THE OTHER HALF
`Biology isn't destiny'
KALPANA SHARMA
|
Hillary Clinton will be judged on the basis of the stand she takes on issues and not just because she is a woman.
|
WHENEVER a woman competes for high office, other women are forced to make a difficult choice. Should they support her just because she is a woman and there are so few women at the top or should she be supported or opposed depending on the way she conducts herself?
In the United States, this debate is only just beginning with Hillary Clinton having announced that "I'm in, and I'm in to win", referring to the 2008 Presidential elections. The race for the highest office in the world's most powerful country has only just begun and a woman throwing her hat into the ring has already given it an interesting spin. That woman being Hillary Clinton has added even more flavour to the race. For, Americans are already familiar with her as the wife of the colourful former President Bill Clinton with whom she spent eight years in the White House. Since then, she has notched up another "first": the first former First Lady to fight an election and win it. Ms. Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York State and recently won again. So Hillary Clinton has entered the Presidential race with a cartload of credentials — and a recent history of being loved and respected but also hated for her views on many issues.
Huge achievement
Will the fact of her being a woman automatically rally the "women's vote" to her side? Is there such a thing as a "women's vote" these days? If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination — and there is certainly no certainty about that — it will already be a huge achievement in a country that has never before had a woman as Presidential candidate. In the 1984 elections, Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro as his vice-presidential running mate. They were defeated in a landslide victory that brought Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr to power. A post-poll analysis revealed that the majority of women did not vote for Geraldine Ferraro.
As feminist, journalist and founding editor of Ms. Magazine, Gloria Steinem, wrote recently, "Biology isn't destiny, and it isn't a free pass either." In an article titled "Why being a feminist does not mean backing all women", (AlterNet, Jan 16, 2007), she wrote: "There is still a false idea out there that feminists back every woman, regardless of how she behaves." Hillary Clinton will be judged by women on the basis of the stand she takes on their concerns and not just because she is a woman. On the other hand, the very fact that she is a woman will make her target of people, men and women, who cannot contemplate the idea of a woman in the Oval Office.
One of the curious features of the U.S. is that despite women's struggle for equal rights, their achievements in so many fields and the fact that prominent feminists like Gloria Steinem and Betty Freidan are Americans, the majority of people seem to resist the idea of women in top leadership. This is not a "Western" phenomenon as there are many women leaders in Europe — France might get a woman President soon, Germany already has a woman Chancellor, the Scandinavian countries have a long record of women in leadership and Britain has had a woman Prime Minister. Even in South America, known for its machismo, there are women leaders. Several women are running Defence ministries. But the United States remains a case apart. And although Condoleezza Rice is the Secretary of State, she has never faced an election.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton will change all this. After all, Geena Davis has already entered people's homes as "Commander-in-Chief" in a television serial depicting a woman President. The "threshold requirement", according to one commentator, for a woman candidate for President is "making herself believable as commander-in-chief". Women are not supposed to be tough enough to handle the job. Geena Davis manages well on television, but what about in real life?
So far, the discussion in the mainstream press in the U.S. over Ms. Clinton's chances in the Presidential race centre on her stance on various issues — particularly on America's involvement in Iraq and her stand on universal health care for Americans — and not on her gender. An estimated 47 million Americans are uninsured and health care costs are prohibitive. For poor people, who are also likely to be people of colour and traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, this is a crucial issue.
Ambivalent position
The other, of course, is Iraq. Over the last two years, in particular, the mood in America has changed as American casualties mount in Iraq — no one seems to care about the number of Iraqis who die every day. In her first term as Senator, Ms. Clinton supported President Bush's decision to attack Iraq and even went along with the theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Now she has changed tack and is demanding, like some other politicians, that there be an investigation to establish how everyone was led to believe that Saddam had WMDs. She has also shifted her position on Iraq. Without conceding that the entire endeavour was wrong and morally unsupportable, she now argues that the U.S. should not send in any more troops. Such an ambivalent position will not enthuse those against the war nor convince those who are for it. In fact, in her effort to find some kind of middle ground between liberals and conservatives, Ms. Clinton might just lose both.
Whatever the final result, the presence of Hillary Clinton in the American presidential race has added a tantalising new ingredient. It is a race people will watch all over the world, even if they don't personally have to choose whether they support her or not.
Email the writer: ksharma@thehindu.co.in
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
