I recently received some interesting and timely correspondance from a questioning reader. She writes,
“I have spent some time this summer talking to my mom and her friends about politics. These older women, mostly of Hillary’s generation, say that they see her as the most unethical of the candidates, someone who would lie and cheat and stop at nothing to get her way. No matter how much they would like to see a female in the White House, they would never vote for Hillary. I think that most people would agree that political candidates in general are far less moral than we would like. Is Hillary really any worse than the others?”
These questions are timely because they remind me of a recent cover story in The Nation, which focuses exclusively on the way women, and more specifically feminists and/or her generational peers, view Hillary Clinton. The article addresses many of the questions that my reader asks.
So, is Hillary really more unethical or ruthless than the other candidates?
The Nation article points out that a double standard applies to females in politics. On the one hand, they are forced to be more ruthless and right-wing than their male counterparts in order to survive in a traditionally male-dominated field (as usual, think: Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel). On the other hand, many women will admit that they simply expect more from a female candidate than from a male one. Specifically, they expect a female politician to be less corrupt than a male one, and punish her more for poor judgment in the past. As the article points out, if Hillary Clinton were instead a male (they use the fictional ‘Harry Rodham’), her (his) female supporters would probably be less harsh on his Iraq vote in 2002. Conversely, if Obama were a female, she would quickly be dismissed for having too little political experience, no matter how eloquent she was. Likewise, when women look at Hillary, they may want her to represent them so much that they (consciously or not) expect too much of her. She cannot possibly represent everything each women in the country wants her to.
Expectations of female politicians aside, if Hillary were indeed a ‘Harry’ instead, it is very likely that he would still be viewed as more cunning and less ethical than the rest of the field. As one ex-supporter explains, everything Hillary does seems strategic and untrustworthy, for she ”has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband.” Furthermore, many feminists point out that simply because Hillary is a female does not mean she will advance feminist causes. When choosing, women must “vote their politics and not their gender”. Obama or Edwards, who are often seen as more liberal than Hillary, may be a better choice. Critics call the fact that Hillary is a woman a “red herring”, for it means nothing about the choices she will make in office. As they so bluntly put it, “there is no vagina litmus test.”
Overall, I agree that it is important to scrutinize our emotions towards Hillary for traces of gender bias. Whether we mean to be or not, we often judge candidates who are new and different in some way more harshly than traditional ones; additionally, I know that as a woman, I am guilty of being a sterner critic of women in powerful positions than men. Because they are still a minority, I can’t help but feel that they represent and reflect me in some way. However, I think that there is more than gender bias to the fact that Hillary simply can’t shake that people see her as cold and calculating. Very often, Obama’s stances seem more genuine, and I often wish that Hillary could be more left-y. However, it must be noted that Hillary is still winning with female candidates in the polls.
The questions from my reader continue,
“Another thing people, both men and women, have said to me this summer is that they feel that Hillary is running not because she actually wants to change the way our country is run, but simply because she wants to be the first woman in the White House. How is Hillary combating this image (if this is in fact a pervasive view of her)? Do you think that this is a legitimate claim – have you seen or read anything to support or deny it?”
Hillary has a long and impressive public service record. Whether or not being the first female president has been a longstanding goal on her radar (as the two most recent books about her claim–see my earlier posts), her commitment to politics is truly genuine and inspired by more than a single-minded goal to put a woman in the white house. From her commitment and work as a First Lady (remember the revolutionary, albeit failed, attempts at universal health coverage?) to the present, she is in public office because she wants to be, and truly considers herself the best person to lead this country in 2008; none of that is a ploy. Of all the charges lobbied against Hillary, not actually wanting to change the way our country is run is neither a pervasive (to my knowledge, anyway), nor convincing view.
