Obameter #119: The Domestic Abuse Czar

The promise: to ensure the federal government is doing all it can to prevent domestic violence by appointing a Presidential Adviser whose job will be to coordinate prevention policies and programs across all government agencies.

The action: Obama has appointed Lynn Rosenthal to be his adviser on violence against women. She served as the executive director of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and before that as the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. There was a recent editorial on the subject from the New York Times.

The promise: kept.

The criticism: opponents of the choice claim that domestic abuse prevention policy has been distorted by feminists to include only violence against women (thus ignoring the plight of abused men). They claim that Rosenthal is a prime example of that anti-male distortion of the issue. This view is exemplified by this rebuttal by Examiner.com (not to be confused with the National Examiner, a supermarket tabloid). A single line from this source expresses this view well: "Ms Rosenthal is no advocate for women, rather she is only an advocate for the feminist political viewpoint regarding the issue."

The analysis: whether Lynn Rosenthal is a good choice for the position depends on which side of the political divide is actually right. Previous to this research, I had no opinion about who was right or wrong here; is there a politically-motivated distortion of the issue, or is the divide caused by ill-informed paranoia formed into a political faction? In an attempt to posit an answer, I'll critique the debate between these two sides with the NYT piece and a piece from the Washington Post representing the established system and the Examiner.com article and another from the Heritage Foundation representing the opposing view. All four of these articles are editorials and, thus, face lesser fact-checking before publication.

The frequency of domestic abuse assaults is cited by all four articles: NYT says domestic violence affects "as many as one in four women"; the Washington Post says "women experience about 4.8 million" assaults every year (that's about 1 ½%) ; Trudy Schuett writes "there is no evidence that 'one in four' women are affected" for Examiner.com; and while the Heritage Foundation doesn't address any specific statistic, they opine that such figures are "often exaggerated by [measuring] whether or not a woman has ever been abused in her lifetime rather than whether or not abuse is occurring within a current romantic relationship". They proceed to claim that "around 20 to 30 percent" as a current abuse rate is only accurate for the highest-risk demographic of "older mothers on welfare", not women generally.

Digging around in a CDC report, I found the estimates "1.9 million women [...] are physically assaulted" and "1.3 million women [...] are physically assaulted by an intimate partner" annually. I don't know whether those groups overlap (I only read the 3 page Executive Summary, not the full 71 page report), but even if they don't it's still 3.2 million per year -- far too many, but significantly less than the 4.8 million claimed by the Post. They could both be telling the truth, though; maybe the Post's definitions are simply more inclusive, perhaps including unfulfilled threats of harm or estimating unreported violence.

I also side with the Heritage's point that lifetime figures do not accurately depict the current state of domestic violence. Overall, it does look like a little exaggeration for effect has wiggled it's way into the popularly cited statistics.

The Examiner piece claims that the fact the announcement "was relegated to the Vice President" shows disinterest in the issue from the Obama Administration. All evidence suggests, however, that domestic violence is a Biden pet issue. It makes sense for him to make the announcement given his deeper interest in the topic. The critics aren't impeccable with their judgments, either.

Lynn Rosenthal was once the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). Ms. Schuett criticizes that organization for "promot[ing] the questionable 'solution' of divorce as the only approach" to domestic violence. By my judgment, a physical assault from a spouse completely justifies the victim's choice to divorce. If Ms. Schuett is advocating that victims stay in abusive relationships she is clearly wrong.

But that's not clearly what she is doing. The Heritage source describes a "Healthy Marriage Initiative" that would teach young and especially at-risk couples how to create a healthy, successful marriage as a preventative measure against domestic violence. That is an alternative to both divorce and endurance of violence. This program has it's own grounds for criticism, the most obvious to me being the worry of increased government involvement in people's marriages and romantic relationships. And, just like the "more status quo" side of the issue, they have counter-arguments to these criticisms. Heritage says "participation in marriage programs will be voluntary; no one will be 'coerced' to participate."

It does seem that domestic violence against men is being largely ignored, both by Obama's appointment and by the established philosophy more generally. But every source I've found says that, statistically, men suffer from fewer instances of domestic violence and less harm per instance. It's not unreasonable to focus on the worst part of the problem with more emphasis.

It seems to me that the Examiner.com article degrades into politically partisan attacks after that, seemingly throwing every criticism she can think of against the wall to see what sticks. The Heritage proposal is more interesting to me, as it is both a positive construction of what should be done (rather than what should not) and because it is more calm, rational, and methodical in it's advocacy. In fact, the more I read the article the more I support it's advocated plan. It sounds like a great idea!

I'm going to cut this a little short - it's late and I'm sleepy. If the Obama administration is appointing Rosenthal as an alternative to Trudy Schuett's "do nothing" approach, I applaud the choice. If Ms. Rosenthal is being offered as an alternative to the philosophy and policies offered in the Heritage article, I believe a strong opportunity has been lost, perhaps even to political partisanship as has been alleged.

It is not which side you support that makes you right or wrong, but the quality of the argument you support. Of the four articles, the Heritage Foundation offers the best argument (though I would like to read a similarly well reasoned rebuttal from feminist or administration sources). Obama's heart is in the right place, but I doubt Rosenthal and her new position can make the existing philosophy and policy work better than it has ever worked. A more complete approach, such as combining the kinds of prevention programs the Heritage Foundation describes with the crisis handling of Rosenthal's specialty, would presumably work better than doing more of the same thing.

I think Obama missed an opportunity to both effectively curtail domestic violence and reach across the aisle with his choice. It's a shame, but it's only a little shame. He could've done a lot worse.