Women in Power

26     Earlier in the year Joe Klein of Time took a slightly more subtle angle on this issue, pointing out that "Clinton's years on the Armed Services Committee [during her tenure in the Senate] have been well spent," and noting that "her most important qualification for the job [is] a knowledge of national-security issues unmatched in the Democratic field" — a qualification she "failed to mention" during a question and answer session in Iowa (31). Klein quickly followed up this observation, noting that "Clinton's national-security experience should be no small advantage in an election that may well take place in the midst of a war. But it is likely to take a backseat to a more prominent question about experience — whether eight years as First Lady qualifies one to the President of the United States" (31). Though Klein calls this the "more prominent question," it is one that is not routinely being asked. As long as Rodham Clinton "fail[s] to mention" her accomplishments in the Senate and continues to rely on the Clinton Administration as the primary source of her experience, any discussion of her political experience can not be seriously considered. Given the popularity of Rodham Clinton towards the end of the Clinton Administration (recall that those were her "jilted wife" years) her continued references to that time could be read as a brilliant and calculated political move — she is asking voters to see her in the way that casts her in her best light, at least in the eyes of many voters. However, though she may be using the positive aspects of her role as First Lady and wife of Bill Clinton as a way of garnering public approval, in the end, if she allows the focus to remain on her success or popularity in the latter part of those eight years rather than on her accomplishments as a Senator, she will be doing a disservice to her own campaign and to other women in politics who have the opportunity trumpet their accomplishments as individuals but who choose not to do so.

27     Matthews's comment in the GOP debate explicitly casts Rodham Clinton in terms of her husband, but her own reliance on her experience during his administration does the same. While it is beyond debate that she was the most involved and politically active woman to hold the title of First Lady, each time she is primarily labeled as such — each time she chooses to highlight her experience in the White House over her experience in Congress — she reinforces the notion that for a woman to be truly successful she must be attached to a man. Bringing up the successes of Bill Clinton's Administration deftly positions her as sympathetic figure while at the same time allowing her to highlight her successful husband, whose presence in the campaign casts her in a more favorable light with many voters. This is an adroit political move, for reasons mentioned earlier, but it ultimately tells voters nothing about her actual experience. For those critical of her experience, and for those critical of the ways in which she is using her role as Mrs. Clinton rather than as Senator Rodham Clinton, this insistence on bringing up her husband is at once problematic and emblematic of the ways in which superficial applications of gender are at least clouding, if not outright warping, the political discourse.

28     Focusing on the political problems raised by gender discourse in this election is only part of the issue at hand. There are social problems being raised as well — particularly regarding the status of feminism in America at the beginning of the 21st Century. As was mentioned above, each time Rodham Clinton relies on her husband's experience to highlight her own resume, she is unwittingly reinforcing the stereotype that women should seek power through their relationships with men. Ironically, it was Ann Coulter who brought this point home in an interview with Chris Matthews on Hardball. She noted that Rodham Clinton "is where she is because of the guy she married. That's not what feminism told us to do — marry your [sic] way to power" (Coulter). While Coulter may be dramatizing the issue a bit, her argument does carry a certain amount of weight in the debate over gender. From the beginning, Rodham Clinton has subverted her identity (changing everything from her name to her hairstyles) to support the political career of her husband. And, while he was wildly successful in his political endeavors, she was routinely criticized for each choice she made. Today, in the midst of this election, she still relies on his experience and tenure in the White House to highlight her experience, and she capitalizes on her status as his wife to shore up the Democratic base and gain support. This has all proved to be politically expedient — shrewd even — but it is not exactly a victory for feminism.

29     It must be stated that, ultimately, politics will win the day over feminism. It would not be politically savvy for Rodham Clinton to run her campaign as if her husband didn't exist, as if he had never been president, as if he weren't a tremendous political asset to her. However, casting herself as his wife diverts the discussion from any true conversation about gender. It would be far better for Rodham Clinton, for American voters, and for feminism in this country if we could have an open discussion about not only the merits of the candidates, but about this historic opportunity for women. It seems almost too prosaic to ask if American voters are ready for a woman president, but that is the question that should begin this discussion, not because it will have any ultimate bearing on the election, per se, but because the answer to that question would tell us volumes about how far feminism has come in this country. Of course, voters have been polled on this topic before and they overwhelming answer in the affirmative. But any real discourse on this topic, any really substantive dialogue on women in power, has yet to occur.

30     Those on the left and the right know that, in this day and age, it can be political suicide to question a woman's ability to lead. The reader responses to Michael Scherer's Salon article speak volumes about how progressives feel about gender — their argument essentially suggests that feminism won the day long ago, and any discussion of gender is old fashioned, reductive, frivolous. Liberal Americans point to the election of Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House as a marker of how far we have come as a society. While this is a significant milestone for feminism in America, simply pointing to battles fought and won does not really shed much light on the true status of women in power. Indeed, there seems to be an unspoken suggestion that a female Speaker or a female Presidential candidate indicates that the work of feminism in America is done. I argue, though, that the work is far from done, and that issues of gender should be tackled head on in order to both gauge exactly how far we have come and to continue to forge ahead into more uncharted territory. Given that political correctness has become so ingrained in our social structure, perhaps that uncharted territory is an open and honest discussion about what it really means to be a woman in power. What does it take to succeed? Can a woman really achieve power and success on her own? Is it better to look at Rodham Clinton as the wife of Bill Clinton, or as the female candidate? Political correctness in America sums up these issues as such: men and women are equal — let's move on to the real issues. The problem is, however, that men and women are not equal, and gender is a real issue. Because we have chosen to view feminism as a successfully completed social project, true discussion of what it means to be a woman in politics gets subverted.