Grisly Mamas

Grisly Mamas

Conservative housewives have the same desire for power and respect that liberal women do. No wonder women comprise half of the Tea Party movement.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

There are lots of conservative white women voters in America. In 2000, white women went for Bush by one point; in 2004, 55 percent chose Bush over Kerry; and in 2008, after all we’d been through, 53 percent chose McCain over Obama. In a way, when we feminists and progressives talk about "women voters" in that rah-rah EMILY’s List way, we are buying our own propaganda, because really it’s women of color, especially black women, who push "women" solidly into the Democratic camp. By speaking so generally about "women"—whom pundits subdivide into silly pseudodemographics like "waitress moms," "security moms," "Sex and the City voters" and so on, each of which receives a specially crafted message—we make it hard to see right-wing women as anything but bizarre exceptions or (more kindly) as women just waiting for the brilliant appeal to some self-interest they didn’t know they had.

This mindset explains why so many are surprised that the Tea Party is full of women. It’s man bites dog, er, make that woman bites cat—females are supposed to be liberal. A widely cited Quinnipiac University poll reported that the majority of Tea Partyers—55 percent—were women, and Ruth Rosen wrote a thoughtful piece setting out possible reasons why. According to Gallup, women are 45 percent of the Tea Party, but whatever the exact figure, it’s safe to say there are a whole lot of Mama Grizzlies out there.

What’s strange about that? Men may control political parties and movements, but across the political spectrum women are the workhorses. Indeed, movements have to engage women as well as men or they won’t get very far. White women mobilized against women’s suffrage and for the KKK, which had hundreds of thousands of female auxiliaries back when the KKK was a respectable family organization. They were grassroots activists in the John Birch Society and the insurgent Goldwater wing of the Republican Party. Then as now, women mobilized as mothers, ordinary women reluctantly laying aside their oven mitts to go out and save America from moral rot. "In the cold war era," historian Michelle Nickerson, author of the forthcoming Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right, told me, "women on the right were…on the phone, knocking on doors, getting signatures, planning events, opening bookstores, going to study groups, etc. They were incredibly effective and they created a powerful anti-statist gender ideology that fuels conservative women’s politics still." (As a housewife quoted in Rick Perlstein’s Before the Storm told Time magazine in 1961, "I just don’t have time for anything. I’m fighting communism three nights a week.")

Historically, right-wing women were put to organizing one another and kept away from real power. That’s the sad story of Phyllis Schlafly, who had to concentrate on antifeminism because there was no future for her in foreign policy. But heck, it’s 2010, and right-wing women are tired of licking envelopes and knocking on doors to elect yet another jowly good ol’ boy. Go Nikki Haley! These days conservative women work, and fundamentalist stay-home moms want to be in public life. They have the same desire for power and respect and a place in the sun that liberal women do. The antiabortion, anti–gay rights and Christian fundamentalist movements funneled right-wing women into party politics; now the Tea Party adds a note of faux kitchen-table "common sense": why shouldn’t the government have to balance its budget the way a family does? Why should the virtuous taxpayer "bail out" the lazy and imprudent? Why is this Muslim Kenyan communist running the country?

A lot of liberals are making fun of Sarah Palin’s "Mama Grizzlies" ad for her SarahPac. Over scenes of white women waving (or wearing) flags, carrying Tea Party signs (Moms Opposed to Mandates—Unconstitutional), attending rallies and having photo ops with Palin herself, the weirdly urgent, electric voice of Palin delivers a speech of apparent contentlessness: women are going to "get things done for our country," are having "kind of a mom awakening," "because moms kinda just know when something’s wrong." That’s right, sisters: you don’t want to mess with Mama Grizzlies when someone’s coming after their cubs! To an outsider the ad looks vacuous and unprofessional—didn’t they know they had to salt the visuals with more black and brown faces? And how come the only politician you see is Sarah? But the message couldn’t be clearer: white conservative women blah blah blah! Tax cuts yes, healthcare reform no! We want our country back! In a country where 55 percent tell pollsters Obama is a socialist, that’s really all you need. You can fill in the candidates’ names later, when you send in your check.

Are the Tea Party women feminists, as Palin now says she is? The F-word must be on a roll if this canny opportunist is claiming it, but Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton would turn over in their graves at the thought. Feminism has made it possible for right-wing women to play a bigger role in politics than their John Birch predecessors—for example, as Nickerson points out, feminist-driven changes in gender roles have made conservative men more comfortable working with women. But a feminist is someone who, whatever her personal choices, actually supports equality for women—all women. It isn’t someone whose main political goal is akin to the notorious Tea Party declaration, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"—i.e., let’s shred the safety net, except for the bits that help me. When Tea Party darling Sharron Angle, who wants to criminalize all abortion without exception, says a 13-year-old raped by her father should turn a "lemon situation into lemonade" and have the baby, this is not feminism—it’s the saccharine cruelty of the truly oblivious.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x