Keywords or Terms: US Presidency; head-to-head
match; institutional and political structure; Gender bias; feminist paradigm;
leadership positions; Federalism; Hillary Rodham Clinton; Jeb Bush; Tom Cruz;
Cris Christy; Mitt Romney; and, new organizational structure within government institutions.
This blog
and the coming twenty-two months are about to test the hypothesis that male
voters are less receptive of a female candidate if they lived in US Southern
States than in the Mid-West or Northern States. The outcome of this exercise is
likely to help Secretary Clinton evaluate her chances of winning the White
House, once crowned the Democratic Nominee or flag bearer. There are some
assumptions here: 1) that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for the Presidency
come, 2016; 2) there is not going to be a female candidate favorably valued as
a Democratic Party flag bearer over Secretary Clinton; 3) that Hilary Rodham
Clinton is a front-runner among the pack; and, 4) the Democratic Party is ready
for a female flag bearer in national elections.
Could Ms.
Clinton overcome gender bias, sexism or prejudices in a head-to-head matchup of
a female to a male nominee in the Democratic Party? Could the female vote make
the difference; or, could American Females change the course of history by
flocking to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy? What could happen if certain rules were
changed at the party level; or, if ingrained presumption of gender bias is
factored out of the equation? Without reformed political institutions, is
America ready for a female Presidency? Would the shifting sands of federalism
hamper the chances of success of a female Presidency? These are all the
questions and hypotheses to be tested in the coming twenty-two months as we
move towards the 2016 national elections. Our discussions would be predictably
refreshing and probably fascinatingly fluid. Our answers and discussions of
these questions would form the basis of what may culminate as Essays in
American Presidential Elections, 2016
Role Model or What?
To
paraphrase the outgoing female Utah State House Speaker, Becky Lockhart, there
is something to the visual, to actually see a female as a President. “There is
something powerful to that, because other young female say, I can do that now
because I’ve actually seen a female in that shoe or office.” How about the
opinion of Jennifer Seelig, Utah House Democratic Leader: “Women in politics
and business respond to images of other women in leadership positions and that
is huge for Clinton to be the first Female President of the United States just
as it was for Lockhart, as the first female Utah State House Speaker in modern
times.” Can the presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate or nominee,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, change the game at the national level? Some say, If Hillary Rodham Clinton is able to
maintain the campaign momentum to ensure that her message fits the news cycle
in the internet age, she may just end up in the oval office. Are these
observations and, or comments factual or representative of the female agenda on
national politics? Is this what American feminists want; or, are there more than
can be captured in visceral? In the context of the office of the Presidency,
are American female really underselling themselves when they doubt the
possibility of rising up to the office of Mrs. President?
Here are
some raw statistics: Center for the American Women and Politics at the State
University of New Jersey concluded in 2012 that: “Even when women and men favor the same candidates, they may do so by
different margins resulting in gender gap. In every presidential election since
1980, a gender gap has been apparent, with a greater proportion of women than
men preferring the Democrat in each case… In 2004 and 2008, women and men also
preferred different candidates. In 2004, a majority of female voters supported
democrat John Kerry, while majority of male voters favored Republican George W.
Bush. In 2002, a majority of women voted for democrat Al Gore, while male
voters supported republican George W. Bush.”
When women political
attitudes and voting preferences are in consideration on national issues,
including issues of immigrations, same sex marriage, health insurance,
healthcare law, protection of Medicare, women are bound by the same want as
their male counterparts, only with slight differences on prerogatives and
preferences. Incidentally on the 2012 survey by the Center for the American
Women and Politics, women were, and are probably still, lukewarm on deportation
of illegal immigrants; gun ownerships or controls; legalization of same-sex marriage;
and, the role of women in national political life. Some say women favor health
insurance and the health care law more than men; and, the issue of making
college more affordable and cutting insurance premiums resonate with them far
more, because they have often borne the weight of these issues. Others maintain
that women preferences are not really different from men’s; however, the urgency
of need sets the preferences differently.
Contextually,
women are passionate about politics, candidates and national issues; and, if
historical data are what to go by, Hillary Clinton may as well be sitting on the
throne come 2017. Using parameters of data collected on 2012 presidential
elections by the Center for the American Women and Politics of the State
University of New Jersey, women favored Democrats and their flag bearer, Barack
Obama, by 10 percentage points over the Republican Party candidate, Mitt
Romney; thus, they would likely favor Hillary Rodham Clinton over, Jeb Bush, Tom
Cruz, Chris Christy, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or whoever ends up as the
Republican Party nominee? This is a very tricky assumption; but, one well
preferred if you are a feminist and routing so badly for the first female
president at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, come the morning of
January 8, 2017.
Fore-runner candidacy, Republican or
Democrats?
