Tom Matlack looks at the mess we’ve made of American politics and wonders if it isn’t time to step aside and elect a female president.
I don’t know about you but I’ve been trying to duck the whole Presidential election, and specially the arms’ race of negative campaigning. I live in Massachusetts so other than Obama’s connection to Harvard Law School and Mitt’s to the state health care system that cannot be named, we are unlikely to get the ads unless someone decides New Hampshire is worth the effort.
But like the rest of the free world it’s hard to avoid Ryan and Medicare, tax returns, the environment, the deficit, and Supreme Court sponsored super PAC trench warfare. Out of the corner of my eye I see enough to make myself sick to my stomach.
If we can all agree that the system is broken—really broken—then why does watching the Presidential race feel like some kind of train wreck?
Before I say something that I am sure I am going to regret, but I am going to say anyhow, let me just make one thing clear. I’m the guy standing up on a soapbox repeating again and again about how despite what you may read about Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods, there are in fact good men in this country and on this planet. I’ve interviewed scores of them, from a Sing Sing inmate who turned his life around to a combat journalist risking his life to shoot images depicting the truth of our wars abroad.
The issue isn’t a lack of good men, it’s that our best men are running from politics. Heck, more than a few are leaving the country. A good friend has moved to New Zealand to build a bunker because he is so worried about the state of our country.
So how about us guys step aside and let the women take over for an election cycle or two? See if they can’t sort out some of this mess we’ve gotten ourselves in.
I’m not talking about Sara Palin or Nancy Pelosi. I’m thinking Hilary Clinton, or better yet, a modern day Shirley Chisholm.
I remember sitting on a homemade foam rubber couch with my dad, an English professor and political activist, watching Chisholm on Meet the Pressjust after she had announced her Presidential candidacy in 1972. The problems then seemed just as big as the problems now: Vietnam, Watergate, Munich Olympics, ERA, inflation, and emergence of OPEC.
Yet Chisholm didn’t back down. She made clear that these were solvable problems as long as one didn’t attack them with hidden motives. I was impressed and inspired by her words so turned to my dad, who had gone to Mississippi during the summer of 1964 and been a leader of the anti-war movement, to ask if she had a chance. “I don’t think so but maybe one day,” was his response.
I voted for Obama and probably will again. I happened to be in California during the democratic primary four years ago and walked down to the polls with my college roommate, who intended for vote for Clinton, lobbying him to change his mind (not that it much mattered since in the democratic primary California delegates are elected based on some archaic system which rewards past voting by county and his was a Clinton stronghold) . I was moved to tears by our collective willingness to elect the first African American to the White House. But maybe that just isn’t enough.
My enduring memory of the last four years are the still shots of our President waiting nervously to hear whether or not a team of elite warriors had succeeded in killing Osama Bin Laden coupled with the images taken by my friend Michael Kamber on the ground in Iraq and then Afghanistan.
I am for massive deficit reduction, completely restructuring Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. I’m for focusing on education first and foremost, for actually providing the 2 million men currently in prison a way out of trouble, and for protecting the environment.
But we never get to these issues in any meaningful way. There’s a certain machismo with which our leaders frame the question of our collective future, whether military strength or tax policy or how to finally deal with ballooning entitlements. Mitt the corporate raider, Paul Ryan the consummate deficit hawk, and Barack the peace-maker who doubled down in Afghanistan all remind me a heck of a lot more of a Bud Light commercial than Dove for Men.
Maybe gender has nothing to do with our national political failings. Maybe we’ve built up an edifice of patronage and denial so strong that even a woman wouldn’t be able to break through the mess.
But could we do worse than we are now?
