By Brigitte L. Nacos
Watching the lavish Pentagon farewell ceremony for Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on television last week, I was struck by the image
of George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Rumsfeld moving in unison and forceful
like victorious warriors past enthusiastic guests. The vice-president praised
Rumsfeld as the best Secretary of Defense ever (never mind that his friend
presided over Iraq's
slide into civil war and complete chaos), and the President was upbeat and
seemed to agree with Cheney (never mind that he had asked for Rumsfeld's resignation).
If this was a paradox, think of George W. Bush describing his
presidency as "joyful experience" in spite of the
mounting numbers of Americans and Iraqis killed and injured on his watch as
"war president." It was this image of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of power at
the Pentagon ceremony that made me think about the need for change at the top
in 2008. I am sure there are very capable male politicians who would act
drastically different than today's Decider in the White House. But I am even
more confident that there are very capable female politicians who would not have
a "joyful experience" during
a most difficult time of a controversial war and would not have led us into
such a war in the first place.
At a recent dinner party I noticed that the male guests
eventually congregated in one room while the women chatted away in another. When
I asked one of the gentlemen later about the all-male conversation, he said, "Well,
we men are trying to solve all the problems of the world." In the real world of
American politics, only male presidents and influential men around them have
tried to solve our problems and those of the world. Unfortunately, they have
not been successful lately. The poor record of the current male regime is reason
enough to consider a gender change at the very top. According to recent
surveys, the majority of Americans believe that the country is ready to elect a
female president. While it is far from clear whether these survey results
reflect public attitudes or are more indicative of what part of the respondents
perceive as politically correct answers, the beginning mass-mediated public
debate on this question is a good development.
Since Senator Clinton's candidacy is a given, her name
enters inevitably into the general discussion about gender and the presidency
and thus cannot be divorced from partisan and personality preferences and
prejudices. But whatever happens in the next presidential competition, Senator
Clinton will assure herself an important place in history by running as the
first serious female contender for the nomination of a major political party--although I am sure, she and her supporters will not be satisfied with a trailblazer
role short of winning the White House.
While Senator Clinton's past as first lady ties her in many voters' mind to politics as usual that many Americans seem to be tired of, she may be able to turn her gender handicap into an advantage given the American public's disillusionment with the current macho men rule. If she can drop her tendency to play it safe and avoid any risk, if she takes unequivocal positions on the big issues of our time--most of all on Iraq--, she has a good chance to win the Democratic Party's nomination and a chance to win the general election.
Comments