Bruce Bartlett on how some leading conservatives are moving from the Denial stage to the Acceptance stage on the matter of That Rodham Person:
I'm starting to see the makings of a rapprochement between Clinton and the "vast right-wing conspiracy."This could have important political implications. There are lots of different ways to fight a battle. At one extreme, one can fight to the death like a trapped rat; at the other, one can offer only token resistance. Not long ago, I thought most conservatives would have employed the trapped-rat option at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
But at least a few conservative opinion-makers are ratcheting downward their level of resistance. They are coming to terms with the growing likelihood that she will be our next president and concluding that maybe it is something they can live with.
If you can't beat 'em...
But seriously, I'd like to know what conservatives in this blog readership think about the prospect of HRC as our next POTUS. If you think about it, it's stunning that the political culture has shifted so profoundly in this country that not only does Hillary -- the Lady Macbeth of the 1990s -- stand a good chance of becoming our next president, she is considered by leading conservative opinion-makers as the best thing going. What does this tell us? For starters:
1. In the words of The Economist:
The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement—wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population.
That is, President Bush and Congressional Republicans have screwed up so badly, and so trashed the GOP's traditional strong suits (fiscal responsibility and foreign policy competence) that they've made Hillary look good. The Economist editorial points out that the public is not all that high on Democrats, as much as it's down very hard on Republicans.
2. The Democratic field is far to the left. When HRC is the most conservative leading candidate of the pack's leaders, you know you've got a rather left-wing bunch to choose from.
3. The prospect of the GOP being led by any of the top Republican presidential candidates now does not convince these conservative opinion leaders.
Now, it's true that Hillary has done surprisingly well in debates with her counterparts, but still, for we who were in Washington during at least some of the Clinton administration, and who followed politics in the 1990s, the idea that we'd see the day that Hillary Rodham Clinton would not only be the favorite to win the presidency, but that top conservatives would find good things to say about that prospect would have been utterly unthinkable.
But here we are.
I find that I've got nothing remotely interesting to say about the idea of another President Clinton. I'm resigned to being made miserable by whoever sits in the White House these next four years, and to a Democratic Congress. I hope we don't get her, if only because I find her a deeply unattractive personality, and the thought of having to listen to her carrying on for at least four years, and to the right-wing machine scream bloody murder about her, is too depressing for words. I think I'd find it easier to live with President Edwards or President Obama. You?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I would be interested to know if anyone here can tell me of a female world leader they would describe as having an "attractive" personality. Traits generally required for a woman to be "attractive" seem to include such things as being self-effacing, modest, quick to agree with others (particularly male others) and to put their needs and wishes ahead of her own. Most men, and some women, believe it is not "attractive" in a woman to dominate, to put herself in the spotlight, to demonstrate anger, give orders, and insist that she is right and her opponents are wrong. Yet these are characteristics we require in a leader. Hence, it would seem that a woman who seeks to lead will by definition make herself "unattractive." Maggie Thatcher was no exception. If anyone has an exception to offer--someone Senator Clinton should emulate--I'd love to hear about her.
Strangely, these and other obnoxious characteristics are apparently much more acceptable in men. Perhaps we should rethink what we seek in a leader. This is a very interesting article about psychopathic characteristics in high places.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html
The authors quoted in the article above, Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare, have written a book on their findings--Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work. This might be worth reading before election time. There are a good many snakes in elected office as well as corporate office--yet we keep sending them back, as if we have become accustomed to being "led" by people who are grandiose, ruthless, manipulative, and lacking in compassion for others.
Just out of curiousity -- knowing that she didn't meet sigaliris' challenge -- I looked up Golda Meir in Wikipedia. It mentions that the epithet "iron lady" was applied to Meir well before Thatcher's tenure.
Having watched the movie recently, I'm also reminded of this line by Queen Elizabeth (Judi Dench) in "Shakespeare in Love": "I know something of a woman in a man's profession. Yes, by God, I do know about that." Dame Judi is one of the best: she puts every nuance of meaning into those brief lines.
It has always been my considered opinion that most men are still adapting to the fact that women are given the franchise right along with men at age 18. I grew up in a League of Women Voters family (my mother and both elder sisters having served the board of a local chapter together for a few years), so I have a long experience of seeing the distinctions. Look closely at news reports of polling, as well. Women are most prominently mentioned mostly around "women's" issues. The stereotypes live on...
