Ohio’s Tuesday night debate was, by many estimates, a draw. But judging from Senator Clinton’s downward spiral in the polls, her failure to sufficiently overturn the perception of her faltering chances may as well have been a loss. And that’s the great irony of this election: the first female candidate with the most credible chance of winning the nomination for the presidency is losing to, as Newsweek termed Senator Obama, “the first woman president.”
In retrospect, such a proclamation was already forming. For instance, in December, Maureen Dowd noted that “[c]ustomarily in presidential races, Americans seek a patriarchal figure,” but with Obama “this dynamic seems reversed,” a particularly apt, if not clairvoyant, description. She could have whispered a conspiratorial “matriarchal,” though, instead of dubbing him a “child prodigy.” Because the voter sentiment for Obama’s candidacy signals a repudiation of the stubbornness, cockiness and authoritarianism — qualities frequently stereotyped to the male virility — the Bush administration manned. Instead, it is an embrace for the encompassing, inclusive and listen-to-all attitude Obama nurtures.
Now, nobody doubts Mrs. Clinton’s commitment to serve the country. By herself, she is incredibly intelligent, often exhibiting an intricate mastery of complex policy solutions. She has shown a determination, and ability, to overcome gender barriers since her days in Wellesley to Wal-Mart. Moreover, those who know her in private often gush about her warm persona, a far contrast to the authoritative personality she employs on the campaign trail. But her candidacy’s implosion is not so much a function of her different demeanors as she is a victim of the shifting times.
In politics, timing is everything. Timing, in this regard, is the snapshot of electorate emotion and national atmosphere at that certain rupture. And the current times, besieged by a prolonged war, economic slowdown and disheartened electorate, doesn’t just demand for a change in policies or philosophy. It cries out for a change in approach. Obama’s emergence, in this sense, is not an anomaly of a “child prodigy” who overturned the “patriarchal” order, but an expression of it.
What would this different approach to governing and leadership reflect? On many levels, the positives would be several.
At the very least, it will dramatically repair America’s tarnished foreign image, and likely, policies. The troubling legacy of President Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” mantra still frequently manifests an indelible impression of American arrogance around the world, if voter criticisms are any indicator. By adopting an either/ or policy, not only were allies alienated, it contributed to America’s often solitary quest in Iraq. An Obama presidency, based upon his willingness to meet dangerous world leaders without preconditions — typically a quality associated with a woman’s willingness to listen — would deliver a resounding message that America is ready to reassume leadership in promoting democracy.
It will also indicate a probable return to the frequent Congress bipartisanship before the divisive polarization of the 1990s and 2000s. If Obama’s record as president of the Harvard Law Review and as Senator in Illinois is any predictor, one would expect him to forge a similar coalition that would find ways to substitute ideology with nationally-beneficial legislation. The skills that would be needed, as Dowd euphemized, are “[l]ess towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity.” It would need matriarchal skills.
Senator Clinton’s failings have prompted the media to critically re-dissect her management failings, such as her over-expenditure on Dunkin Donuts(!) and paying premium prices for misguided consultant strategies. But she didn’t find herself losing the nomination just because Obama won it. She finds herself there not because she was a female candidate seeking what has, until now, been exclusively a male-dominated post, but because she adopted a patriarchal attitude when the times wanted a matriarchal attitude.
The times and the national outlook may be shifting, but you can still email ZACH HAN at zklhan@ucdavis.edu.
