Keywords or Terms: Pat Summitt; University of Tennessee Women's Basketball program;
Alzheimer; Excellence; American Democracy; Great Women; Trailblazer; Hillary
Clinton; Indira Gandhi; Golda Meir; Sirimavo Bandaranaike; Margaret Thatcher; Ellen Johnson Sirleaf; Angela
Merkel, India, Israel, Sri Lanka, Liberia, Britain, Germany, US; Character; Leadership; International Terror; Turkey Airport Explosion
Pat Summitt, the winningest coach
in Women University Basketball League, went home to be with the Lord this
morning, after a long battle with early dementia and Alzheimer. She was 64
years-old. This made me realize the true end of a heroine, fieriest coach in American
Sport history, a female trail blazer, just four years older than me; but so
accomplished, so appreciated, a 2012 Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient,
one so unique in NCAA Division I basketball coaching that you wonder, why great
ones like her hardly come around every so often. Human Legends that tread the
earth, change the conception of so many, create an aura of excellence,
inevitability and probably, invisibility in life; good for all times, records
and national titles; yet, still succumb to human mortality, just too soon. To her son, Tyler, our heartfelt consolation; to the University of Tennessee basketball program,
our sincere prayers, and to her family, our gratitude, prayers and
appreciations. May the Good Lord, comfort and fill the void created amongst the
family and give all of you, friends, families and associates, the fortitude to
accept what you cannot change.
Out of fear of being labeled as
insensitive, I beg for indulgence from those who feel it is unfair to use
Patty’s home calling to spring up discussion of accomplishment of Women in
American Democracy. There comes a time in life that confluence of events in
living and dying, and urgency of the moment, maybe for the sake of love of
country, teaches us how to live, how to appreciate, and how to give opportunity
or fair shake to the often excluded, once unappreciated, those ever so
begrudged and lambasted as unfit, too aggressive, too corrupt, or too
untrustworthy, to rise to the throne of excellence or pinnacle of US politics
and government. Before we lose another finest woman to glory and question
ourselves, why we never gave her a chance or opportunity to exhibit her political prowess, let us admonish ourselves that, it is worth our forbearance
or deference, to allow Hillary Clinton into the White House oval office. Let us
begin to leave behind those ‘ism’ that have so much beclouded our judgements
and denied us the foresights of a prism of hope in the times of uncertainties;
never giving up to our fears, or misconstrued conceptions of those who do not
look like us, smile like us or worship like us. Pat Summitt was a great woman, an
epitome of toughness and courage, a fine basketball coach and admirable
trailblazer; a huge tree in the forest of women's basketball; however, if no one
gave her a chance, if no one looked over the horizon and saw her resilience,
her prowess in basketball coaching, she would probably have been another footnote in the history of American Sports.
Though not in the league of finest
basketball coaches, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a great woman in her own right, a
class act, a visionary, a wonderful attorney, admirable former first lady, close to
perfect former US Secretary of State, proponent of emancipation of women suffrage
and the right of women to be heard on issues affecting their body and
ultimately, an embodiment of what are so glorious and exemplary in American
Democracy. This is why her candidacy for 2016 White House oval office must be
seen in the context of a trail blazer, one of its kind in a world of fierce
competition from the opposite sex, and one that may now be construed in the
context of inevitability; a once inconceivable candidate in the life of
America’s Democracy.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite
all her faults from fierce critics, represents the best in American women. She
has the credentials of a heroine in American Politics similar to the impact of
Pat Summitt in American University Women Basketball narrative. She is the first
female flag bearer of a major American political party for the highest office
in the land, an accomplishment in itself; an erudite Yale College alumni, who
once attributed her contribution to the 1992 election of her husband to the
White House, to all she learned from Yale law, including her commitment to
problems of children and the poor; with a dashing sense of political activism
for the betterment of America. That is the kind of person that would end up in
the White House oval office in January, 2017, if Americans would just look
beyond their very little differences in the conception of the female specie for
position of leadership. For skeptics, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now here, can
you please give her the same level of consideration you’ve given to all men
that have occupied the White House oval office in the past two and half century
of America’s democracy? Would the American woman voter see the historical
making importance of having the first female in the helms of affair of the
greatest Democracy on earth?
To those who say, why? Why should
we consider her as equal if not superior to her current opponent in the
Republican party and probably, many men that have occupied the White House oval
office? My humble response is this: If Indira Gandhi led a nation of One and
half billion people five decades ago (1966 – 1977 & 1980-1984); if Golda
Meir led a conflictual democracy of about eight million people about the same
five decades ago (1969-73); if Sirimavo Bandaranaike, led Sri Lanka for about
twenty years, in a not-so consecutive years (1960–65, 1970–77 and 1994–2000); if
Margret Thatcher, chemist and attorney, the seminal controversial conservative
party leader, the iron lady, led Great Britain for three terms to the late
eighties and early nineties; if Nobel-Peace Prize winning Ellen Johnson Sirleaf can lead Liberia out of
the worst hostilities in that nation’s history to somewhat of a stable
democracy in one decade; and, Angela Merkel, research scientist, has been
leading Germany since 2005, during what may be seen as turbulent times in
European politics; why not Hillary Clinton, for America; even if only for importance
of women suffrage, progress and symbolism.
