Susan Faludi, writing in the Times, constructs quite the creative narrative of how the Democratic nomination battle is playing out in the "subbasement of the national imagination"(The Fight Stuff, May 9). She gives us two "archetypes" -- female candidate as prissy moralist umpire (bad) vs. same candidate as bar-brawling, rule-busting pugilist (good). Never mind the demagogic backbeat of Faludi's implicit cheerleading for the latter (under the guise of simply reporting what white working class men respond to). One question: where's her evidence that any voters of any ethnicity or gender are responding, positively or negatively, to these alleged archetypes? Or that those archetypes even exist in voters' minds?
I'm a freelance writer and media consultant with a lasting interest in how democracy works, how it malfunctions and self-corrects. Since fall 2013 I've focused increasingly on the unfolding drama of Affordable Care Act implementation and health reform more generally.
I have a Ph.D. in medieval English literature and a propensity to parse the rhetoric and logic of our political leaders as well as that of media pundits and scholars who jump into the national debate. I wrote a dissertation on the remarkably humane and subtle medieval English anchorite Julian of Norwich, a mystic nun whose knack of squaring circles and framing paradoxes reminds me a little of our current president. A sampling of that work (mind the google gaps) is here: http://bit.ly/OzwsrR