Hil­lary’s re­venge tour and Nikki Ha­ley’s as­cent

Hil­lary Clin­ton blames her loss on misog­yny, but strong women are un­de­terred

The Washington Times Daily - - COMMENTARY - By Tammy Bruce

Hil­lary Clin­ton has emerged from the woods de­ter­min­ing that her elec­tion loss is every­one’s fault but her own. But even more sur­pris­ing was that Don­ald Trump col­lud­ing with the Rus­sians was sud­denly no longer the main cul­prit; no, now it was ha­tred of women that fu­eled her loss. But this was no or­di­nary misog­yny, it was the fault of women in par­tic­u­lar who ap­par­ently hate other women. Or some­thing.

In fact, if there’s a misog­y­nist in this story, it’s Hil­lary Clin­ton.

Mrs. Clin­ton spoke about her forth­com­ing book to The New York Times’ Ni­cholas Kristof at the Women in the world Sum­mit in New York, in which she will ex­plain it was misog­yny, the FBI’s James Comey, Wik­ileaks and Rus­sia that did her in.

In other words, a book of fiction blam­ing every­one ex­cept her­self.

Mr. Kristof du­ti­fully asked her about the im­pact misog­yny had on the elec­tion, hand­ing her the plate she re­quired to in­di­rectly riff on how those who did not vote for her are bad, mean peo­ple.

“I’m cur­rently writ­ing a book where I spend a lot of time wrestling with this,” she noted. “As you might guess, I’ve thought about it more than once. I don’t know that there is one an­swer. It is fair to say that cer­tainly misog­yny played a

role. That just has to be ad­mit­ted.”

At one point Mr. Kristof di­rectly asks Mrs. Clin­ton who she blames for her loss. Her sim­ple an­swer con­firms a mind­set that has re­moved her­self en­tirely from the equa­tion, while plac­ing every­one else at the ful­crum: “How much time do you have?”

The fact of the mat­ter is this: The peo­ple who didn’t vote for Hil­lary Clin­ton like women just fine, but they didn’t like one in par­tic­u­lar — her. It was her pa­tron­iz­ing sanc­ti­mony that re­pulsed peo­ple, yes, in­clud­ing women, dur­ing a cam­paign now re­turn­ing as a charged-up re­venge tour.

Mrs. Clin­ton holds her­self up as a les­son for girls and women in the dam­age misog­yny can do. And she’s right, but the per­pe­tra­tors are not the women who voted their con­science last year.

The ul­ti­mate in misog­yny is strip­ping women of their agency, of their self-worth. By ex­cus­ing her self-in­flicted fail­ure on the deeds of oth­ers, Mrs. Clin­ton is telling women noth­ing they do mat­ters; their choices are ir­rel­e­vant; their own de­ci­sions are mean­ing­less. In Hil­lary’s world, women are at the mercy of the en­vi­ron­ment, like a piece of drift­wood in the sea.

And yet this woman, vic­tim­ized by so much, still in­sists she coulda, woulda, shoulda, been pres­i­dent.

Are women im­pacted by the ac­tions of oth­ers? Of course we are. Our lives are more com­plex and the is­sues we face at home and in the work­place must be con­tin­u­ally chal­lenged. Women who suc­ceed rec­og­nize that it is our choices that make the dif­fer­ence on both what we of­fer and what we over­come.

In­stead, Mrs. Clin­ton re­lies on old fem­i­nist tropes, un­able to face her own fail­ures. She took for granted her base of sup­port. She pre­sumed she was owed the votes of a cer­tain type of per­son and then felt com­fort­able ig­nor­ing them. She ran a cam­paign of vengeance and en­ti­tle­ment, while pro­mot­ing an agenda that would fur­ther the eco­nomic de­struc­tion of the coun­try and ig­nored our in­creas­ingly per­ilous na­tional se­cu­rity.

Hil­lary Clin­ton lost be­cause she’s Hil­lary Clin­ton. She lost be­cause she never set foot in Wis­con­sin. She lost be­cause she lied. She lost be­cause of hor­ri­ble judge­ment and a re­sent­ment of, well, every­one.

She lost be­cause she ran a cam­paign where she was the one who was to be el­e­vated and lauded, when that is usu­ally re­served for the Amer­i­can elec­torate.

She made her­self the point, when the point was the United States. She lost be­cause, like most politi­cians, she viewed the Amer­i­can peo­ple as ob­sta­cles to over­come, not peo­ple to get to know.

As Hil­lary was rolling out her re­venge tour last week, there was another woman emerg­ing as the break­out star of the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion. Nim­rata Rand­hawa (also known as Nikki Ha­ley) our am­bas­sador to the United Na­tions. Mrs. Ha­ley was school­ing the world body and U.N. Se­cu­rity Coun­cil specif­i­cally about the hor­rors of the Syr­ian chem­i­cal weapons at­tack on op­po­nents of Assad’s regime.

Mrs. Ha­ley, a for­mer gov­er­nor of South Car­olina with no in­ter­na­tional diplo­matic ex­pe­ri­ence, was viewed sus­pi­ciously when first named to the post. Crit­ics, in­clud­ing this colum­nist, were con­cerned about her lack of a re­sume on the se­ri­ous is­sues be­set­ting the world. How could some­one, with no background at all in in­ter­na­tional pol­i­tics and diplo­macy, han­dle the pit that is the U.N.?

Those con­cerns no longer ex­ist after her vir­tu­oso han­dling of an in­ter­na­tional cri­sis re­plete with chem­i­cal weapons, mass mur­der, ter­ror­ist groups, Rus­sia and Iran. Mrs. Ha­ley was an iron fist in a vel­vet glove. She did not bend, she con­trolled the en­vi­ron­ment, and led.

We can all pre­sume there is an over­whelm­ing amount of misog­yny at the U.N. Mrs. Ha­ley is likely deal­ing with it ev­ery day, and yet every­one at the U.N. now knows who is in charge. And it’s not the boys from Syria, Rus­sia or Iran.

If we’re look­ing for role mod­els for women, the best choice is to look to women who find their power inside, own their choices and forge on­ward, not to those who in­sult us all by in­sist­ing we’re all vic­tims, at the per­pet­ual mercy of oth­ers.

As Hil­lary was rolling out her re­venge tour last week, there was another woman emerg­ing as the break­out star of the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion. Nim­rata Rand­hawa (also known as Nikki Ha­ley) our am­bas­sador to the United Na­tions.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.