Our country seems desperate not for strong leadership, but for more of the same - someone “just like us.” On March fourteenth, the New York Times published The Really Real Hillary, a piece in which guest columnist Judith Warner attempts to analyze Senator Clinton's perceived shortcomings as a woman and the uphill battle she faces in appealing to the American public.
Ms. Warner quotes Emily’s List president and founder Ellen Malcolm as saying that Hillary “will be a president of the United States who is like us,” a sentiment shared by literally tens of Americans. Though she attempts to skewer this notion, the fact that Ms. Warner and others continue to focus on likeability over competence only furthers to cement the likeability issue as one of prominent importance in the minds of American voters. Listen up, people: you’re never going to have a Busch with Bush or a Corona with Clinton. Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama and John McCain have no idea who you are, and they never will. Get over it. We aren’t electing our new best friend, but rather the person who is most qualified to lead our great country for the next four years.
Senator Clinton will continue to take considerable heat for not being the 'everywoman' as long as Americans are threatened by her...in other words, permanently. Here is a woman who has achieved goals greater than most of us will ever reach, and that just doesn’t make us feel good about our own accomplishments. On some level, we don’t feel the need to 'compete' with John McCain or Barack Obama because there is still a lingering sentiment that some men are, if not predestined, at least hormonally equipped for extraordinary success. But how did Senator Clinton get to where she is now? Did she actually work harder than the rest of us? Did she sacrifice more? Is she - gasp - really smarter than we are?
It’s quite interesting to consider just how the Senator Clinton has been framed in the media. Like most Americans, I expected that a woman running for office would be subjected to criticism regarding her emotions: the old “she‘ll lose it once a month” crap. Uncontrolled emotions, though, aren’t something Senator Clinton is famous for (alleged lamp hurling aside…justified, if you ask me), and so our criticism must be redirected. We instead criticize her for being cold, heartless, and unable to connect with the soccer moms across the country. We say we want our nation’s president to be a strong, secure individual, yet it is those very things for which Senator Clinton comes under fire; I doubt that she’ll ever be able to live up to the image we project on her.
The issue of the double-bind isn’t new to Senator Clinton. In a 1995 interview with the Houston Chronicle, the then first lady admitted that she’d “come to accept the fact that it’s an inevitable double bind…no matter what I do…you’re bound to be criticized if you don’t fit some category, a stereotype that people wish to impose on you.” Sadly, twelve years later, she continues to struggle with the same problem. To be relatable, she must find the balance between being a woman and being a viable candidate for the highest office in the United States. In essence, she needs to appeal to a country of people who have already decided that they don't like her - personally.
The bottom line is that women who have achieved great success are held to a much higher level of personal accountability than are men with similar achievements. I really don’t know how Senator Clinton manages to keep it all in…I can only imagine the brief satisfaction that would be felt by yelling out, “You know what? I deserve what I’ve earned. I’ve worked harder, sacrificed more, achieved a level of greatness that most of you will never know…and guess what - I’m just plain smarter than you.” Luckily, Senator Clinton is far more restrained (and mature) than I.
In the end, smarts don’t seem to matter much when it comes to winning over the American public…maybe Hillary can have another cookie bakeoff instead. We’d eat that up.
5 comments:
I agree with you that competence should be at the top of the list of presidential attributes. It is a presidential prerequisite that most Americans have forgotten over the past seven years. With that said, I felt that you undermined the importance of likeability, and I want to highlight how important it can be in the political game.
Likeability goes with the territory for a president. A president is constantly interrelating with people who may not necessarily like him (or her in this case). He/she must have a certain charisma and an ability to make friends with other politicians in order to lobby for policy acceptance and endorsement from them. If our president is not likeable, the communicative process is likely to suffer. The best president is a well-rounded president.
No matter if the framing of the media is accurate, this is how the majority of Americans will see the Senator. She is portrayed as a woman who has volatile emotions one minute and the next she is the ice queen in the running for the most powerful position in America. I do feel that she is a strong individual who may be capable of leading this country, but will the people actually elect her? I feel that her image flip flops constantly due to the fact that we acknowledge her strong race for the presidency, but she is not a desired candidate. The way the media shapes her is crucial for her success and if it flip flops than she is not seen as a constant. The senator will be viewed as a person who vacillates on issues and cannot make up her mind.
Your blog interested me because I did my campaign '08 project on Hillary & am always curious about people's opinions on Senator Clinton. Of course a president needs to be 100% competent, but I also have to agree with maze's points about how a president also needs to be likeable in the communicative proccess of politics if they are to achieve successful unions with other politicians and get things accomplished while in office. Whats not to like about Senator Clinton though? Along with being a educated and successful lawyer, she also served as the head of the health care reform board during her husband's presidency. Senator Clinton is concerened with important issues & I think she would bring a new light to the office of president. The American public is quick to negatively judge a women & put her in a double-bind as you mentioned earlier. Although I would love to see Senator CLinton become President, I don't think the American public would.
The double bind for a female seeking presidency seems to function as follows. The typical female is considered too “soft” or “emotional” to become a president. So there becomes a need for female candidates, in any level of politics, to appear more “stern”, “cold hearted”, and generally display more features that are usually categorized as masculine. That presents one edge of this double bind. When a female displays stern, cold, masculine qualities, which are demanded in politics, she is viewed as being or acting atypical, not “ladylike.” I think men and women alike have grown accustom to women acting a certain way and men acting a certain way. At the same time I think we have developed a precise way that we expect a president, or other political figure to act. It just so happens that the way we expect political figures to act and present themselves is more aligned with the way we expect men to act. The other edge of this bind lies within what most of us consider typical female qualities. If a female ran for presidency, or any other major political position, and displayed “typical” female qualities, qualities that have been intertwined and categorized within femininity, she too, would have little to no chance. So for a female, being typical comes across as too soft or emotional, and being atypical comes across as abnormal and unladylike. I think, sadly, we have a ways to go until we develop and “acceptable” median of action where a women can not be viewed as either, and can simply be viewed as a good presidential candidate, even though, behind all the bs, Hillary is. But, until this phenomenon is solved, its true, she will be the women we hate.
It is sad that the only thing American’s seem to really value is relate-ability. Your comment on how Hillary should have a bake sale because we would eat it up is probably incredibly and sadly true. We are truly a nation that values whether or not we could sit down and have a beer with the candidate over whether or not they are the most qualified to lead our country in a time of crisis. Hillary’s relate-ability will definitely hurt her in the long run whether or not she is the most qualified candidate.
Post a Comment