Why the U.S. has trouble loving Hillary
Re The mystery of Americans’ distaste for Hillary Clinton, July 25 Contrary to Thomas Walkom’s interpretation, the distaste that I and others have for Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her gender and her professional attainment, and everything to do with her embrace of neoliberal and economic orthodoxy.
Beginning with the “Powell Memo” and “The Crisis of Democracy” report from the early 1970s, U.S. and global capitalists embarked upon a program to reassert their class power in opposition to the “New Left” student movement, militant labour activity and a broader countercultural zeitgeist.
This has manifested itself in the neoliberal paradigm over the last 40 years, characterized by retrenchment of the welfare state, privatization of public assets, deregulation of economic sectors favouring capital flows and accumulation, including free trade deals, gutting of labour regulations giving rise to precarious employment, and a moral ethic of personal responsibility couched in language of self-fulfilment and self-actualization through therapeutic discourses.
If Mrs. Clinton has in any way distanced herself from this program recently, which in her case has also included the demonization of another minority group in the past, AfricanAmericans, it is only because the Bernie Sanders’ campaign pushed her in that direction. This lack of an ethical compass has resulted in Dr. Cornel West referring to her as the Milli Vanilli of American politics.
And, in part, the cynicism and revulsion on display at the Democratic National Convention this week is a feature of the lack of faith delegates likely feel with respect to her enacting any of the progressive elements of the party platform were she to win the presidency in November.
Had Thomas Walkom conducted his usual astute economic analysis, he would have found plenty of reasons for the distaste many Americans feel toward her without wading into the terrain of identity politics. Robert Bertuzzi, Hamilton I remember watching Hillary Clinton sign copies of her recently completed memoir, Hard Choices, at Indigo two years ago. She was totally relaxed, seemed to enjoy chatting with people, even posing for the odd selfie. In short, she was totally at ease and enjoying herself.
I wondered then and have always wondered, why do so many Americans hate her? I thought of all of this when I read Thomas Walkom’s thoughtful column. As he and others have pointed out, misogyny and fear of strong women in what is still a very male-dominated society is part of the equation. But there is something else, but let’s start with the facts, just the facts.
Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, tested, examined and scrutinized person ever to seek the U.S. presidency. Through sheer tenacity and amazing grit, she has become the first female nominee of a major American political party.
Along with her husband, she has endured three decades of relentless attacks, from Whitewater, to Travelgate to Benghazi to accusations of malfeasance at the Clinton Foundation, none of which amounted to anything. Her so-called email scandal is much ado about nothing. As a recent Financial Times columnist pointed out, there’s an industrial scandal complex that has developed around the Clintons that has been largely fuelled by a right-wing fringe and a supportive media.
As Nicholas Kristof pointed out in an April 24 New York Times op-ed, because of all the scandals that amounted to nothing but were attributed to the Clintons in the 1990s, a certain narrative began and it stuck that they were untrustworthy. Bill is no longer running for office, but she is, so this matters. In fact Kristof noted that Hillary’s policy proposals during the primaries were the most trustworthy, honest and doable of all the candidates running for office. Narratives are important — but once the public has an entrenched view, it’s hard to change.
Just think of some examples in the U.S. and Canada. Gerald Ford was a klutz, Jimmy Carter was a failed president, Bob Rae was a failed premier and Joe Clark was a dimwit — none of which is true but a narrative was formed — and this is why Hillary Clinton, no matter how competent and qualified she is, will always have the tag of being untrustworthy and somewhat sleazy. She’s hardly perfect, but when you reach for the top job in the world, have been in the public spotlight for 30 years and you’re the most famous woman in the world, you have accumulated some baggage.
But this narrative is unfair and doesn’t help. Winning the presidency, as she will, will dispel all doubts and another major glass ceiling in the U.S. will have been broken. Andrew van Velzen, Toronto Thomas Walkom finds it hard to understand why Americans, even Democratic Party supporters, are not thrilled with Hillary Clinton. He lightly passes over her past problems and concludes that because she is a strong woman she is harshly criticized.
While holding a very important position in the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton decided to use her own email server. Not only was this illegal but her actions put the country’s security at risk. The director of the FBI stated that she should be charged but because charges may impact on the election, he recommended that charges not be laid.
