Let’s retire the ‘grandma’ rhetoric
The flood of coverage on Hillary Clinton’s family role belittles her achievements and reveals an ugly truth about politics
Enough with the “Grandmother in Chief” moniker for newly declared presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. It’s patronizing, and far more important, it’s a political trap.
I’ve got nothing against grandmothers, hope to be one myself one day. But seeing this cutesy title pop up everywhere from the New York Times (“Grandmama Mia!”) to the Sydney Herald claiming Hillary “rocks the grandma card” is giving me a serious case of here we go again.
I will come right out and say it: it’s sexist.
Why is the media highlighting the former first lady, senator and secretary of state’s grandmommy status?
It may make her “warm and approachable” (she made hay of it herself not too long ago in a provaccine tweet with the hashtag #GrandmothersKnowBest”).
But calling Clinton “grandmother in chief” is another way to trivialize her. And of course to make sure her age — she’ll be 68 if elected — is front and centre.
Women have battled for years to be defined by their professional accomplishments and not merely by their intimate domestic relationships.
They’ve fought ferociously to be “nobody’s baby,” nobody’s wife and yes, even more than a loving mother, when inevitably, the first question a highly successful public woman is asked is: “How do you juggle your family obligations with the big job you’re doing?”
It’s not that women aren’t proud of their domestic roles. Clinton, by all accounts a fabulous mother to her only child, daughter Chelsea, was clearly thrilled last September when Chelsea gave birth to a daughter.
And as Peter Beinart wrote in the Atlantic, there is a poignant back story to Clinton delighting in her grandmother status — she had two very harsh grandmothers herself and wants not only to do better, but to celebrate the vital role that grandmothers play in children’s lives.
It’s also important that women seeking high office show what many a real woman’s life looks like, with the challenges of taking care of their families and succeeding professionally.
This week, as she declared her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton referenced her granddaughter Charlotte in an updated epilogue to her doorstopper book Hard Choices: “I’m more convinced than ever that our future in the 21st century depends on our ability to ensure that a child born in the hills of Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta or the Rio Grande Valley grows up with the same shot at success that Charlotte will.”
Realistically, there’s little chance of that. All political candidates, men and women, declare they want to make the world a better place for their children and their grandchildren. Bring on the apple pie.
Yet certainly neither Mitt Romney, unsuccessful GOP presidential candidate, or Ronald Reagan, highly popular president, both grandfathers, were referred to as Grampa in Chief.
In the few days since Clinton declared her candidacy in a folksy YouTube video where the emphasis was on the hopes and plans of “everyday Americans” instead of on a formidable woman so famous (and polarizing) she’s known only by her first name, I’ve been taken aback at some of the commentary.
“Can she talk womanhood without turning off men?” asked one Star story.
Huh? Does that mean that anything to do with the challenges, hopes and dreams of women is anathema to men, most of whom have women as partners?
There’s no question that Clinton, in contrast to her 2007/2008 run, is going squarely after the female vote, as well as offering all voters a chance to make her the first female president. She’d be daft not to emphasize the historical first she’d represent.
But let’s not make too much history: On CNN, one commentator reacted viscerally when the conversation turned to the populist Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the possibility of a “ClintonWarren” ticket. “But that would mean a two-women ticket!” she blurted.
Oh, gosh. Can’t have that. The two-man ticket has been the default U.S. presidential team for both Democrats and Republicans, except in two modern cases: when Ger- aldine Ferraro ran for vice-president with Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984; and of course when Sarah Palin joined Republican John McCain on his ticket in 2008, the same campaign in which Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama. Today, women have made such political inroads that a two-man ticket is beginning to seem old fashioned and boring.
Make no mistake. There’s lots to criticize about Hillary Clinton and even more to make fun of. So far, Saturday Night Live’s Kate McKinnon has been brilliant at hilariously depicting Clinton’s all-consuming ambition. She’s nailed her ha ha “aren’t I relatable” laugh, so much so that the real Clinton better hustle over to SNL and co-opt the comedy to make sure they’re laughing with her, not at her.
As for the charges that she’s inauthentic and stiff with voters, walking into a Chipotle chain restaurant and ordering lunch anonymously with her sunglasses on, as she did during her recent baffling mini van “road trip” to Iowa, did not exactly jibe with Clinton saying she was hitting the road to earn people’s votes. Don’t you have to actually meet them?
Nevertheless we shouldn’t forget — and she shouldn’t either — that she is running for President, otherwise known as Commander in Chief.
“Grandma” has a different role to play. Judith Timson writes weekly about cultural, social and political issues. You can reach her at judith.timson@ sympatico.ca and follow her on Twitter @judithtimson.
The two-man ticket has been the default U.S. presidential team for both Democrats and Republicans. But today, women have made such political inroads that it’s beginning to seem old fashioned and boring