The same thing goes for both Clinton and Obama. As the (sadly true) saying goes, a woman has to be twice as good and work twice as hard to get half of the credit that a man does. Substitute “black” for “woman” and it’s still true.
As it happens, I’ve had the usual low opinion of HRC for the past quarter-century. Until recently it really didn’t matter, but with the near-certainty of her being nominated I started doing some serious research and … damn. The more I learned the more I realized I had been wrong. Embarrassing, that.
Speaking for myself I never bought it, because I’m a firm believer in not bearing false witness. Every bad thing they said about her turned out to be all heat and no light, and I can’t buy the argument that “if Republicans say 100 mean things about her, one or two have to be true.” No they actually don’t.
I also don’t believe the long-standing idea that all politicians are lying, self-serving frauds. My parents weren’t politicians, but they were civil servants who came to Washington from the Midwest because they believed in the New Deal (and later, the Great Society.) They really were fairly idealistic, even after decades working inside the bureaucracy, and even after Reagan said “government is the problem.”
Cynicism about government absolutely works in Trump’s favor.
Well, yeah, but the situation isn’t the same. Having a country that’s largely $RACE elect someone that’s $RACE is not a big deal, whatever $RACE happens to be. It’s expected. Having a minority elected is a big deal and not nearly as common as it ought to be. Mind, there’s still cases. For instance, Benjamin Disraeli was elected despite being Jewish which was (a) a minority and (b) quite, quite unpopular in Europe at the time.
Electing women was also at some point odd, but now no longer is. It happens. It happens trivially in most places. Theresa May’s ascendancy to the premiership was not commented upon from a gender point of view at all. It’s just… normal. Business as usual.
It may be a Big Deal in the American history of gender equality, but for the world, at this point, it isn’t. The fight has moved on to other things. Most recently, the percentage of female parliamentary representatives in various countries which is quite low, i.e. below 50% where you’d expect it to be. They get elected fine when they run, I’m told, but they don’t run often enough so right now there’s great scrutiny of how parties treat up-and-coming politicians to see if there’s a problem there.
With due respect, that’s not quite what’s happened. The Horatio Alger Set has expanded, I grant you, but it is far from ‘anyone.’ A rich, powerful, connected, well-born person is running for president (and has a decent chance of winning). That’s not quite a revolution. The person is female which is nice, but is otherwise entirely typical of the hyperprivileged set that generally runs for president.
If a genuinely poor person was elected president I would be stunned out of my mind.
Don’t forget Sri Lanka (the first, 56 years ago) and Bangladesh (another Islamic example who have had two women as prime minister, one of whom is the current prime minister)
It’s not a perfect analogy. Her mother was neglected and abadoned at 13/14 and then raised a daughter who was able to go on to graduate from Wellesley and Yale, but yes, there’s no doubt Hillary is most certainly now a white person of privilege.
This is the last time I’m going to post about how this is better than “nice” because frankly, I’m getting a little tired of it. As I’ve repeatedly noted, my joy at her nomination has nothing to do with her policy positions. I’m really not even sure I’m going to vote for her.
It was more than “nice” when Jeannette Rankin was elected to serve in Congress.
It was more than “nice” when Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court.
It was more than “nice” when Madeline Albright was appointed Secretary of State. Do we honestly think Bush would have gone on to appoint Condoleeza Rice (and I’m no fan of hers) had Bill not already opened that door?
And, it is more than “nice” when Hillary accepted the nomination.
Whether we agree with them or not, whether we find them abhorrent or visionary, it is more than “nice” when we see women in positions of leadership, and in the U.S., Commander-in-Chief is arguably the most visible of them all. It expands not only our daughters’ understanding of what is possible, it lifts all our understanding and expectations of the proportionate role women should have in governance.
Really? Has it? For example, I’m not sure the women in some Middle East and African countries would agree with you.
I would humbly like to suggest that the election (using that word very loosely) of female heads-of-state around the world has paved the way for what happened in the U.S. this week. I’m willing to concede that on a global scale, it’s perhaps an overstatement to compare it to the moon landing. But how does recognizing the massive historical signficance of HRC’s nomination lessen what other parts of the world have already achieved? Perhaps seeing it happen in the U.S. will pave the way for other countries where it hasn’t happened.
I’m thrilled that it’s “no big deal” in some countries. I want it to be “no big deal” everywhere.
Yes. Yes it is. And that’s all I meant to say, originally.
It’s good for America of course[1]. But when America landed on the Moon it was a big deal for everyone. Because nobody had done it before and everyone was impressed that someone managed it at all.
[1] It’s good for the rest of the world as well, especially the bits to whom female leaders aren’t as boring as the male ones, I edit to add. It’s just not new.
OK, let’s try this. How many nuclear powers have had a female commander-in-chief of the military? (Not counting those where it is just the monarch, like England.)
