The Future of the United States Presidency - 2012 - image: lavendarcastle.com
Historically, women in the United States have, for the most part, moved to the front of the political class more slowly than their male counterparts. Yes, women hold lofty positions – the office of Secretary of State held by Condoleezza Rice during the Bush administration and now by Hillary Clinton under the Obama brand and Nancy Pelosi, who has risen through the ranks to become the first female Speaker of the House. However, historical landmarks in 2008 were specific to women – Hillary Clinton being the first to run for President under the Democrat Party brand, and Sarah Palin, the first female Vice Presidential nominee under the Republican Party Brand and only the second woman to have been nominated for that position in this nation’s history. The first, Geraldine Ferraro, nominated by the Democrat Party in 1984, to run with Walter Mondale – all three, due a variety of circumstances, yet, while being applauded as having broken through the “glass ceiling”, Ferraro, Clinton and Palin all lost their respective bids. Clinton was shoved out, so to speak, having cornered the popular vote, the powers within the Democrat Party simply pushed Obama forward on the wings of the so-called “super delegates”, denying the nation the opportunity to vote for the only moderate left standing in the 2008 contests. Both Ferraro and Palin were tied to weak candidates, who would have been all but invisible had they chosen male running mates.
It is not that women haven’t held critical positions in both the public and private sector for the past thirty some-odd years, so why the blatant prejudice against women who run for the highest office?
Sexism is too tame a term (although appropriate in some instances) to use in the cases of the aforementioned – prejudice however, is not. The press, at every opportunity, took the option of critiquing wardrobe rather than accomplishments, and a simple “gaffe” produced innumerable headlines, days of talking heads and pundits analyzing the now “diminished” changes of whichever of these three women named, and all the while, ignoring fashion faux pas and horrific gaffes made by their male contemporaries (See Joe Biden).
As a result of the choice in 2008 between what was left-over, the United State elected the stronger (on paper – newspaper) candidate and with what result?
Unemployment is holding steady at close to 10%, (not to mention the underemployed and those who have stopped seeking employment), BP and the administration took 87 days to stop an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico that has done untold damage to the environment and tourism, the Congress and President in concert, has pushed through more unpopular legislation, faster than any other in history. Foreign policy is a disaster, as the United States is, once again, considered a “paper tiger”, and Obama is openly chastised by political leaders from Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.
The pure hype surrounding the man’s candidacy, coupled with a lack of experience, and a penchant for ideology, has produced one of the worst presidencies in history – bar none. One must keep in mind that historians, are basically an ideologically driven bunch – writing a presidential biography is part science (backed up by historical data: documents, etc.) and the viewpoint of the author. As academics are primarily politically Progressive – it is no wonder there is often a disconnect between the reality of a Presidents performance as voted by the people and whichever Presidential Historian is assigned to an administration. Fortunately, history, (which has a habit of repeating itself) as a science, can be modified and updated by any historian who might be a competent researcher and who is able to discern fact from ideology dispassionately.
What of women? Historically women have made solid leaders, regardless of one’s political leanings, there is no denying the accomplishments of the UK’s Margaret Thatcher, Israel’s, Golda Meir, (most recent) to Elizabeth I, Catherine of Russia and Isabella of Spain. Women, who rule over vast nations and territories, do no worse and often better than their male predecessors and successors.
History, as previously noted, does repeat, and the United States may see yet another historical political accomplishment in 2012 for women. As the Obama brand weakens daily, and Congressional Democrats find their chances greatly diminished, certain moderate members of the party have begun to seek alternatives, and only one competent alternative comes to the forefront – Hillary Clinton. Immediately following the January 21st Inauguration of Barak Obama, Clinton supporters had begun to hope for a run in 2012. Now, just shy of two years into his administration, the calls for Clinton to run in 2012 are becoming more frequent, and moving from the blogs to the Washington Post. An article by Pete DuPont in the Wall Street Journal on July 15th makes the case for a Clinton Presidency in 2012. Although an “op-ed” and the opinion of Mr. DuPont, should one search Hillary Clinton 2012 on Google, there are 1,687,000 results, a number than has grown over the past few months.
One must understand that traditional Democrats are not particularly enthralled with the Progressive Democrats who have taken leadership positions within their party – a schism where the majority will, if given the chance, do what should have been done in 2008 and nominate Clinton as their 2012 Presidential Candidate.
Should this occur, who would Ms. Clinton face in opposition? With the Democrat Brand as badly or if not more badly damaged now than the Republican brand in 2006-2008, the Republican’s who may run at the White House, are anyone’s guess.
That said guesswork has produced a field of candidates that include: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and yes, Sarah Palin. In a recent poll by Democrat Leaning Public Policy Polling, matching possible 2012 GOP candidates against Barak Obama results produced regarding two of the aforementioned, prove most interesting. The poll data (here) gives former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee a 2 point lead over the President, 47 to 45%, and polling higher among women (49% to 42%) than the President. Obama trails both Romney and Gingrich by 1 point (to date). That said, the match up of Palin and Obama is what is of most interest – although Palin places below her male GOP counterparts, at dead even with Obama (46%/46%), she is also now scoring higher with women (47% to 44%) than the President. Further, Public Policy Polling refers to Palin’s score as ”An Amazing Fact” because in March of this year she was at 35% to Obama’s 55% in a 2012 match up. Additionally, it appears that even though her unfavorability actually rose in the latest poll, she is still besting the current Pennsylvania Avenue resident.
What this tells us – The United States is preparing to look at strong women to lead. Although alleged to be polar opposites, one might find the two women closer on issues of substance and policy than either major political party would be comfortable with. Both are strong on defense, tough of foreign policy and have backgrounds to suggest fiscal responsibility – the criteria which voters in this election will seek. How credible is a Clinton – Palin match-up in 2012? Although early in the game, both women have enough political capital to push through the ranks to the top of their tickets. The outcome would depend a great deal on how badly the Democrat brand has been damaged, and if Clinton can pull away from the administration in time to convince the voters she does not prescribe to the Progressive ideology that many see as having destroyed our nation on so many levels. Palin, on her part, must get past the media, who were concerned about her “star-power” from the moment she accepted the GOP nomination in 2008 and began to draw larger crowds than Obama. Although ratings and circulation have fallen dramatically for Palins' detractors, it would be naive to believe that, regardless of who Palin would face as a competitor, the media would be prepared to eviscerate her. The saving grace should the match up be two women, pantsuits and updo’s would be off the table, and reporting would be forced to turn to substantive issues and differences between two highly qualified women. The result, voters would have a chance to choose between two candidates, knowing that the outcome would be favorable for the nation, regardless of who won the presidency.