Now, mind you, no one is arguing
that symbolism is sufficient enough to vote for a candidacy; however, no one must
overlook the past contributions of Ms. Clinton to this democracy; first as a
former US Secretary of State, America’s first lady; and proponent of
sensibility and even handedness in times of tumultuous political, social and
economic challenges in America. Why gamble on a billionaire business magnate,
whose main focus for running for US Presidency is probably to better his brand,
or advance his business opportunities, at the expenses of the loyalty of many
disenfranchised Americans, who currently see his perceived success, as imminent
quality for someone ready to occupy the White House oval Office?
In Hillary, if Bill doesn’t screw
up on the marriage front, all will be well and we will get two presidents in
one, with the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton for 2016 White House.
Leadership is very important in the life of a nation and Hillary Rodham Clinton
has the chance of proving herself as a true leader; and, like other erudite
female leaders mentioned above, she has the zeal of an unrelenting leader and a
backbone of steel. She does not have a perfect and wonderful smile; however,
she understands very well the purpose and goal of a US presidency. After having
worked and or smooched with two US Presidents in the past two and a half decades,
as a first lady of the United States and President Barack Obama’s US Secretary
of State, Ms. Clinton is close enough to the office to become the next President
of the United States. She has a strong sense of the duties and responsibility
of the office, a close to thorough understanding of current challenges the
nation is facing with the economy, healthcare, securing her borders, and
fighting international terrorism. Her zeal and participation in recent presidential
decisions on combating international terrorism or bringing to account one-time
America’s greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden, secure her place in annals of
American political leadership. Ms. Clinton exemplifies the exceptional qualities
of a team player, who appreciates the type of leadership needed to thrive in
managing a multicultural democracy. Even for far-right supporters of Donald Trump,
who may be dumbfounded and outraged at the thoughts of having Hillary Rodham
Clinton in the White House oval office, the truth of the matter is, she is a
better qualified American Politician and lawyer, who has worked, understudied
and shared in the dreams and aspirations of being a US President.
Hillary Clinton stands a chance
of being a dominant force in America politics; and if what associates around
her know of her work ethics is true, she is neither disenchanted with the
challenges and workload of a US President; nor is she disaffected with team
work in running the affairs of the state. Hardly contemptuous of men in the
corridors of power, she never the less embraces the notion that women can do
rather just as well in politics; and the fact that she has close to eighty-five
percent of operational leadership in her presidential campaign as women, is a
testimony to her strong commitment and belief in women, and their lofty
contributions to American politics. Can her opponent offer a compatible
opportunity or consideration for huge ratio of females in his presidential
campaign for 2016 White House? Probably not. Donald Trump is probably working
hard to put women in their place, staying focused on marginalizing minorities
and Muslims, and creating storms in a tempest, with his insistent use of social
media to discuss what is essentially important communication regarding the race
for the White House oval office; and, who are members of his leadership team,
what caliber of men and women are hanging
around him to help achieve a successful campaign, and or probably attain a
successful presidency and leadership of the free world, in a time of uncertainties
in terrorists’ attacks and broken promises in Turkey, Europe, and Middle East.
For a wife, who once spared a
cheating husband the indignity of broken marital promises, one who has remained
calm in times of marital disappointment, close to time of a national tragedy, and
chosen to sort her feelings out on her own timetable, it is safe to believe
that such a person, will be a better presidential material, than one who
attempts to stair up emotions, castigate his opponents, apply insulting
indiscretions to minor shortcomings of opponents, and humiliate the less fortunate. Character matters in leadership, and a man or woman who is
unbridled in the use of their tongue, would create more divisions than is
necessary in a world of multiplicities and differences, and tripartite
(executive, legislative and judicial) political powers; one demanding authentic
compromise and teamwork to achieve successful leadership in the White House. A
president cannot afford to be vulnerable to his or her political enemies; and
this very crucial lesson, probably learned from close association with a
president who went through an impeachment hearings and proceedings while still occupying the White House oval office, would serve her better in making and taking reflective
decisions. Albeit, her experience as a humiliated spouse at the receiving end
of an impeachment hearing, where her marital trust and commitment, were openly
impeached, played out to the disgust of many in the media in an attempt to
bring down a presidency, all these setbacks, will serve her better in the position of a US
President.
