My wife has become quite engrossed in this presidential election. We are very similar in our thinking, essentially lapsed Republicans who are appalled at what our party has become and ashamed of what George W. Bush has done, both in commission (a ruinous, futile war with uncertain goals) and omission (ignorance of the real challenges we face as a nation).
At the same time, neither of us has ever been particularly impressed with the Clintons. Bill was remarkably pro-business, essentially ignoring the rise of CEO influence in domestic and foreign policy (which, in my opinion, probably stems from his regular attendance at the New Year's Renaissance Weekend; he is known to be quite influenced by the movers and shakers he meets there). His main accomplishment, the strength of the economy, was more a function of technology maturity and a ludicrous Internet bubble than anything Bill did. While much of the paralysis of the eight Clinton years was due as much to the Gingrich-led revolution, Bill's own weaknesses contributed to it. Had he not indulged his personal proclivities, the nation wouldn't have been dragged through the ludicrous impeachment.
As for Hillary herself, as I have written before, her apparent personal ambition is a real red flag to me. And for my wife, who would seem to hew pretty close to the preferred Hillary demographic, it's even worse. She believes that Hillary would do or say absolutely anything to be elected, and is very worried that she might come back and trick her way into the presidency (at which point we might have to pull what we call an "Alec Baldwin," but mean it).
Those commentators who believe that, no matter how the Democratic race comes out, the party will come together and rally behind the candidate are not reckoning on people like myself, people who are, at the very least, concerned about dynastic presidencies (a young woman we know is turning 30 this year - the last time there was no Bush or Clinton within a single heartbeat of the presidency, she was 2). If either my wife or I were to rank the three remaining candidates, it would be Obama, McCain, Clinton. It's not that we don't have concerns about Obama (Is he experienced enough? Can his actions match his words?) or McCain (Will we be in Iraq another 50, or 100, years? Does he really know nothing about economic policy?), it's just that either brings fewer concerns than 4-8 years of how Hillary may lead the country.
Having said that, I respect people who look at the stands on the issues, or feel differently about the '90s than I do, and support Hillary. If you feel her health care plan is preferable to Obama's, and that's your hot-button issue, fine. If you feel that she really does have the answer to our economic instability, fine. If you think that her experience is the tipping point over Obama, fine. I may feel you're wrong, but at least you've thought it out and come to a reasoned conclusion.
But there are too many who have not done that. And I will grant that feelings dominate thoughts in the minds of many voters; there are people who support Obama simply because he's black, or McCain because he's tough. But one argument particularly grates, and that was expressed by a friend of my wife's who wrote this: "My only agenda is that, 'we need a woman in the White House, and she [Hillary] is the only one so far who can carry the torch!' Women have come a long way - if one holds the top job, it will be good for our generation and all the generations to come."
What nonsense! I could expend a lot of time deconstructing the foolishness of this argument, but I'll keep it brief.
If your only agenda is that the president be a woman, then that forces you to accept anyone in the job, from Nancy Pelosi to Phyllis Schlafly. That we need a woman in the White House is unsupported and unsupportable, since it is not clear that a woman would or should deal with things differently. What constitutes a women's issue, and how would any woman approach it in a better way? Women have come a long way, but holding one particular position will not necessarily improve the lot of any other woman; specifically, if things go awry, it could discredit the idea of women as leader for quite a while (not that it should, but Carly Fiorina, who relentlessly promoted herself as a WOMAN heading up HP, a technology company, didn't do the cause any favors when she flamed out, even though the HP board was more culpable in hiring a person with such a spotty track record in the first place).
My point is that, for anyone, if you evaluate a candidate for an important job on a single basis, you ignore the totality of that person and the range of skills they bring to the table. If you tend to prefer Hillary because she's a woman, fine, admit that prejudice to yourself and take it to the table, but use it only as a single factor.
Two more points: 1) My wife's point back to her friend (before they agreed to stop discussing this), that the friend's philosophy then requires her to back any random woman over her own husband or son in an evaluation situation, which seems self-defeating; and 2) if Hillary can make the claim that she has 35 years of experience, including dealing with foreign leaders, and much of that comes from her pivotal role as First Lady, then we've had a woman in the White House already, and you can't vote for her based on being the first.
