It seems shocking to me how apoplectic some people are over the imminent demise of Hillary. They seem to think that we are immediately receding to an era where a woman's right to vote will soon be questioned and perhaps challenged. Some, as Dahlia Lithwick for Slate.com points out, are suggesting that there will never be another viable woman candidate for President in their life time. Well sure, maybe if you die really, really soon. Lithwick'e explanation for the craziness:
Perhaps it's the inevitable byproduct of the accusation that anyone who failed to support Clinton's presidential bid has doomed feminism, but the claim that the doors have slammed on decades of future woman presidents is as maddening as the Olympics of Oppression that preceded it. The folks claiming we've allowed the presidency to slip through our fingers arrive at this conclusion by pressing the same flawed syllogism: The only viable woman candidate thus far has been Hillary; Hillary did not win; ergo there will never be another viable woman candidate. . . .
We all know these double standards exist for females in public life—voters demand toughness but not bitchiness, confidence but not shrillness, authenticity but also glamour. If the Clinton candidacy has taught us anything, however, it's that a woman can straddle all those irreconcilable demands and still win. She can win more than 16 million votes in the primaries and around 1,779 delegates. Clinton has shown that a woman can win huge at the ballot box and bring in huge money, and even if Obama ultimately secures the nomination, those facts will not change. Faced with all that evidence of success, how do the naysayers prove it can never be repeated?
I think there are obvious reasons why people would doubt that what Hillary has done can be repeated. After all, she is a former First Lady with absolute name recognition. She is a sitting U.S. Senator and was the formidable and unquestioned front-runner and leading fundraiser for the Democratic nomination right up until actual votes were cast, and STILL she could not win. But she got a fair hearing on the merits. She lost and she came up short. Could some of it have to do with the fact that she is a woman? Sure. I'm certain some of it did. Is it the REASON she is going to lose? Absolutely not.
The future looks bright for women. There are many women out there more capable, more able and less polarizing than Hillary. As Lithwick remarks:
Even if it were true that no new female candidate can appear to amaze and inspire us by 2012, we are already blessed—as even the naysayers concede—with a bullpen that's both deep and wide. It features female talents such as Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Condoleezza Rice, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Why diminish all these women with claims that whatever qualities of Clinton's they lack are precisely those qualities needed to become president someday? What possible evidence do we have for that?
There is no such evidence, and Lithwick's list is nowhere near exhaustive, nor hardly inclusive of some of the best of the GOP women candidates. (Perhaps this might contribute to Democratic women's Hillary myopia? Maybe they are only looking for a Democratic woman President? Would all of these women, mourning never seeing a woman President, stand up and support a female Republican . . . because they wanted a WOMAN to be President? I have my doubts.)
In any case, as I said before, the future for women in national politics and presidential politics looks bright! In fact, it is not last call at all. Sure, the bar may be closing now, but it will open right back up tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"The only viable woman candidate thus far has been Hillary; Hillary did not win; ergo there will never be another viable woman candidate. . . ."
Ummm, not exactly. See, women have this thing, kind of like they frequently get treated sub-par, could only recently vote or have jobs that men might want or are not paid equal pay for equal work. WAIT! It IS that!
In our (women's) struggle to attain the equality that, in essence*, our Supreme Court has ruled is our right as people and citizens, we have had to fight, persuade and persevere to end each legally recognized discrimination while continuing the good fight for all of the remaining acts of discrimination because "this country" of nameless individuals refused to accept and respect our natural and Judicially declared right of equality. (and breathe)
*We can discuss the Equal Rights Amendment later.
As the old adage goes "Everything a man does, a woman must do twice as well to be thought half as good."
Although some may find it inexcusable, perhaps we were hoping for one easy milestone. Just one. FOR SHAME! But try to understand that once a road is paved, it is so much easier to travel down.
Alas, it appears it was not meant to be and the struggle to get a woman into "the MOST important" position continues and we cannot put away our road crew and heavy equipment just yet.
Thus, it is not that The Hill was our only possible ever viable candidate, it is that had it worked out, we'd have one less road that still needs to be paved.
"Sure, the bar may be closing now, but it will open right back up tomorrow!" EXACTLY! The problem is men live in Vegas where there is no closing time and women must always wait for the bar to open.
Finally, let's put where we are in better perspective with where we should be. Consider that according to Congress's website in 2005, there were 84 female politicians to 504 men.(By my count, there are 14 women and 56 men in the combined senate and house). Oooooh, would we say "the future for women in national politics and presidential politics looks bright!"? Why? Because there are handful of women who made it? Or is it more like a distant glow...?
For more enlightenment, take a gander at "Handmaids and Politicians in the Promiseland" by Nicolette Westfall, January 2008, wherein she compares our 2007 American government to the fictional right wing theocratic conservatives in the not so distant future of "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. A female President would never have allowed such a thing.... What if this happens next year and our light is completely extinguished once again?
I have to stop now or this comment will never end.
Those are all fine points of course. However, you speak of women as a monolith too often. There isn't one "women's movement" that you are all on board with and working for the same goal- thank GOD! Rather, there are Democratic women, Republican women, Libertarian women, Independent women, etc. Sure, there are common threads in each woman's struggle, but by and large, the monolith is a mythical construct. There is no unified theory of feminism, much to the "surprise" and chagrin of many feminists.
Also, as I have always said about Hillary-- she is a bad test case for a woman running for president and this is a bad year. I really am not sure it is even fair to say that she has or could have paved the road for other women because she is so different. Now this may seem to contradict my initial point about women and other women being viable candidates in the future, but in fact, I think it enhances the point. Hillary is so different from all other politicians, male or female, her biography necessarily makes her so. That difference makes her a female exception. That exception means that no other woman could run the way Hillary has run because no other woman (at this time) would have either a) the immediate political cache, or b) the strong polarization that came with her candidacy.
So, in close, to muddle metaphors for a moment-- I don't think she was ever going to pave any roads for future female candidates, however, perhaps she opened doors? Now that may seem like a metaphorical distinction without a difference, but please imagine the difference being the actual, or real difference between a road and a door.
Oh and then there is this: she ran against Barack Obama who happens to be a once in a generation talent.
Post a Comment