Lead Photo: AP/Pablo Martinez
We have had 43 male presidents. I’m wondering if there is anything wrong with me, or anyone else, male or female, desiring a female president, when women are over 50% of the population? Given that ALL presidents so far have been male, is that ok? To want a female president? For me to believe that perhaps things would be better, but even if they were not, that I would personally like to see my own gender ascend to the Oval Office? Just as men have seen their own gender occupying the highest office in the land since the 1700’s? Is… Read more »
I’m wondering if there is anything wrong with me, or anyone else, male or female, desiring a female president, when women are over 50% of the population? Given that ALL presidents so far have been male, is that ok? To want a female president? Simply wanting one? No. For me to believe that perhaps things would be better, but even if they were not, that I would personally like to see my own gender ascend to the Oval Office? Wanting to see your own gender in the White House isn’t the point of contention (at least not with me). The… Read more »
I want there to be a female president, I really want her to win by her merit alone and not because of novelty though. Who decides who gets to run for presidency? The parties themselves?
I’m glad we got our first female prime minister, although she sucks as a PM but not because of her gender. I really hope it doesn’t sway others to vote again for a woman, I will if their policies are good, I don’t care what gender is pm just don’t fuck up the country!
The only reason I would want a woman president for the US (I am in Canada) is because then finally we could get over the whole “if women ran the world , there would be no wars , blah blah blah” nosense.
We would see that even when women are running things, they still won’t change.
Not so fast. If there was a woman president and the “if women ran the world, there would be no more wars” didn’t come true in her four year term no matter what promised she flakes on, no matter what acts of indifference or aggression she acts on, no matter how bad her presidency is due to her being the first woman president she would get a free pass because she’s the first woman and the only reason her presidency didn’t work was because teh menz didn’t want to work for a woman. Oh and if Congress doesn’t become a… Read more »
A woman could run the presidency, and she could manage a war. To suggest she would differ from a man substantially on policy simply because she is a woman is false. If one looks at science, the human anatomy of a woman’s and a man’s’ brains do not differ. They have the same components – e.g., a cerebellum, frontal and parietal lobes, a brain stem with cranial nerves, a cerebral cortex. It does not differ. To say there would be a substantial difference is unclear and not based on scientific evidence or the facts.
Have men really screwed it up that much? In just over 200 years we abolished slavery, a practice 1,000s of years old. We gave women the right to vote. We installed a social safety net (the new deal). We’ve come to recognize and protect civil rights (Civil Rights Act, Title IX, etc). Enacted child labor laws. Our capitalist markets have have created advances in science that would have been unthinkable 200 years ago. Many of these advances have reduced human misery. People who would have been reduced to begging 200 years ago can live their lives with dignity with the… Read more »
I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary and Obama in the general election. I’ve always voted democratic, but don’t know if I will this year. I find myself in the same position that minorities and the LGBT community found themselves in for several decades. I just became MRA last year and though I believe that the democrats are better for America, they’re not necessarily good for men. Should I hold my nose and vote for them anyway or demand change as the price for my vote? I’m not sure I would vote for Clinton today. There is an article… Read more »
“So how about us guys step aside and let the women take over for an election cycle or two? See if they can’t sort out some of this mess we’ve gotten ourselves in.”
But don’t they already though? Women make up ~53% of the vote. We’re regularly informed that women will “decide the election”. So, why do we insist on crediting women with power over the electorate and then hold the electorate innocent for the consequences of the election? I tend to think the voters get the leaders they deserve.
I think Hillary would have been a far better choice for the nation this time around. I agree with the overall tone here though, under the current system little can or will change regardless of who occupies the White House.
I want term limits for all, that way all the big money interest have to pay for a new votes every decade or so, and it would force rotation in seats allowing a gender representative legislature quicker if that’s what the voters want.
Hillary lost all credibility for me during the 2008 election. She showed that she would do anything to win, including giving what was essentially ammunition for the republicans. It was Hillary’s supporters who created the image of Obama as politically radical and possibly a secret Muslim. They even started the birth certificate nonsense.
