She's a Lady

Empty suits and empty promises hang around us in the postmodern world. Cults of identity and halo effects are the norms. Caricatures of good guys and bad guys flash across our television sets reminiscent of bad dystopian movies. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, a member of an oppressed religious minority; vote for him. John McCain is a patriot and will save you; vote for him. Barack Obama gives us hope; vote for him. Mike Huckabee is a moral pastor; vote for him. Some things are more easy to stomach than others, but the all-descriptive title is still a bit too unpalatable for most of us to stomach; yet we stomach it just the same. We don't believe there is anything that can fix the problems of the world and so we just allow the planet to limp along. All of Obama's hope-mongoring or all of John McCain's "War is Peace", cannot cure the deeper problems that face America. What can?

Apparently Hillary Clinton's sudden realization that she is a woman will. It is an argument that makes me literally want to cry. Clinton came out with an video on her site saying that if Ann Richards (a former Texas Governor) were alive, she would vote for Clinton. When asked whether her mother would vote for Clinton, Richards' youngest daughter stated that she would indeed be out endorsing Clinton. Richards' two sons said they could not presume to know the will of their mother and thus they could not comment as to what her desires would be. Clinton's campaign asked the two boys a second time if they would allow the item to be aired, and they again said they couldn't in good conscience allow it. The piece was run anyway. No doubt the Clinton campaign will spin it as a miscommunication.

There are several tragic things in this whole fiasco, not the least of which is the peddling of a dead trailblazer's legacy for a presidential campaign that is all but dead. It is akin to Nazis quoting Nietzsche or Luther as reasons for their aberrant behavior.

Ms. Clinton is trying to win by divisive tactics and as an American and an human being I am deeply saddened that, even among my dear friends, she still has support. If I were to get up in front of the country and scream that I must be chosen because I am a man, immediately our minds would connect such a statement with desires to keep women out of the workforce, out of the public square, in the back of churches, and quite honestly barefoot and pregnant. A woman gets up and states that she should be president because she is a woman, and we think that we will be making history by supporting her. We believe that we will be supporting open-mindedness, progressive thinking, and the future.* In essence, though we are only supporting and reinforcing stereotypes.

We also see one of the greatest but one of the most unspoken divides being further exploited just for one person's ambition. There will be some Clintonian satellites who will smear the two sons by saying that they were against it because they were men. That will be a real shame as well. I know from experience that there are certain evils and goods to which a certain sex is predisposed. However society, especially the media, paint these predispositions as defining characteristics. When I watch a Lifetime Movie I ask myself at what point does a boy child turn into a smarmy heel in an expensive suit. When I watch, what to paraphrase Gloria Steinem would call, "Prick Flicks," I can't escape the shear boring emptiness of the female characters. (Honestly, who'd really want to save a Bond girl. It isn't like you could discuss anything of any depth with them.)

I too find myself thinking about advantages and disadvantages of both sexes. I know women have a higher pain tolerance, men are stronger, women are more nurturing, men are more ambitious. Yet on a person by person basis, this falls like an house of cards. I am trying to figure out what to do next with my life, while good girl friends of mine are already in good jobs. I have also seen young "mothers" more concerned with partying or having babies as status, rather than looking at them as blessed responsibilities. When we live a superficial life, we become Hollow Men (and Women).

Ms. Clinton's campaign is a call to hollowness, because hollowness is all she has ever known. She may be smart. She may be ambitious. She may even have happened to be right a couple of times. But none of these things matter without some form of character. I have seen the best and brightest elected to office. I have seen the passionate win elections too. However, without character, these things are utterly useless and many times dangerous. Gore Vidal put it best in his excellent work, "The Best Man." Here one moral and upstanding candidate for president, William Russell, is confronting his unscrupulous contender named Joe Cantwell. Cantwell has just said he doesn't understand a very honorable and sacrificial move that Russell has made. Russell replies, "I know you don't. Because you have no sense of responsibility to anybody or anything and that is a tragedy in a man and it is a disaster in a president."

And not to be too hard on Ms. Clinton, but she is running in a country where people expect easy answers to hard questions. Most all of the candidates are trying to answer these deep problems with feel-good measures. This is bound to be a disaster. I remember reading a book called "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff. It was a deeply progressive book and made me want to read the old testament prophets. What is striking about these people is how much reform they talked about and how horribly mistreated they were. Impending doom was at the doorstep of Israel and all the denizens of that country could think about was how the prophets were spoiling their good time. How often do we ignore the prophets of today? We scoff at the people who implore us to take care of those in need. We become angry if anyone says that we shouldn't get a tax cut. We talk about problems with the education system and yet do not take an interest in our own children. How can we, as the masters of this great experiment, expect to have a political servant carry out what is right and at the same time carry out our desires?

There are many good and talented women, just as there are similarly qualified Mormons, war hawks, pastors, and hope-mongorers; but in our zeal to do new things let us first strive to do what is right. We mustn't make an incidental attribute of a person the prime reason for our support. If we are serious about change, we should embrace the desire to elect people based on merit, not on loyalties.



* Of course she has never said right out that she should be elected president because she is a woman, but that is the way she and her husband work. I have a friend who's mother is like this. She says some sort of backhanded compliment or veiled insult, and no one is able to confront her because she denies that she ever meant what you said she implied. I also have a pastor who I met who did the same thing. He fished around to try and understand what we thought, but was only trying to suck-up to us so as to get into our good graces. I have more respect for a person who takes a stand though he or she is wrong than for a person who may be right, but is willing to bend because there is not enough support for what is right.