Why the racial overtones?

After the recent mid-terms, there was a great deal of celebration that women had won so many places in the House (and not the one they used to clean.) In our area, four women are going to D.C., the largest number of females to serve in Congress on our behalf since, well, ever.

It is, objectively, news.

It is not news that all of the women are Democrats, because this was the midterm election that was going to school Donald Trump in what it means to resist.

It would make no sense to send a Republican woman to Capitol Hill because, the thinking goes, the president would have taken that as affirmation of his agenda.

So the writing on the ladies’ bathroom wall written in bright pink lipstick was a message that progressive women were going to change the course of the country.

So far, not necessarily a problem. While I don’t share much in common with progressive women, I’m generally happy when I see members of my gender break barriers.

But the evolving narrative around these midterms had a more troubling subtext that quickly became the lead story, namely that those who voted Republican had voted for racism, and especially those women who had voted Republican were forced into those racist votes by their husbands.

I heard a version of this theory on a recent interview that aired last week on WHYY’s Radio Times.

Entitled “Women at the 2018 Mid-Terms,” host Marty Moss-Coane held a roundtable discussion with three women who provided their own opinions on what had happened, why that had happened and what was the impact it was likely to have in 2020 and beyond.

I am a member of WHYY. I listen all the time, and this year I even succumbed to the guilt during one of their membership drives and ponied up for one of their sustaining memberships. I appreciate public radio. As I conservative, I know I’m not supposed to say that.

As someone who hosts her own radio show on a conservative talk station, that might even sound like heresy. But there is no getting around the fact that I enjoy hearing different perspectives.

The perspectives I hear on NPR are as reflective of my own views as Radio Free Europe reflected Stalin’s, but I enjoy those voices from the other side.

Except when they become strident, offensive, and unbalanced.

And that is what happened during that interview about the midterms. Marty was her usual fair self, but the guests were all aligned against Donald Trump, conservatives, the GOP and most especially, women who did not vote to put other progressive women in office.

One of the guests, who shall remain nameless because I don’t want to give her any more publicity than she already got from the show, opined that a woman who voted for Republicans was unavoidably voting for racism.

She also stated that they were voting the way that their husbands wanted them to.

Another guest seconded that position, and suggested that this was because those married women voted for their own economic interests, which presumably aligned closely with those of their partners.

Hearing these comments, I almost choked on my coffee. And then I got angry, and penned a very polite email to Marty Moss-Coane. It ended this way:

I will continue to be a member of WHYY … but it is extremely troubling to hear that kind of commentary on a station that I, a Republican, single woman, support with both my money and my voice.

Marty responded the next day, respectfully, and explained that the station attempts a balance of voices. I appreciate that, which is the reason I’m a member.

But I suggested that perhaps the next time there is a discussion on women and politics, they invite a real live conservative to the table so she could be called a racist to her face.

That would be great radio, don’t you think?