At the same time, neither of us has ever been particularly impressed with the Clintons. Bill was remarkably pro-business, essentially ignoring the rise of CEO influence in domestic and foreign policy (which, in my opinion, probably stems from his regular attendance at the New Year's Renaissance Weekend; he is known to be quite influenced by the movers and shakers he meets there). His main accomplishment, the strength of the economy, was more a function of technology maturity and a ludicrous Internet bubble than anything Bill did. While much of the paralysis of the eight Clinton years was due as much to the Gingrich-led revolution, Bill's own weaknesses contributed to it. Had he not indulged his personal proclivities, the nation wouldn't have been dragged through the ludicrous impeachment.
As for Hillary herself, as I have written before, her apparent personal ambition is a real red flag to me. And for my wife, who would seem to hew pretty close to the preferred Hillary demographic, it's even worse. She believes that Hillary would do or say absolutely anything to be elected, and is very worried that she might come back and trick her way into the presidency (at which point we might have to pull what we call an "Alec Baldwin," but mean it).
Those commentators who believe that, no matter how the Democratic race comes out, the party will come together and rally behind the candidate are not reckoning on people like myself, people who are, at the very least, concerned about dynastic presidencies (a young woman we know is turning 30 this year - the last time there was no Bush or Clinton within a single heartbeat of the presidency, she was 2). If either my wife or I were to rank the three remaining candidates, it would be Obama, McCain, Clinton. It's not that we don't have concerns about Obama (Is he experienced enough? Can his actions match his words?) or McCain (Will we be in Iraq another 50, or 100, years? Does he really know nothing about economic policy?), it's just that either brings fewer concerns than 4-8 years of how Hillary may lead the country.
Having said that, I respect people who look at the stands on the issues, or feel differently about the '90s than I do, and support Hillary. If you feel her health care plan is preferable to Obama's, and that's your hot-button issue, fine. If you feel that she really does have the answer to our economic instability, fine. If you think that her experience is the tipping point over Obama, fine. I may feel you're wrong, but at least you've thought it out and come to a reasoned conclusion.
But there are too many who have not done that. And I will grant that feelings dominate thoughts in the minds of many voters; there are people who support Obama simply because he's black, or McCain because he's tough. But one argument particularly grates, and that was expressed by a friend of my wife's who wrote this: "My only agenda is that, 'we need a woman in the White House, and she [Hillary] is the only one so far who can carry the torch!' Women have come a long way - if one holds the top job, it will be good for our generation and all the generations to come."
What nonsense! I could expend a lot of time deconstructing the foolishness of this argument, but I'll keep it brief.
If your only agenda is that the president be a woman, then that forces you to accept anyone in the job, from Nancy Pelosi to Phyllis Schlafly. That we need a woman in the White House is unsupported and unsupportable, since it is not clear that a woman would or should deal with things differently. What constitutes a women's issue, and how would any woman approach it in a better way? Women have come a long way, but holding one particular position will not necessarily improve the lot of any other woman; specifically, if things go awry, it could discredit the idea of women as leader for quite a while (not that it should, but Carly Fiorina, who relentlessly promoted herself as a WOMAN heading up HP, a technology company, didn't do the cause any favors when she flamed out, even though the HP board was more culpable in hiring a person with such a spotty track record in the first place).
My point is that, for anyone, if you evaluate a candidate for an important job on a single basis, you ignore the totality of that person and the range of skills they bring to the table. If you tend to prefer Hillary because she's a woman, fine, admit that prejudice to yourself and take it to the table, but use it only as a single factor.
Two more points: 1) My wife's point back to her friend (before they agreed to stop discussing this), that the friend's philosophy then requires her to back any random woman over her own husband or son in an evaluation situation, which seems self-defeating; and 2) if Hillary can make the claim that she has 35 years of experience, including dealing with foreign leaders, and much of that comes from her pivotal role as First Lady, then we've had a woman in the White House already, and you can't vote for her based on being the first.
No comments:
Post a Comment