Vote For Hillary, But Not Because She'll Do Well.
Things are already gearing up the
the 2016 presidential election and we have almost a year and a half
to go. If Bush and Clinton win their respective primaries, we would
be forced to choose one dynasty or the other. If Hillary were to win
the general election, it would be the first time that two U.S.
presidents have had sex with each other (straight sex anyway). Bill
Clinton would be the first ever first man. But while Hillary could
become the first woman president, I actually think Barack Obama is
the first feminine president. He's so sweet and incapable of
confronting Congress. (For all his vices, Bush 43 held Congress in
the palm of his hand.)
I once told a woman with whom I
was sharing a table at Starbucks that we've had our first half-Black
president. Now we need our first woman president. She said quite
emphatically, “Excuse me! The U.S. presidency is not an affirmative
action position!”. I agree. However, Bush 43 did irreparable damage
to the American image abroad while only fostering fear of terrorism
domestically; and, it stands to reason that all presidents in the
foreseeable future will only be symbolic figure heads who tell
Congress annually during a SOTU Address to work together before he
withdraws to the hidden recesses of the Oval Office or Air Force One
from which to initiate other futile exercises in impotence. That
said, we need not worry ourselves with trying to make policy
predictions or guessing which campaign promises can and will actually
be kept. It behooves us to vote for someone whose mere election
victory will set off a firestorm of meaningful legislative efforts a
mile and a half down Pennsylvania Avenue. That person is Hillary
Clinton.
My assertion has merit insomuch as
there was an exponential increase in the number of Republican
presidential candidates immediately after Hillary declared her
candidacy. It seems that the Grand Old Party became the Galloping Old
Party – that they began running scared. Maybe they realized that
she had a good chance of winning. Maybe THEY wanted to put forth the
first woman president. Maybe they wanted to ensure that we actually
would NEVER HAVE a female president – that Obama was the closest
we'd get to having a woman in the Oval Office. Who knows how they
think??? Fox news, maybe??? In any instance, the GOP is petrified of
Hillary.
This fear – being felt by the
politicians themselves, for a change – can work in the nation's
favor. It brings us back to the reason for having primary elections
in the first place. People were tired of being given one crook from
each major party and being told to choose one. They wanted more
options. So we began to have primary elections with a much broader
field of candidates from each party. Now people could narrow 10
crooks down to two and then have them compete in the finals – the
general election. From what I can tell, the stiffer competition just
caused candidates to become better at deceiving the public by making
empty campaign promises – promising things like hope and change –
and by putting forth rhetoric that is devoid of any real substance.
(I once heard a local politician say that she was advised to always
be vague and never give details while on the campaign trail.)
This time will be different. John
Ellis “Jeb” Bush is the brother of a former president whose
ratings hovered in the 20 percentile for much of his term and who is
thought of by many as the worst U.S. president ever. Hillary is the
wife of the first White man in the Black Hall of Fame. She has gone
on the record acknowledging the plight of Afro-Americans following
the Baltimore riots to avenge the wrongful death of Freddie Gray. As
more of the middle class joins the ranks of the poor and
dispossessed, the cause of the Black man becomes easier for them to
relate to. This, in turn, enables Hillary to redraft her message as
one that revolves around ending poverty for all races in America –
thus attracting even more voters.
Speaking of plights, I saw a
report over 20 years ago that said that 67% of Americans are part of
at least one minority group. Women are seen by many as a “minority”
group, even though they outnumber men. Go figure. Not to get into
semantics; but,it makes more sense to think of them as an “oppressed”
or “underprivileged” group. Even so, the glass ceiling for women
in this country has been between the governorship and the presidency.
It stands to reason that, even as an Obama presidency didn't improve
the state of Black America, a Clinton presidency will not translate
into major gains for women. Even so, people will continue to “hope”
for “change” and will vote in an “affirmative action” sort of
way. I recently told a woman that I want to see Hillary win, in part,
because it would give women the opportunity to move from talking
about what they would do if they ran things to actually doing it. A
female president would have to “put up or shut up”. This woman
agreed.
Underprivileged groups want a
champion that they can relate to. Sadly, the “champion of Blacks”
has used the oval Office as a landing pad rather than a springboard –
doing nothing to improve the state of Black America. As a friend once
told me, “He didn't have to say 'Black'; he could've said 'poor'”.
(Then he would've been working for all races while addressing an
issue that affects Blacks disproportionately.) Maybe Hillary will be
different. Hope is all we have and all we can do.
The good news is that a Hillary
win, in and of itself, would turn partisan politics into gender
politics. I predict that women from either party would come together
around women's issues and Hillary would quite handily serve as the
glue that bonds them together – both on Capitol Hill and in the
state capitols. Though women only make up about 20% of Congress
(right now), if they play their cards right, they can wield 80% of
the influence. As female politicians put forth legislation advancing
women's rights, congressmen at the federal and state levels will no
doubt scramble to hold onto power and to shift the agenda. A majority
of Americans are sure to support the advancement of women's rights
and might even give women the majority of the House in 2018 – a key
concern for men of either party. Either the congressmen will play
nicely in the sandbox with women or they'll be “out on their
elephant ears”.
Though it may seem a bit
pie-in-the-sky, 2019 could see the beginning of a viable third party
which is completely separate from the Dems or Repubs, quite unlike
the Tea Party. This party, at its birth, could have as its primary
goal the advancement of the rights of women and gays – only to
broaden its horizons and put the entire left-wing liberal agenda on
the fast track soon thereafter. But, in spite of its original flavor
or how it evolves, a viable third party is what we need in this
country. We need to break away from the two-party system and quit
flip-flopping back and forth between two segments of the capitalist
machine that are essentially work in tandem to oppress the
ever-expanding class of the dispossessed. In the end, it may be her
2016 victory and the inspiration it brings to many groups – not how
well she executes the duties of her office – which does the most to
change the face of American politics. So, vote For Hillary, But Not
Because She'll Do Well.
Comments