"I would be interested to know if anyone here can tell me of a female world leader they would describe as having an "attractive" personality."
Corazon Aquino seemed widely beloved as an electoral candidate. Since you don't specify heads of state, I'd add Aung San Suu Kyi too.
Although, actually, the one thing about Clinton I *do* admire is her personality. Regardless of her motivations, she has kept her marriage vows, despite provocation that would have pushed nearly any other woman to divorce - if not bloody murder. That touches this social conservative's heart, at least. She was also very blunt about her support of the Iraq war, despite how unpopular that was among her core supporters. I can't stand her platform, but at least you can say she has some principles and sticks to them. When was the last time you could say that of anyone who made it to the final ballot?
Bartlett is talking stupidity here, I'm sorry to be so blunt. While I'm hardly enthralled with the current Republican candidates, Bartlett's moronic assumption that the GOP is "out" for 2008 is refuted by every single poll that's been conducted-- which shows Hillary at best about even with, and usually losing to Rudy and sometimes to other Republicans. Furthermore, even though there's dissatisfaction with the Republicans, the public is hardly enthusiastic about the Democrats, either-- the Democratic-controlled Congress has some of its lowest approval numbers, ever, even lower than Bush. Note that Hillary is one of the most prominent members of this Congress, and her negative ratings are sky-high, while Rudy's are much better. When people vote for a President, they're voting for a single individual, and even if they don't like a party, they'll often vote for an individual they like-- Bush I and Reagan, for example, both had voters supporting them but often voting the opposite party in Congress. And believe me, Hillary has no support from the Republican rank and file or from the elites-- she is despised across the board more than any other Democrat.
As for women leaders in the past, I think there have been some good ones, but there are good female leaders and bad ones, and Hillary would likely be a bad one-- she's too much of a warmongerer, she was too invested in the Iraq disaster before and after it had gotten going, far too beholden to the moneyed class. In the past, we had e.g. Cleopatra, who was apparently a very good ruler in Egypt. We also had Queen Elizabeth I, who was so-so-- did enough of a religious compromise to prevent an English civil war (though it did come later), but got the English involved in a terrible war in Ireland, lost a war against Spain (this is why Latin America is Latin America-- after the Armada, Spain won about 5 or 6 crucial battles against the English), and plunged England into deep debt by the time she was succeeded by King James. Queen Isabella in Spain was a strong ruler, but she was also instrumental in starting the Inquisition, which didn't exactly help Spain become a world power. More recently, Cory Aquino was decent, but the current Filipina woman president-- Gloria Macapagal Arroyo-- is terribly corrupt. Indira Gandhi was murderous to many religious minorities in India, especially Sikhs. Margaret Thatcher? Again, so-so. Made some important changes to the structure of Britain's economy, but also lost Hong Kong, did nothing to solve the IRA problem (and only made it worse, with the IRA effectively defeating Britain in whatever retaliations the British attempted), caused very severe unemployment throughout much of her term, instituted fee increases that severely alienated many British within that nation. So it varies. You can no more draw conclusions about a leader's quality if they're a woman, than if they're a man.
As an Independent, I don't really have a dog in this fight yet, but I find Bruce Bartlett to be contemptible, and he'll burn in Hell for this defeatist attitude that he seems to bring to just about every column that he writes. He's disillusioned about the failure of the Iraq War, as are most of us, but then he tries to convert his personal frustration and his disappointments-- he seems to have been getting hounded and fired from his columnist jobs lately-- into broader attitudes of failure and capitulation for the country. He should go see a shrink, take some medications and reflect on his personal failures and frustrations that are provoking this personal crisis of his, that he seems to try to project outward to others.
"That touches this social conservative's heart, at least. She was also very blunt about her support of the Iraq war, despite how unpopular that was among her core supporters. I can't stand her platform, but at least you can say she has some principles and sticks to them."
But that's part of what's alienated so many people against Hillary Clinton, Jennifer-- that she is so unprincipled, and changes her positions so often. For example, she recently attacked Barack Obama for his stand on talking to world leaders of rogue states, and for ruling out a first-strike use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. But Hillary herself made these same sorts of comments in earlier speeches. It's her lack of principles that in fact, angers so many people and makes her so unappealing.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.