“But could we do worse than we are now?” Yes we could. April 12, 1861, and October 24, 1929 come to mind. When was the golden era when all politicians, men or women were straight and true? When there wasn’t mud slinging and dirty dealing? When monied individuals didn’t have a substantial influence on how things worked in our national government? When the political parties weren’t beholden to special interests? Our whole system is based on COMPROMISE, so that means that it always has been, and always will be a mess. That is a good thing, because the alternative is… Read more »
If you put a Democrat or Republican in the White House I don’t believe there would be much difference if it were a Woman or Man. Someone once told me: Vote Democrat if you hate Men and Vote Republican if you hate Women. Of course that is an over-simplification but it does partially ring true based upon my own observations and experiences. I believe both parties are so confined by their own agendas that it would take someone outside the existing political power-structure to change things for the better. If that person is a Woman then I say I’m all… Read more »
I do think it is about time to have a woman as president but its got to be the right one (Palin is scary and worse then Romny I think). The person that has my vote this year and it just so happens to be a woman team running for office is Jill Stein and VP running mate Cheri Honkala. They might not stand much of a chance of actually beating out Romny or Obama but if no one votes/supports for another party we will remained locked in this one party system.
My favorite story about Chisholm is that as a Congresswoman she tried to get on several powerful committees but was pushed to the margins and assigned to the Agriculture Committee instead. The people making those decisions no doubt hoped to bury her in useless work. This was a woman from Brooklyn, with no farmer constituency, who never expressed any interest in agricultural issues, put on the Agriculture Committee. So, what did she do? Worked with Bob Dole, of all people, to get the government to help Midwestern farmers by expanding the nation’s food stamp programs. She thought, fine, you’re going… Read more »
As a liberal, I have to be a little cautious about hoping for a female president. There is a better than even chance that the first woman president will be an arch-conservative. I think it’s clear to most people who are paying attention that being a female politician does not necessarily make you a feminist. It’s possible for a woman president to make women’s lives worse than a male politician would. The growing number of women politicians has been the dog that didn’t bark. The gender of a candidate seems to make surprisingly little difference in terms of policies or… Read more »
People who believe that a change in the president’s gender will automatically entail some significant shift in presidential politics will, I suspect, turn out to be just as sorely mistaken as those who thought a change in the president’s race will entail a significant shift in presidential politics. (By “significant,” I mean beyond what one might expect from a change in party.) BTW, Tom, given the content of your post, don’t you think you could have mentioned the one significant presidential candidate slate that is, in fact, female (the Green Party’s Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala? They also happen to… Read more »
“Barack the peace-maker who doubled down in Afghanistan all remind me a heck of a lot more of a Bud Light commercial than Dove for Men.”
Yeah, and… Who was his secretary of state?
@Lori: I think perhaps you might be missing the point of all this talk on abortion, birth control etc. This is what people (Not just men) want to talk about, this is the stuff that gets the media talking and covering their campaigns, For many it seems that abortion and BC are the only things they care about which is why some many people write blogs, do stories etc when an incident happens, like the moron who thinks that rape won’t cause a pregnancy, but guess what , a ton of people got ALOT of political mileage out of that… Read more »
My personal reason for wanting a female president–and more importantly, a legislature that is 50% female–is that we would not spend years discussing abortion, birth control and transvaginal probes instead of jobs and the economy. I read this whole article, and then the comment thread (although I skimmed and may have missed something), and was struck at the absence of appropriately strong focus on this problem. In fact, its absence really bothered me. If you are a woman in this country now, there is a big likelihood that you are desperate for more female leadership because you want to get… Read more »
Do you truly believe a woman will act in the best interests of women when the men in power routinely do not act in the best interests of men? Will they be much different? Sadly I think it’d be the same ol upper class getting the candy whilst the low and probably middle class get bucklies. There are quite a lot of women who are against abortion, one of them may get into office which would be sad. Women are the majority voters, that’s a hell of a lot of power they hold if they can co-ordinate who to vote… Read more »
I’m afraid I agree, that women who get into power on a conservative ticket will do no more for women than men do. It’s the minds you need to change, not the genders.
