Other Guys’ Girls
As I’ve made clear numerous times, I’d rather not have Hillary Clinton as president. But it certainly seems like Sully is coming down with – dare I say it? – Clinton Derangement Syndrome. One recent post strikes me as especially problematic in a couple of ways. First, there’s the “No developed country in the world actually bestows political office on women because they were once the wives of presidents” argument. As a matter of record, American states have tended to choose as their first female executives the wives of popular male leaders, men term-limited by state constitutions or death. Voters see the woman as continuing her husband’s legacy, extending the blessed epoch. In a country that is slow to award women almost any position of power, the family connection eases the voters’ discomfort with the woman’s . . . womanicity. This may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but it’s the American thing. It’s how we roll.
This is yet one more reason I have long thought and said that Clinton will get the Democratic nomination and win the election. Almost everyone in the country but the 28%ers would hop in a time machine dialed into the 90s if given the chance. They see a Hillary Clinton presidency as the next best thing. This is one reason why the “would not vote for Hillary Clinton” percentage keeps dropping in the polls. (The other reason is that people keep seeing her not having lesbian sex with Janet Reno atop the rotting corpse of Vince Foster, contrary to what Clinton’s detractors told them to watch out for.)
I’ll leave aside Andrew’s point that Clinton has little executive experience, and that the closest thing to experience she had was unsuccessful. It’s a fair if arguable point. (The argument would be that the health care thing was a dozen years ago and perhaps she’s learned from it.) I’m more interested in this:
And her use of a man’s power to fuel her own was a major setback for American feminism.
How? I can see the argument that it flouts feminist principles. a bit too Lurleen Wallace. But for Clinton’s success to be a “setback for American feminism,” it seems to me that the position of American women would have to have suffered causally as a result. Are there fewer women running corporations because Hillary Clinton leveraged her connection to Bill Clinton? Do we take rape less seriously as a crime now? Does Larry Summers get to keep his job? Have we relaxed our strictures against sexual harassment? At first blush it seems to me that the status of American women has continued to advance apace, Hillary be damned. What’s the demonstrable injury?
Let’s keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House because there’s too much George W. Bush in her, not because we’ve second-guessed the the semiotics of her gender.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 7, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
If we want to look for historical precedents regarding political families, here’s another interesting one: There have been 3 Presidents who were close family members of former Presidents: John Q. Adams (son of John Adams), Benjamin Harrison (grandson of William Henry Harrison), and George W. Bush (son of George H. W. Bush). None of them won the popular vote when first seeking the Presidency. All of them won anyway.
Americans don’t like dynasties, and instinctively reject them, but members of dynasties manage to win under our system anyway.
I predict that Hillary will win the electoral vote in November of 2008. I make no such prediction for the popular vote.
Comment by Chris Quinones —
October 7, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
I’ve been wondering how much of Hillary’s support stems from the notion that we’d get a third term of Bill out of it. My hunch is that this notion is mistaken. Though it occurs to me that third terms for most elected officials (Ed Koch comes to my mind in particular) turn out to be train wrecks. So people are perhaps hoping for the third-term-Clinton-administration diamond without the third-term-Clinton-administration curse. Or something.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
October 7, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
Sullivan overstates his case, but it’s certainly true, I think, that Clinton’s election does nothing to advance American feminism. Having the first woman president be such an obvious dynasticism/nepotism case seems to be such a waste, because the narrative of Hillary Clinton’s election isn’t at all about the advancement of her gender (in the way that Barack Obama’s, in part, represents the possibility of a black man becoming president); it seems entirely about the advancement of Bill Clinton’s wife.
Also, what you want isn’t just a woman president, but a successful woman president, and there’s plenty of reason to believe that the Clintons would have a much rougher time of it this time out. They’d be heading into multiple overseas crises with basically a “neocon-plus” approach to foreign policy, and as for domestic poltics, Bill was never responsible for the economy of the 90s, as much as the Democratic Party would love us to believe otherwise. The fact that supporters of a Clinton II presidency would be expecting a time machine to 1996 only suggest that expectations are higher than the Clintons could ever possibly meet. Given that Hillary Clinton’s main value to feminism is symbolic, I can’t imagine how she benefits the movement if her presidency is a failure.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 8, 2007 @ 7:29 am
Only Andrew Sullivan could argue that getting elected as the first woman President of te United States would be a blow to feminism.