As they say, what don’t kill you,
only makes you tougher, stronger and or better. Visualize Hillary Clinton as a
cadet that has been taken to the woodshed, hazed, chastised and humiliated; yet
survived all the atrocities. Many legislators still sitting in US Congress,
know Hillary in and out and will readily tell you, she is not a push over and
neither is she a wishy washy leader that may be stirred down by any prime
minister, president or monarch in the world. However, no one can truly say that
of Donald Trump and no one can attest to his complete loyalty to what is good,
fit and commendable in a US Presidency and American Democracy. Congressional
Republicans who have led a campaign of political calumny against Hillary
Clinton when she fought for affordable and quality healthcare under her
husband’s administration, and foreign policy as a US Secretary of State under President
Barack Obama, can easily attest to her resilience, character and preparedness
for the highest office in the land.
What is her manifesto or offering
as a candidate for the US Presidency? On Education, Hillary Rodham Clinton says:
“As president, I'll work to ensure every child—from every ZIP code—has access
to a world-class education, including access to high- she quality preschool. We
need to strike the right balance on testing—with fewer, fairer and better tests
for elementary and secondary school students. And we must support teachers with
the training and resources they need.” On health care she says: “As President I
will defend Affordable Healthcare Act, build on its successes, and go even
further to reduce cost. My plan will crack down on drug companies charging
excessive prices, slow the growth of out-of-pocket cost, and provide a new
credit to those facing high health expenses.” On guns, she says: “I’ll take on
the gun lobby and fight for commonsense reforms to keep guns away from
terrorists, domestic abusers and other violent criminals – including
comprehensive background checks and closing the loopholes that allow guns to
fall into the wrong hands.” On immigration, she says: We need compressive
immigration reform, with a path to full and equal citizenship. She wants to
challenge systemic racism, invest in communities of colors, and pass comprehensive immigration reform law.” On taxes, she believes the wealthiest pay
too little taxes as compared to the middle income households; she wants to
close corporate loop holes and ensure the rich do not pay at a lower rate, when
compared to middle income households; she will give tax relief to working
classes, who are struggling in paying for healthcare and college education.” On
foreign policy, Ms. Clinton says: “She will defend America’s values and keep
America safe, while at the same time, maintain a cutting edge military,
strengthening our alliances, cultivating new partners, standing up to
aggressors, defeating ISIS and enforcing the Iran Nuclear agreement.” On Abortion,
Ms. Clinton says: As President, I’ll stand up with Planned parenthood and
support women access to critical health services, including safe and legal
abortion.” On Economy and Jobs, Ms. Clinton: “wants to create good paying jobs
and build an economy that works for all – not just the wealthy one percenter;
She will cut taxes for the middle income earners, raise the federal minimum
wage, invest in infrastructure and education; and help families balance work
and family life.” On Gays, Ms. Clinton
wants to: fight to ensure lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans
have full equality under the law, and end discrimination in employment,
housing, schools, and other aspects of our society, to these Americans.
All these agenda look rather
herculean, magnanimous and probably insurmountable within a period of four
years. However, if we don’t give her a chance, we may never know how far she
may get, we may never know if her acquired experience with being close to the
office could help America make appreciable progress in the areas of her
promise. What is imperative to me, that she is given equal opportunity or shot
at addressing some of these issues if not all. Incidentally, a couple of the
promises have been overtaken by recent US Supreme Court decisions: 1) state
regulated abortion dispensation; and 2) gun ownership by folks convicted of
domestic violence. The remaining and others that may be added at the Democratic
Party Convention in July, are additional hurdles that have to be climbed on
the way to achieving the proverbial American dream, from having the right
leadership in the White House oval office come January, 2017.
As a respite, Hillary Clinton
appears to us as a responsive and reflective democratic leader. And as exemplified
by trail blazers, she will probably bring along a toolbox of defiant
resolutions that will help America progress on her way to the promised land. What
is unique about trailblazers like her often, is the determination and zeal of
thinking outside the box. Pat Summitt is known to stop her players and ask the
question, "What have you done for your team today?" Maybe the
question we all should ask ourselves is, what have we done for America today to
ensure that a trailblazer takes the mantle of leadership in the White House?
Have we reflected on the leadership qualities of the two candidates before us? If we have
not, what is preventing us from asking ourselves the outside the box question:
“Why not have a female, a trailblazer in the White House oval office, rather
than someone who considers himself above everyone, superior to all other races,
other religions, and well-endowed to lead just because he was born with the
silver spoon in his mouth? The choice is ours, we may either follow a
trailblazer or remain in the same illusion of the past two and half centuries.
Courtesy: Library of Congress
[Four African American women seated on steps of building at Atlanta University, Georgia]
No comments:
Post a Comment