It Takes a Leader
An unconventional feminist critique of Hillary Clinton's candidacy
Raina Clampitt
For many American women, Mrs. Clinton is the archetype of the feminista's dream. She is the symbolic culmination of all that the women's movement has stood for - the pursuit of individual ambitions and dreams without sacrificing herself or her family. In the eyes of mothers, daughters and young women, she embodies the notion of female empowerment amidst Washington's old boys club. She is an affirmation to many of these women of how far our sex has come. Hillary Rodham Clinton has, in many ways, emerged as the paradigmatic female politician.
Amid the nostalgic glow of the Clinton Administration, Mrs. Clinton's longevity as a top contender for the Democratic bid for the Oval Office is striking. As a Senator, she augmented her influence through an army of experienced political advisors, legions of donors, allies and ardent supporters.
Her experience is unparalleled. In addition to successfully forging a career as an attorney, gaining prominence as a child and family-rights advocate and working as a law professor prior to her husband entering office, Mrs. Clinton also raised a daughter. She was the proverbial glue that held her family together during arduous marital situations, and still supported her husband in his political ambitions. Never one to revel in acquiescence, once Mr. Clinton arrived at the White House, Mrs. Clinton decisively took an active role in her husband's presidency, much like that of Eleanor Roosevelt. Whether Mrs. Clinton spearheaded committees or lobbied for domestic initiatives and legislation, her efforts garnered national attention, even prompting her own husband to quip, "You get two for the price of one." Mrs. Clinton's professional accolades and personal accomplishments seem to be the icing on the proverbial cake, despite Mrs. Clinton's admission that she never wanted to stay home and bake.
Little doubt exists as to whether Hillary Rodham Clinton's political clout consists of the ingredients that can win elections. After announcing the formation of an exploratory committee to determine the viability of a Presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton asserted she is "in it to win it". But should she? Does Mrs. Clinton inspire support because she is great leader, who happens to be a woman? Or does she simply inspire support because she is a woman?
A leader, one whom the American people have entrusted to navigate our nation through the choppiest of waters, must possess vision. This vision is not an abstract, intangible ideal, or antiquated and impractical puzzle. It is instead based on the power of foresight and observation. A great leader not only grasps the historical significance of the past and astutely observes the present, but strategically creates domestic and foreign policy initiatives that move us toward the future.
When pressed for her perspective on issues, Mrs. Clinton oftentimes reverts to the recitation of polling data, or generalized statements of what she thinks most Americans desire. While some may view Mrs. Clinton's Q&A dodge ball indicative of strategic political acuity, it is actually demonstrative of an individual clearly unable or unwilling to articulate where she sees our country going. Mrs. Clinton has been generally inept at proving with conviction how she will handle difficult domestic and foreign situations, even as a Senator.
For example, upon announcing the formation of an exploratory committee, Clinton asserted she wanted to eradicate the current one-sided dialogue occurring in Washington, ostensibly referring to politicians who are not consulting societal laymen as to what legislation they should enact. Mrs. Clinton challenged voters to engage in a dialogue on a variety of domestic and foreign policy issues, ranging from affordable, incrementally-based health care reform to geopolitical and military strategies to solve America's Middle-eastern imbroglio.
In addition to envincing an abject lack of directional leadership, Mrs. Clinton's pandering fails to clearly grasp the dark side of democratic sentiment. Although it may come in well-intentioned and altruistic shades, it is hardly a logical measuring stick a great leader should utilize to formulate policies. When the Framers were strategizing about the Constitutional extrication from British imperialism, you can bet your PS3 they weren't consulting Joe Colonist on how to get the job done.
Much like Segolene Royal's implausible assertion of the necessity of citizen juries as an integral force in the criminal justice system in France, Mrs. Clinton asking for society's help in formulating solutions to domestic and foreign issues is akin to asking Michael Moore to give a lecture to Harvard physicists on String Theory.
In addition to possessing vision, a great leader must also possess the knowledge and strength to execute that vision, even with the looming threat of public censure and disagreement. When Abraham Lincoln was set to coerce the end of slavery, or when FDR was legislating his way through the Great Depression, they were convinced of their correctness. They were not cowering behind polling data, or utilizing public opinion as a compass for their own views.
Not since Geraldine Ferraro ran with Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis has a woman been considered a formidable presidential candidate, and with such a rare opportunity comes much responsibility. The first female president of the world's sole superpower will be an event of monumental significance. The slightest failure, perceived or real, unfortunately will perpetuate the opinion that women cannot succeed in a such a position of prominence and power.
Electing a president on her gender when she lacks leadership is bad for public policy. Americans should support female Presidential candidates when they possess vision, strength and the intelligence to execute policy. More than this, supporting candidates because of their gender is specifically detrimental to women. What could be more of backhanded slap to the faces of women everywhere, when a candidate is elected into office primarily based upon her novelty as a woman?
It is precisely because I know the strength and nature of women, along with the inherent qualities that constitute us as a political force, I can unequivocally assert without hesitation: we can do better.
The above work is the opinion of the author,
and not necessarily that of the Prometheus Institute.
