US GETS A DOSE OF CLINTIPATHY
If Donald Trump is elected US president on Tuesday, he should thank . . . ‘Hillary wouldn’t qualify as the first female president anyway — she’s more man than woman’
THE hair was the easiest part. The morning after I had clicked “Hillary Clinton wig” on Amazon, a 100% synthetic, side-parted, $11 (about R148) mop landed in my mailbox, worryingly described as “female political candidate wig” on the invoice — as though there could only ever be one helmet hairstyle for all “overly ambitious” women worldwide.
The makeup, too, was surprisingly simple: a discreet touch of eyeliner, rouge and a poppy-painted lip to showcase that ever-gaping battlecry mouth. But the pantsuit. Lord, the pantsuit. It took two flea markets and four charity shops to locate the perfect Mao-collared magenta marquee. And it was only as I stepped out on to the streets of Los Angeles on Halloween night, feeling every inch the Democratic presidential candidate, that my daughter pointed out my mistake: “Look, Mommy — everyone else is Hillary too!”
Trying to explain to a fouryear-old why so many Americans find Hillary Clinton scary, even ghoulish — and why, in a cast of characters involving headless corpses, flesh-eating zombies and vampires, she fits in just fine — was more enlightening for me than her. Back in Britain, we don’t fully understand “Clintipathy” — a term coined by TIME magazine to describe the pathological hatred people have for Hill’n’Bill (although, since it doesn’t apply to Bill on his own, it’s basically just directed at Hill).
Accurately described as “one part totally rational, one part sexist and unfair”, Clintipathy has been building momentum for 20 years, reaching its apotheosis with the FBI’s bombshell decision to reopen the case on the legality of Clinton’s e-mail server, after “pertinent” information was uncovered during the sexting investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner.
The importance of this latest development in fuelling the rational part of Clintipathy cannot be downplayed.
Now, at least, there is a socially acceptable (if disingenuous) reason for voting Trump
Now, at least, there is a socially acceptable (if disingenuous) reason for voting for Donald Trump. And it may well be that Weiner’s “wiener” has changed the course of this election — and the future of the US.
But the truth is that it has always been about symbolism with Clinton, as though — impossible as it is to see her as a real, feeling, flesh-and-blood woman — she has been reduced to a series of emblems.
That photograph of her bespectacled in her liberal hippie years inspires antagonism, as did the Clintons’ yuppie ’80s period. Her “female political candidate” hair symbolises hardness, her pantsuits a lack of femininity.
But most of all, right down to that smug and permanently open mouth, she is to many the symbol of corner-cutting entitlement, which is why the email scandal has been so damaging. And, presumably, why FBI director James Comey, a Republican, did everything he could to widen the trust gap between her and the public by taking the unprecedented step of sending a letter to Congress announcing his discovery of these “pertinent” e-mails on the second-to-last Friday before election day.
Because, despite Comey’s insistence that the FBI is above politics, his reasoning — “It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record” — was as feeble as it was transparent.
So far, so logical. But it’s the “sexist and unfair” part of Clintipathy that’s most interesting. Because, as the more powerful part, it’s the reason we could see Trump elected president on November 8.
“If only there were a third box on the ballot paper marked ‘anyone else’,” my Mexican Uber driver said the other day, “I would tick that one. But if it’s the lesser evil, I have to go for Trump.”
Many Brits would be baffled by that statement. As they would by the misogynistic lingo constantly used to describe Clinton — the worst of which comes from women. One mom even defended her decision to vote Trump with: “Hillary wouldn’t qualify as the first female president anyway — she’s more man than woman.”
Aside from her ambition, there’s actually nothing manly about Clinton. Sure, she’s hardnosed and steely, but no more so than every contrasting-lapelled female news anchor — and certainly no more so than any top woman executive. There is, however, a tradition-
She is to many the symbol of corner-cutting entitlement
ally female trait she is lacking — and it’s that which is at the root of Clintipathy, and is its most sexist and unfair aspect.
Just as certain nationalities and minorities are expected to be obsequious, women are expected to be solicitous, and that is the one thing Clinton cannot and will not be. “Men can’t stand her because she reminds us all of our ex-wives,” a (divorced) man explained. Why? Because ex-wives are some of the few women who have zero reason to be solicitous.
Clinton may have been up 12 points and down again in the space of a few days, but there isn’t a pollster who can tell us whether people are going to vote rationally or irrationally.
Since there isn’t an “anyone else” box, the US will have to choose from two of the most “dislikable” candidates seen in decades. Yet given how likeable — and disappointing — their president of the past eight years has been, perhaps dislikability would be a better measure of who would be best for the job.
And let me tell you that on All Hallow’s Eve, when Hillary Clintons flooded the streets, they sent the handful of Trumps running, hands on toupées, for the hills.