This presidential race has exposed a lot of truths about the electoral
process and both parties, but one of them I have been trying really hard to
process, and no, this one doesn’t have a darn thing to do with Donald Trump and
his omnipresence in the race, nor the potential that Marco Rubio could still be
a threat for the nomination, but instead we’re shifting gears to the Democratic
frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. I talk to
a lot of people about politics, and follow a lot of politically-minded people
on social media, and two truths seem to resound when it comes to the former
First Lady. Amongst liberals, she has an
intense amount of respect, with people admiring the work she has done, and no
one questions whether or not she would be a qualified president. Democrats are pretty clear that they think
she’d be a good president. They just
don’t love her in the way that they loved Bill or Barack or now Bernie. It’s a conundrum that she couldn’t quite get
around in 2008 and one that continues to haunt her in 2016, as both Bernie
Sanders and Donald Trump have consistently found adoration pouring in their
direction on the campaign trail.
The question here is why. Sexism
is an easy answer, and probably there’s a bit of something rooted into
that. Female politicians always have a
higher bar to climb in regard to “likability” as the things that make a
male politician likeable (friendliness, being impassioned, finding moments of
authenticity or casualness) are seen as inappropriate or signs of weakness in
female politicians. Looking at women
like Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir, they mainly discarded the likability
question in favor of simply being as revered and stateswoman-like as
possible. However, that doesn’t fly in
America, particularly with the media clamoring for a soft interview and
mandating that the candidates dance on Ellen and slow-jam with Fallon. As a
result, in order to be taken seriously as a female candidate you have to bare a
cross that is nearly impossible to shoulder, and likely will seem that way
until a woman gets her shot at the Oval Office and rewrites the rulebook.
But sexism isn’t the only
problem here, and part of it is that Hillary Clinton, for all of her assets,
has never been the greatest at inspiration and giving the answer as to why
she’s running. She is the perfect
candidate in terms of knowing her opinions and stances on an issue. While people like Donald Trump and Marco
Rubio (and yes, even Bernie Sanders) will occasionally lack specifics on a
foreign or domestic policy question, this doesn’t happen with Hillary Clinton. Give her an issue ranging from gun control to
Myanmar to ENDA, she’ll have a flawless 90-second response of why the issue is important
to her, what she’s done to fix the issue in the past, and what a Clinton
administration would do to further correct the problem in the future. And I don’t mean this in a bad way, but in a
very good way. One of the reasons that
Clinton instills confidence in her supporters and even her detractors is that
competence is not really anything any objective person would ever accuse her of
lacking. Hillary Clinton knows the
issues, wants to solve the issues, and is just looking for the opportunity to
tackle all of the responsibility of the presidency.
And I truly believe that she wants the presidency for better reasons
than just a craven attempt at power and sheer ambition. Yes, she’s ambitious and wants that golden
ticket desperately, but you don’t get to the level she did without that sort of
drive. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton,
Ronald Reagan, Mitt Romney, and George Bush all had that drive too, that will
to win and want that level of responsibility too. Ambition is a good thing, as long as you also
want the presidency for the right reasons, and I do think that Hillary Clinton,
consummate workhorse and champion for the disenfranchised for her whole life,
does want the White House for the right reasons. However, she’s not great at putting that out
to the American populace. She gets asked
questions about why she’s running and she goes into what feels like a canned
speech. You hear Bernie Sanders advocate
against the big banks and Donald Trump espouse “making America great again” and
you feel like that’s their own personal message, not something they’re just
whipping out as canned pablum from a committee meeting in the way that Clinton does (and, quite frankly,
Rubio does). Clinton would be better off
if she leveled that there are a lot of problems facing the country, and she’s
the one who is strong and smart enough to actually tackle them. It’d be braggy, sure (I’m not a speechwriter
but I’m positive you could find a way to frame it to minimize any assumed condescension), but it’d be honest. Yes, she wants to be president and some of
those reasons are simply that she wants
the reins, but she has spent her whole life devoted to learning about the
issues, finding ways to better people’s lives, and that she’s the most prepared
for the job. That’s a message that
should resonate with voters, especially in the face of a Republican Party only
focused on the negative and not on the rebuild, and it would be a legitimate
counterweight to Bernie Sanders’ supporters who suggest she lacks a grand
enough vision. The sooner that Clinton
and her team find a way to get that message across to voters, the sooner they
will have more passion amongst those that are reluctantly looking at her as the
only viable option.
No comments:
Post a Comment