of lying or being deluded when they contradict him with facts and truth.

Trump lies by omission, too. He will not produce his tax returns. What has he to hide? (Incidentally, his claim that his returns are unavailable due to being audited is also a lie: the IRS does not prevent him or anyone else from releasing a return that is being audited.)

Why hasn't Trump told anyone else in his administration what was said in his private meetings and phone calls with Vladimir Putin? Why did he try to hide that those meetings and calls even took place?

Is Putin holding something over Trump's head?

Is Trump acting in Putin's best interests rather than the U.S.'s?

Trump doesn't just lie about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. He lies about really, really important things, too, things that affect the whole country — like the fact that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the 2016 election.

Trusting Trump isn't just unpatriotic. Trusting Trump is fatal for the country.

[UPDATE: Corrected to note that it was the FBI's inspector general, not the Department of Justice's, that accused McCabe of lying.]

Amy Klobuchar didn't address the biggest critique of her

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight. Maddow asked the senator about the several stories now getting a fair bit of play about what a problematic boss she is. To quote the Politico piece (which itself cribs from the Huffington Post and BuzzFeed):

The run-up to Klobuchar’s expected presidential campaign launch on Sunday was sidetracked by former aides, speaking anonymously for fear of retribution, who described a toxic office environment including demeaning emails, thrown office supplies and requests for staff to perform personal chores for the senator. It’s a sharp departure from the public brand that Klobuchar has built to get to this moment: a pragmatic, aw-shucks Minnesotan who gets things done and wins her state by landslide margins.

[links omitted]

In answer to Maddow, Klobuchar acknowledged that she's a "demanding" boss, but noted that she has several long-serving staffers and that others who left later returned to her staff.

That's all well and good, but it ignores the issue at hand.

Many of us have worked for demanding bosses. However, a demanding boss is not the same as an abusive one.

I've had demanding bosses whom I respected because they never abused their authority. Such bosses weren't always shy about rebuking me when I didn't meet their expectations, but they rebuked without yelling or throwing things.

Holding subordinates to high standards is practically a job requirement for a president. But another practically-a-job-requirement is keeping your cool under trying circumstances. Klobuchar has not denied any of the troubling incidents alleged in the press, which raises the question of whether she could hold onto talented staffers if she became president.

Klobuchar herself is in a particularly tough spot because her political brand trades on "Minnesota niceness". The allegations by former staffers strike at the heart of that branding. Niceness is supposed to extend to your subordinates as well as voters and fellow elected officials. You can be demanding and (relatively) nice at the same time.

Klobuchar has to convince people like me, people who have no other reason to dislike or to distrust her, either that she understands she has a problem, or that these allegations are false. Right now they're hanging out there in the wind, shadowing her, and she's just taking pretend swings at them. She looks evasive rather than forthright.

A crappy temper is not a disqualifying trait for a president. All things being equal I'd rather have one who doesn't have that problem, but nobody is perfect and I will happily pull the lever for Klobuchar if that's her biggest flaw — but only if she recognizes it and she pledges to get help addressing it.