A background
survey of the press would give you a glossary of names and rankings of
potential candidates for the 2016 White House. Going by a 2013 Conservative
Republican Party Ranking of who is who among Republicans that may be eyeing the
highest office in the land as précised by Nate Parkhouse, the order of ranking is
as follows: 1) Paul Ryan; 2) Scott Walker; 3) Chris Christie; 4) Marco Rubio;
5) Jeb Bush; 6) Bob McConnell; 7) Kelly Ayottee; 8) Rand Paul; 9) Rick Santorum;
and, 10) John Boehner. These are the first ten that were known at that time;
more recently, other faces are coming out of the wood works; including some
familiar past players, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum; and, its seems by more
recent activities, formation of an exploratory committee, PAC and APAC group,
Jeb Bush, the brother of a president and son of one, may be in line for history
making. For one, Governor Jeb Bush is probably a front runner on basis of name
recognition; assuming his skillful distance from Governor Romney’s campaign in
2012 and the albatross of his brother’s miss-rule do not come to hunt his ambition.
Secondly, his recent initiative to jump out-front other Republicans in fund
raising and creating aura of inevitability, may probably work well for him in
the race to the White House. For now, we must keep our ears to the ground and
see who else comes out of the wood work in the next twelve months.
Among
Democrats, here are some potential names circling around, all but one, being
probably the possible nominee: 1) Hillary Rodham Clinton; 2) Elizabeth Warren;
3) Jeff Boss; 4) Vermin Supreme; 5) Robby Wells; and, 6) Jim Webb. This list is
hardly sacrosanct or exclusive. We must expect other candidates to show up, if
only in name. Of all these potential candidates, Hilary Rodham Clinton has kept
a momentum of her earlier run for the White House in 2008. Incidentally, for
nine year’s running, she has been named in Gallup polls as the most admired
American woman in most spheres of life. Admirers say she’s got the brains, smarts,
energy, celebrity, and a well-worn credit of being a great US secretary of
State. The tricky nature of her meritorious service as US Secretary of State
could blow either way. Skeptics may raise one or two setbacks of her service to
the Obama Administration: 1) the Benghazi fiasco; 2) the Af-Pak Escalation; and
probably, 3) Emboldened ISIS, despite ripple of reforms and unexpected
upheavals in the Middle East towards the end of her service. Barring these, one
can affirmatively say that Secretary Clinton is a shining star and has the
potential of bagging the Democratic Party nomination for 2016. Interestingly, her
gestures and spontaneity in the situation room during the take down of Osama
Bin laden, by the outgoing administration of Barak H. Obama, epitomizes a
leader in waiting, ready and capable to make and change history. One huge
feminist backer says: “She will make history if elected the 45th and
first female President of the United States”
The case for Hillary Rodham Clinton
Candidacy for US Presidency
Within the
feminist paradigm, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy for the highest office in
the land will dramatically challenge perceived women marginalization, real or
unreal, in national politics. The trend and argument are for all-inclusiveness
of the female specie in local, state and nation governance. If anyone raises
doubts regarding how a female leader can remain positively engaged in national
governance, one may only look to the scores of success at the State Department
during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s stewarding as US Secretary of State. Just as
Secretary Clinton was ahead of the curve on many foreign issues during her
tenure, her Presidency may lead to equality of sexes on a national pedestal,
with the inclusive doctrine that has permeated the feminist agenda since that
movement began in 1960, being prominent.
Women are
often clear about their intention or preferences on national issues even when their
male counterparts are skeptical; for this and other reasons, the ascendancy of Hillary
to the US Presidency is expected to bring clarity to decision making at the
national level. For example, the events of the 2012 Arab Spring made Secretary
Clinton give a clear and concise speech at a conference in Qatar, where she
affirmed that the “region’s foundations are sinking into the sand.” Imagine the
vibrant follow-up of what may be perceived as a Domino effect after that speech
in the region (Cairo, Libya, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan). The clarity of
her language and the spontaneity of events that followed may stand as a precursor
to her decision-making ethos as US first female President; and, probably ginger
Congress to act with a sense of purpose, rather than the current stagnation and
limbo that has beclouded the process of lawmaking in both chambers. Just as
Hillary emphasized inequality of treatment of women in many parts of the world,
Africa and Asia, the long touted structural inequality in American life by
feminists, may get the attention it deserves; as long held institutional
reforms to avert continued sexism or inequality between male and female, will be
addressed not only through legislation but also in attitude and behavior.
Conclusively,
the participation of women in politics has been acclaimed as one step towards remaking
perceived social inequality between American male and female. The commitment to
empowerment of women to eclipse or reduce perceived men’s domination, which has
often been the focus of many feminist movement or groups since the sixties, may
ultimately be settled with the rise of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy to
the US Presidency. For some feminist activists, ascendancy of Hillary Rodham
Clinton to US Presidency is an essential step towards equality of sexes in the
American narrative experience as embodied in US constitution. It celebrates the
dream of the Constitutional framers and America’s fore-fathers: that America is
a nation of people on equal Plato sic: “We hold this to be self-evident that
all men and [women] are created equal.”. This is probably the reason for the
new call to women and other progressives to rally round her candidacy.
P.S.*
Could the
rise to Presidency of Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton challenge perceived American gender
inequality and bring about genuine reform in institutional and political
structure? Would her candidacy lead to a new structure of understanding of the
binary role of male and female in the national experience? Could her presidency
redefine the role of a President’s spouse or partner; or could it lead to a new
organizational structure within government institutions? All these questions
will be out focus in the coming months.
No comments:
Post a Comment