Exactly,
Candidates of either gender will have their hands constrained by a need to please their constituency and donors. Abortion is a divisive issue and many feel strongly about it and use it as a stomping ground to build “creds” with their target groups.
Why would you expect this to end because of the politicians gender?
If you are a woman in this country now, there is a big likelihood that you are desperate for more female leadership because you want to get the attack dogs pulled off of your rights, and you want to male politicians on the right to do their f-ing jobs and leave your body alone. I was thinking that if you are a woman in this country now there would be a big likelihood that you are desperate for ANY leadership that will get the attack dogs pulled off of your rights and you want ALL the male politicians to do… Read more »
I can imagine some slight change in the political arena down the road as the country’s demographics change. Now that the majority of paychecks go to women instead of men, the majority of women are single, and the percentage of women without children increases, I would expect the political issues would also shift. I’m guessing, too, that more and more women having professional careers would also translate into more women making a transition into politics. In a sense, more women are being trained for politics than there were before. I would expect the politics of education, especially higher education, would… Read more »
I don’t think switching genders will do more than buy us a little time. Not that women shouldn’t be in politics, but the way the system is so corrupt now, the dreamers of either gender aren’t getting elected; only centrists with millions of dollars of their own or other peoples’ money, are.
Why any man would want a female president (especially miss hillary) is beyond me, right now under male presidents their plights are ignored, can you even imagine what it would be like under a female one. As a woman, I can tell you a woman president would be no different than a male, because power corrupts.
I’d like to see a female president, but I only want them voted in because they’re the best candidate, not as a novelty for woman power. Male, female, both can fuck up the presidency bad, both could be great. It won’t solve the corruption issue but it may give women a new role model.
Any man going through a divorce had better have a female judge if he wants any justice. Women have traditionally cared a lot more about men than men have.
With the exception of gender feminists. Then you might as well have a bullseye painted on the back of your head.
What’s worse to be ignored and told to stop whining or to be hated and hunted?
But hold on Gingko I thought men were looking out for each other in this system of Keep Women Down (aka patriarchy)?
I’m in favor of having a greater female presence in politics, on the grounds that I support gender equality, but I think it’s wishful thinking to suppose that a female president would counteract the harm caused by her male predecessors just by dint of having a female perspective, at least in the short run. Unfortunately, male domination of politics has forced female candidates to act just as macho as their male opponents. If you look at the recent female candidates for national office, nearly all of them have been aggressive and hawkish. Maybe long-term changes in gender roles will allow… Read more »
European and other countries have had female Presidents and they’ve not been any different than the men. Angel Merkel is a good example. I haven’t seen any difference in gender roles based on her Presidency. She is as tough, aggressive, and hawkish as any male German Chancellor has been, not including Hitler.
Women don’t approach governing like mothering any more than men do. They are very hard problems, and while compassion is helpful, you can’t be a softie or they will run you over and through.
Hillary Clinton would be an epicly bad choice. She said this didn’t she “”Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
How disconnected can you be from reality? Male rights n issues I truly do believe would go on ignored badly by Hillary whilst female issues would be given 100% of the focus. I’d rather someone of any gender, male or female, black, white, green or blue, who can give an even spread of focus to all the important issues such as both genders, all races, economy, etc.
IMO if Hillary had gotten the nomination in 2008 the Democrats would be riding high through this election, and Mitt would not be within striking distance, as I believe he is now. If that counts as ascribing value to a woman president, though I would not have voted for her, count me in. I must also add that having Big Bill raiding the refrigerator at the White House again would be a big plus for candidate Hillary. I had hoped that Condoleeza Rice would get the VP nod this time, but I don’t think she was interested. I do think… Read more »
I actually agree with you but for different reasons that you suggest. Hillary would have been better than Obama, not because she’s a woman but because she would be told what to do by a man, her husband.