But, you point about HIllary having a little George W. Bus in her is interesting. I have made the point that she is drafting on her husband’s wake just as George W. bush drafted on his father’s.
And, it is a bit creepy to go from Buhs to Clinton to Buhs back to Clinton in the White House over a 25 year period.
It’s liike looking at the list of Consul’s from the early Roman Republic and seeing the same names show up frequently.
It’s unseemly, in my opinion. We need new blood in that office.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 8, 2007 @ 7:31 am
If we want to look for historical precedents regarding political families, here’s another interesting one: There have been 3 Presidents who were close family members of former Presidents: John Q. Adams (son of John Adams), Benjamin Harrison (grandson of William Henry Harrison), and George W. Bush (son of George H. W. Bush). None of them won the popular vote when first seeking the Presidency. All of them won anyway.
And you left out Bobby Kennedy who may have beaten Richard Nixon in 1968 had he not been assasinated.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 8, 2007 @ 7:38 am
Bill was never responsible for the economy of the 90s, as much as the Democratic Party would love us to believe otherwise.
I beg to differ. Libertarians always underestime the psychological aspect of economic success. They are want to attribute everything to mechanical things or econometric models.
But if that were the case, nobody would ever lkose money in the stock market.
Bill Clinton, for all hois fauls, was perecived as a guy who knew how to manage the economy and not mess with it. He also appointed people who knew what they were doing, and put sound economic management above ideology.
That inspired confidence in the financial community, and in the business community. He also adopted relatively sound fiscal policies and managed to, with the help of a Republican Congress, eliminate the defecit. This created a positive feedback loop, lowered interest rates and inspired more confidence in the economy and investment.
It was not just a bubble. Real income and economic gains were made uring that period of time. Unlike during the Bush regime, where the limited amount of growth we are seeing was fueled largely by a speculative housing market.
I think, if Bill Clinton were elected tomorrow, you’d see a similar confiednce building in the financial markets. The Dollar would certainly increase in value relative to orther currencies.
It is a measure of how bad a President George W. Bush is that the US dollar is roughly the same value as the Canadian dollar.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
October 8, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Hesiod, Bill Clinton wasn’t responsible for the economy of the 90s because Bill Clinton didn’t create the tech bubble. To the extent that Clinton’s administration did intervene in the economy, their policies contributed to the rapid growth of income inequality over the last several decades. It utterly boggles the mind that any self-identified liberal would want another four-to-eight years of these people – and that’s not even touching on the Clintons’ disdain for civil liberties, fondness for outsourcing torture, and love of war.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
October 8, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Your argument in comment 6, by the way, essentially attributes everything positive about the 90s economy to Bill Clinton by way of magical thinking. Yes, the stock market isn’t purely rational, not by a long shot – but neither is it single-handedly guided into place by the will and charisma of a telegenic father-figure. This notion that Bill Clinton could restore the boom of the 90s with a couple hearty televised laughs and a few backslaps in the right place is absurd.
I’ll give Clinton I this: he was very good at taking credit for things that took place on his watch, regardless of whether or not they happened because of him. And he was also very good at getting his admirers to overlook the many, many ways in which he’d done substantial damage to causes they cared about. See also: Rudy Giuliani.
Comment by Joe Strummer —
October 8, 2007 @ 9:38 am
I beg to differ. Libertarians always underestime the psychological aspect of economic success. They are want to attribute everything to mechanical things or econometric models.
Hesiod always wants to overstate everything he says and consequently he’s wrong. Every time.
Comment by diana —
October 8, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Funny – so far only men have spoken. (Clears throat.) I say:
1. Sully has a woman problem. No matter what any woman does, he will point out that it’s bad for feminism, because he doesn’t like femmes or feminism. He was a masculinist even before he was on ‘roids.
2. If Hillary becomes President, no matter whether that has anything to do with feminism per se, and performs competently, that will be an advance for feminism. (Cards on table: I’m an Edwards girl. Down to the wire.)
3. “This may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but it’s the American thing. It’s how we roll.”
It’s how humans roll, Jim, not just Americans. It’s a simple fact that political power is traditionally associated with males. Exceptions to the rule are just that: exceptions.
Comment by Nell —
October 8, 2007 @ 10:40 am
To the extent that Clinton’s administration did intervene in the economy, their policies contributed to the rapid growth of income inequality over the last several decades.
