Someday, when Americans have learned to live the true meaning of our creed, a Supreme Court nomination of a woman, a Latino, an African-American or any other variety of human being — including a gay man or woman — will provoke no comment or concern. Until then, we should applaud every step toward that future. The latest is President Barack Obama’s choice of Elena Kagan to become the third female justice among the nine justices on the nation’s highest court.
Beyond the inevitable and proper inquiries about the character and views of his latest nominee, Obama’s decision tells us something important about him, too. Surely he appreciates her reputation as a conciliator who listens to all sides. He is probably reassured by the fact that the Senate easily confirmed her last year as solicitor general. But what this nomination reminds us is that he is not only the first African-American in the Oval Office, but the first president raised on feminist principles, as well.
As he stood next to Kagan in announcing her selection, Obama referred to her late mother, a public elementary school teacher who showed a special interest in bright little girls.
“I think she would relish, as do I,” said the president, “the prospect of three women taking their seat on the nation’s highest court for the first time in history — a court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
Certain exceptions on the far right aside, the potential elevation of Kagan has been met with admirable restraint so far. Critics have noted that her written record is thin compared with previous nominees, especially for a former Harvard Law Review editor and Harvard Law School dean. At 50, she is relatively young, lacks extensive experience in a courtroom and has none as a judge (thanks to the Republican senators who refused to permit a hearing when President Clinton nominated her to the federal bench). The daughter of immigrant parents, a lawyer and a teacher, she was a highly talented girl who won admission to the finest colleges and universities, strictly on merit.
We may have reached a milestone when nobody complains that she was chosen as an affirmative action candidate. Perhaps any Democratic president would have nominated two women in succession to the court. Perhaps a Republican president will eventually do likewise. But it is nevertheless worth noting that this president did so now — and that he grew up in a family of independent-minded feminist women who were unfazed by a culture of male domination.
Remember that his mother, Ann, though unlucky in marriage, was deeply persistent, adventurous and professional in her career as an anthropologist. This “girl from Kansas” brought her children with her to distant lands, and even left teenage Barry with his grandparents for a time while she worked abroad.
Recall also that his beloved grandmother Madelyn Dunham, whom he knew as “Toot,” was a working woman who rose daily before dawn to arrive at the bank where she toiled for more than 20 years until, at long last, she won promotion to vice president. Owing to her gender, her advancement came far more slowly than she deserved — and the fact that she earned more than her husband was often a source of friction at home.
Today, there is nothing unusual about a bank vice president — or a peripatetic academic — who happens to be female. Back when Obama was growing up, however, those two brave women shaped his outlook profoundly. We cannot yet know how three female justices will change the culture of the court and the jurisprudence of the nation. But the dream that Elena Kagan cherished and pursued just became a little easier for other girls to imagine.
Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). Copyright 2010 Creators.com
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.