Hillary is just as clueless as Obama. However, if she were elected, she would’ve had the major advantage of having Bill to tell her what to do, although she would have publicly denied it.
Given our most recent choices like Michele Bachmann, Hilary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin, I’m not seeing the difference. We don’t have a male/female leadership problem in the White House, we have a unified party problem wherein the Democrats and Republicans do little to distinguish themselves. Both voted in droves to kill Arabs and Muslims. Both gutted the Bill of Rights in an act of cowardice following September 11, 2001 and both continue to do so regardless of the gender of the Member of Congress. All three female candidates I mentioned above want to kill people with bombs and guns… Read more »
James, I don’t know if you are still following this thread but I thought that I might comment on your post. I have to say that I generally disagree with your political views, but we are similar in that there are also issues that I feel very strongly about. I would also love to vote for a woman president that shared my world view to some degree. But no matter how closely a candidate espouses policies that we agree with, those candidates HAVE TO GET ELECTED. Since we have over 130 million voters and thousands of special and local interests… Read more »
The issue isn’t a lack of good men, it’s that our best men are running from politics. As they should be! As ALL decent people- men and women -should be! Politics is a system that rewards bad behavior- lying, cheating, bribery, theft, abuse, violence. Consequently, it attracts large numbers of bad people, and corrupts those good people who make the mistake of dirtying themselves by participating. Worst of all, all of this disgusting behavior has become so normalized in our society under innocuous-sounding terms like “politics” and “government” that we are now trained to praise and honor those who engage… Read more »
I haven’t done an in-depth look at her beliefs and stances, but just from a cursory look, i think I’d be willing to vote for Meghan McCain if she were ever to run. She conservative, but she’s also pro-gay marriage and pro-marijuana legalization.
Of course, she’s pro-life (I think) but she’s also pro contraception, which is at least morally consistant, in my book.
I’ll put more faith in this “Men have fucked up the world, maybe it’s time for women to take over.” line when the ones that spit it fess up to holding men as a collective responsible for the screw ups instead of saying the above line in one breath but in the next saying they aren’t casting men as a monolith. Either you think we are a collective and we fucked up and need to get out the way to make room for women or we are and it’s bad men that have fucked up and need to get out… Read more »
I don’t think gender has too much to do with the office. I think a female president would find herself making the same calls as any man. Large breasts to allow you to pick the issues that come through your door.
Oh, Ron you are no fun. Just saying we have had a monopoly on the office now for 200 plus years and screwed it up to a fairly well. How about a real change?
A woman as president instead of a man isn’t a real change. It doesn’t matter to me if it’s Hillary Clinton or Condaleeza Rice instead of Barack Obama or George Bush bankrupting the country with wars against innocent people, locking up harmless people convicted of victimless offenses, and rewarding their corporate buddies with working people’s tax dollars. Same system. Same corruption. Same incentives for bad behavior. Same unethical leadership. Same abusive results.
Yeah, it wouldn’t be any different unless she thinks very differently than any Republican or Democratic politician, male or female. Some thought that the first black President would be different, but not so much. For instance, under the first black President, the state of young black males has gotten even more terribly horrific, and he has provided evidence that doesn’t care at ALL. Apparently, a 47% graduation rate is not low enough for him. Under a woman President, the state of males, especially black males would likely get even worse, if that’s even possible. If she’s anything like Nancy Pelosi,… Read more »
Well, we did invent it after all.
We also know that women in power act no differently from men in power:
http://www.genderratic.com/p/1954/apexuality-%e2%80%93-women-can-do-it-too/
http://www.genderratic.com/p/1402/v-leaks-2-0-women-in-groups-wonderful-or-warlords/
And we also know that the person in charge does not call the shots, that that person is a front man. There is an entire structure of power in and around DC and one person is only one person.
Besides. We also know that women are the majority of voters, so if there is no woemn president, we should ask why women don’t want one, because they are the ones who will know the answer to that.