Can’t believe I’m stepping into this discussion to defend the Clinton administration, that I loathed in so many ways, but: Earned Income Tax Credit.
I wish Max were still blogging, and/or that his archives were easily available.
Comment by Nell —
October 8, 2007 @ 10:45 am
To reinforce Diana’s point 3: Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Corazon Aquino.
There are a few examples of women making it into high leadership positions in democracies without the reassuring ‘brand name’ of a male relative, and there are plenty of examples of the same kind of dynastic effect for male politicians, but it’s a well-established phenomenon.
Comment by sglover —
October 8, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
People are still paying attention to Sullivan?!?
Comment by just sayin —
October 8, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
And you left out Bobby Kennedy who may have beaten Richard Nixon in 1968 had he not been assasinated.
Bobby wouldn’t have gotten nominated. It would have been Kennedy supporters instead of McCarthy supporters getting their heads cracked in the streets of Chicago while the bosses inside the convention center were nominating Humphrey. Perhaps he would have chosen to be an effective campaigner for Humphrey and spared us Nixon, but no way he’s inagurated President on 1/20/69.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 8, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
OTOH, Wayne Palmer did manage to win the Presidency after the death of his much-beloved Presidential brother.
But no word on whether Wayne got the popular vote. And, appropriately enough, Wayne Palmer was also struck down by assassins. (Not dead, but in a coma.)
Comment by diana —
October 8, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
“To reinforce Diana’s point 3: Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Corazon Aquino.”
One of the reasons why 3rd world countries have had (perhaps counterintuitively) as many female leaders as in the “enlightened” West is that family connections are more important. Kind of like the way England’s two greatest regents have been female.
Comment by Athlon —
October 9, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
There’s another way of linking the cases that Nell and Diana have raised, which suggests that Clinton’s election would send a much more ambiguous signa about the status of women in America. The three female dynasts cited (I would add Indonesia’s Sukarnoputri) came to power through family, and their rise to power did little for the status of their countries’ women, which remains relatively low in most of these countries, AFAIK (not sure about Philippines).
Meanwhile in in the West we have seen the rise of female leaders like Thatcher in the UK, Cresson in France, Shipley in New Zealand and Brundtland in Norway. These leaders rose by their own efforts, and their inependent success reflected and strengthened the improved position of women in their countries.
Surely we would prefer the first female president in the US to resemble the latter four, rather than the earlier examples. Brutally put, anything which suggests that the US is politically/ socially more like Pakistan than New Zealand or Norway cannot be accounted a Good Thing
Comment by diana —
October 9, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
“Brutally put, anything which suggests that the US is politically/ socially more like Pakistan than New Zealand or Norway cannot be accounted a Good Thing”
But it may be so. The US is a weird combination of retrograde and revolutionary.
You fight with the army you have….
Comment by Leonard —
October 10, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
Right on.
Plenty of people think a woman can’t (won’t, shouldn’t, etc.) be president. When one finally does, then that single data point will puncture a lot of memes. This will advance real feminism immeasurably unless that first woman prez is almost unbelievably bad and in a female-specific way, i.e., she launches a war because she is menstruating or something. Even if she’s a bad prez in conventional ways, so what? Lots of men are too.
And one barely needs to be more than comatose to be a minimally competent President in this day and age. There’s a huge staff to do everything for you, should you want to avail yourself of that option.
Not that I’m a Clinton girl, either. Hate her as much as any politician. But she can’t do that much more damage than anyone else in the race, except Paul. Otherwise it’s just differences of degrees.
Ironically, the one thing that I think she does have going uniquely for her is exactly the Clinton-hate. We need to get back to the good old bad days, of divided executive and Congress, full of bad blood for each other, thus practically impotent to do anything new. With Rs in charge of Congress for the foreseeable future, we need an executive who is guaranteed to be hated by as many of them as possible, and Clinton has that angle staked down.
I still won’t vote for anyone who I don’t think would clearly improve the situation, not just degrade it less quickly than the other guy (or gal). So I’ll continue to vote libertarian (or Paul), and be effectively deprived of all political representation. Thanks, winner-take-all!
Trackback by Kuff's World —
October 20, 2007 @ 7:11 am
The ABCs of the GOP…
I know that we haven’t had any primary elections yet, and that no matter what the polls say it’s not a sure thing that Hillary Clinton will carry the Democrats’ banner next year. Nonetheless, I think Harold Meyerson has nailed……