Despite spending the majority of time on the campaign trail not telling a compelling story of self but rather portraying her opponent as an abnormal man who poses a great risk to America, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election, will attend on January 20th not the Women’s March on Washington, which is expected to be the largest demonstration connected to the ceremony where Mr. Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as U.S. President, but instead the inauguration, a move some observers characterize as gracious while others label it as gutless and an attempt to normalize the obscene.
Mrs. Clinton and her family during the contentious presidential campaign suffered extraordinary ridicule and embarrassment at the hands of Mr. Trump, who called the former First Lady a “nasty woman” and presented her husband, a former U.S. President, to the public as a serial sexual predator.
Had she and Mr. Bill Clinton choose to be absent from the inauguration, though the non-attendance would have been perceived by some as sore losers being stubborn, a sizable portion of America may have likely applauded it as a warranted form of resistance, particularly because the Clintons were so vocally worrisome about Mr. Trump governing the country.
Moreover, it would be somewhat on-brand for Mrs. Clinton, who unabashedly leveraged her gender in the race for the presidency and framed her potential win as a victory for all women, to skip the forthcoming pomp and circumstances and stand with women across the country, while ensuring there a spotlight for the Mothers of the Movement, a group of grieving parents whom she elevated greatly throughout 2016.
By reneging on her liberal, pro-women, pro-justice, anti-Trump bona fides, and appearing to embrace the incoming administration, Mrs. Clinton in my opinion failed her female supporters, proved right those who doubted her genuineness for resistance in Trump’s America, and communicated non-verbally the message that the man who admitted to grabbing pussy without consent isn’t all that bad for the country.
As Mrs. Clinton’s reputation in the advocacy community diminishes, the NAACP looks to polish and jump-start theirs, by doing what the two-time failed presidential candidate didn’t: resisting the perceived abnormal. On Tuesday in Alabama, the legacy civil rights organization mobilized several branches to denounce Mr. Trump’s nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to U.S. Attorney General, and at least six activists demanding the Senator, who decades ago was denied confirmation as a federal judge because of his perceived racially insensitivity, withdraw his name were arrested for occupying his office.
“Senator Sessions has callously ignored the reality of voter suppression but zealously prosecuted innocent civil rights leaders on trumped-up charges of voter fraud,” Mr. Cornell Brooks, the NAACP’s President and CEO, said in a statement.
In this moment, Mrs. Clinton could’ve been to so many social justice organizations and causes, including the NAACP and the Mothers of the Movement, a visible (white) ally who leveraged privilege and position to obtain equity and justice. Instead, Mrs. Clinton choose to distance herself from the struggle, not resist absurdity and obscenity, and align, even if just for a moment, with a man whose vision for the country she once called “dark, divisive and dangerous.”
Mrs. Clinton’s intention in attending the inauguration may have been to save face, but the optics show not a face saved, but one added; two-faced indeed.
Thanks for reading. Until next time, I’m Flood the Drummer® & I’m Drumming for JUSTICE!™
The role of men is changing in the 21st century. Want to keep up? Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.
Photo courtesy of the author.