Bush Still Backward On Women’s Issues
          by Joe Conason

          Among the most admirable aspects of George W. Bush’s public
          persona is his respect for the women who work for him. His ease
          with female leadership at the highest levels of his campaign and in
          the Oval Office suggests that he is in fact a man of his generation,
          however often he denigrates the liberal activism that revived the
          movement for sexual equality.

          The recent resignation of Karen Hughes, the most important
          woman in his political life, displayed the skills that made her so
          valuable to him as the White House communications czarina.
          Skepticism was abandoned as the media beatified her (and
          indirectly her boss) with an aura of familial loyalty and powerful
          sisterhood. One need not doubt Ms. Hughes’ stated concerns
          about her family or her yearning for her home state to notice that
          symbolism and personality have, as usual, overwhelmed substance
          in the gooey tributes to her from the Washington press corps.

          Aside from her rigid control of the meager, saccharine diet of information doled out
          to those same admiring journalists, the greatest service Ms. Hughes has performed
          for Mr. Bush was to soften the edges of his right-wing agenda. A moderate by
          contrast with his other advisers, she was among the chief promoters of
          "compassionate conservatism," a theme to which he returned this week. Her very
          presence at his side blurred the pious Texan’s attraction to the misogynist and
          patriarchal ideology of the religious right, and to advisers such as Marvin Olasky,
          who extol the Biblical "submission" of women to their husbands.

          For the upper-middle-class opinion elite that dominates political discourse in the
          capital, this bland, unthreatening and very Republican feminism is the only
          acceptable version of "identity politics." While serving an obvious political need, and
          catering to the career aspirations of a few well-connected women, it does little or
          nothing to mitigate policies that injure the female population beyond the Beltway.

          Indeed, despite the well-publicized power of Ms. Hughes and National Security
          Advisor Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration has eroded rather than
          advanced the cause of women in government. Among the first actions taken by Mr.
          Bush after his inauguration was to shut down the White House Office for Women’s
          Initiatives and Outreach, thus removing the Presidential imprimatur from its mission
          of addressing women’s problems in federal agencies. When this backward step was
          criticized, the excuse offered by Ms. Hughes’ spokesminions was that the office had
          "expired at the end of President Clinton’s term." They promised that its expiration
          wouldn’t affect the new administration’s "outreach" on behalf of women.

          The hollowness of that soothing reassurance soon became painfully clear.
          Whenever they "reached out," the hands of the White House budget managers were
          holding a big ax. They quietly moved to abolish the 10 regional offices of the Dept. of
          Labor’s Women’s Bureau, crippling the department’s capacity to enforce female-friendly
          laws and regulations (despite the presence of a woman as Labor Secretary).

          By the end of 2001, the hopes of Republican feminists had been thoroughly
          disappointed. The Brookings Institution’s ongoing study of Presidential appointments
          showed last December that only 26 percent of jobs requiring Senate confirmation -
          meaning top executive and foreign-service positions —had been awarded to women.
          This represented a sharp drop from the Clinton administration, which gave an
          unprecedented 46 percent of Senate-confirmed offices to women during its first year.

          Meanwhile, the male appointees in Mr. Bush’s cabinet didn’t hesitate to express
          their hostility to reproductive rights and women’s issues. Tommy Thompson, the
          conservative zealot who runs the Department of Health and Human Services,
          promulgated a new regulation that extends health coverage under the Children’s
          Health Insurance Program to fetuses rather than pregnant women. A few weeks
          later, budget director Mitch Daniels struck again, this time attempting to eliminate
          contraceptive coverage from federal employees’ health-insurance plans.

          This year, the President’s budget proposals would damage the interests of women in
          a variety of other ways, cutting away at day care, after-school programs and student
          loans. Or perhaps that’s the wrong way to put it, since there are women who benefit
          from Bush policies. They happen to be very wealthy women whose incomes were
          increased by the tax cut, and very conservative women whose political prominence
          is enhanced by association with the White House.

          For most American women, however—whose interests are hardly identical with those
          of the Republican right—the Bush record hasn’t been improved by Karen Hughes and
          won’t be affected by her departure. Another woman may be named to take her place,
          but that would make about as much difference as Karl Rove putting on a dress.

          You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.

Privacy Policy
. .