I would argue that it is because of her gender that Hillary is not being criticized more. Many individuals are anxious to see a female president and are not seriously analyzing her mistakes in the hope that she will become president.
Mr. Walkom states that at least she is better than Donald Trump on the truthfulness scale. Is that the bar that is being set for president of the United States? Clearly, the bar is not set too high. Rick Hird, Whitby Re First lady fires up Democrats, July 26 It seems no one can fire up anyone in the U.S. What happened to decorum, civility and playing by convention rules? Both the Republicans and Democrats should start over again. Russia must be laughing from afar, looking at this corruption and fixing the results. Communism isn’t palatable but neither is democracy, it seems, these days. Come to your senses, America, and bring back respect and dignity to the electoral process. Richard MacFarlane, Toronto American voters are already confused and divided over whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump should be their next president. Never before has a famous idiom been more apt in capturing the sombre mood and cynical backdrop of a nation than the influence that both these candidates have had on a weary electorate that deserves better but must settle for mediocrity. Which candidate is the lesser of two evils? Robert Ariano, Scarborough For a long time I had hoped to see Hillary Clinton become U.S. president. But now I see that the system was rigged for her, and against Bernie Sanders. How could she not have known? Now I feel that voting for her is like having the Russians in the Olympics; their use of drugs is rigging the system, too.
Bernie’s supporters and clean athletes have all been cheated. Rev. Lorne O’Neill, Alliston, Ont. It is a good thing that atheists don’t have a skin colour to identify them. Imagine if we were all green? Then the DNC would not have had to speculate in a leaked email whether they could lose Bernie Sanders some votes by presenting him as an atheist rather than just being Jewish. They could have simply looked at him and known right away. Russell Pangborn, Keswick, Ont. For undermining the Sanders campaign, outgoing DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz deserves the “dunce” award of the year. The shenanigans of Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the DNC is counterproductive to the party. As a result, Hillary Clinton would be better off without Wasserman Schultz working on her campaign.
Clinton doesn’t need any more baggage. She’s got enough of her own to contend with. JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater, Fla. The 19th Constitutional Amendment gave women the right to vote in America in 1920, 131 years after that of men. It took another 96 years for women to fully use their voting powers when the Democratics chose Hillary Clinton to be the first female presidential nominee of a major political party. It is only fitting Philadelphia was the site of this historic and momentous event. It was the nation’s first capital from 1790 to 1800 and where the Declaration of Independence was signed. Kenneth L. Zimmerman, Huntington Beach, Calif. Trying to cover up their nefarious emails, the Democratic Party has blamed Russian hackers. Who cares if Russia or some other country hacked the emails? The fact is that such emails showed that Hillary was unethically favoured by the party as its nominee and that Sanders was “playing” against a loaded deck. Donald Trump (and Saunders) were right — the system is rigged! Barry Bloch, Thornhill After seeing Bill Clinton speak the other night, I no longer care if Hillary is lying about whatever. I want Bill Clinton back in the White House! Marc Perkel, Gilroy, Calif. Mitch Potter is absolutely correct: it is indeed time to be afraid. Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican convention, combined with his recent interviews and his long history of blatant lying and denial of facts, paint a clear picture of an accomplished con artist, sociopathic liar and fascist.
I echo the sentiments of historian Ken Burns, that while not drawing a direct comparison between Donald Trump and Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler, this lifelong grifter’s demagoguery is eerily reminiscent of the 1930s in Italy and Germany. And with fascism and racism currently on the rise across Europe, all of us, not just Americans, should be very afraid. Raphael Vigod, Toronto Trump’s acceptance speech was the most hysterical, xenophobic, nationalistic and fear-mongering jingoistic speech of clichés and faux patriotic nonsense (complete with endless “USA” chants) I’ve ever heard in my 70 years.
While I have little love for Hillary, he absurdly exaggerated her “crimes” to the point of total incredulity. James R. Dubro, Toronto Don’t blame Trump. Despite his views on NATO, NAFTA, Muslims, Mexicans, women, physically-challenged reporters and his insulting diatribes against his fellow Republicans and Hillary Clinton, he is the presumptive Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency. Blame his followers, who are legion and appear to like his message. Max Desouza, Toronto