We Shouldn't Taint Female Leadership with Tokens

I'm not certain what her approval rating is in the present, but Margaret Thatcher was a UK prime minister that is as loved as she is hated. She is sort of like a long-term George W Bush, in some ways. She was non-apologetic and resolute, but not magnanimous.

Similar to how Hillary Clinton is already scoffing at Bernie Sanders supporters, Thatcher thumbed her nose at defeated rivals. Her doctrine was essentially the belief that the state trying to improve on individual efforts was a mistake. To Thatcher, being "the good Samaritan" meant one helps oneself over the poor, that regardless of the outcome, it was government intervention that produced the UK's economic and moral decline.

This message resonated very well during the cold war. The problem with that belief is that it's not possible for the government to avoid picking winners and losers. No matter the government policy, or lack thereof, somebody is going to win or lose. If this was not true, lobbyists wouldn't exist. The investment industry happened to win out through her policies. It grew to record size while pushing out much of the importance of other parts of the economy.

The same old story we've heard since the movie Metropolis: austerity and bootstraps capitalism for the workers, welfare and socialism for the wealthy. That was the paradigm that developed, despite any rhetoric. Even if much of the old order will continue to have faith in such ideologies, the way economic reality is unfolding as the millennial generation takes over, their approval has nowhere to go but down, along with Thatcher's legacy.

We shouldn't taint female leadership with tokens

On the right, Dilma Rousseff, the current president of Brazil, was previously endorsed by Hillary Clinton for her transparency. Rousseff is set to be impeached for corruption, most likely successfully. Even though it seems like she is not the only perpetrator in the corruption, by far, she will still probably become the face of Brazil government corruption.

Then we have Hillary Clinton. She is currently being investigated by the FBI over possible violations of national security protocols. Regardless of the validity of those allegations, the head of the FBI is a staunch Republican. He could choose to indict her the day after the democratic convention, or he could simply leak documents that put her in bad light, but there is no way to know, at the moment. Even if she dodges that bullet, Hillary Clinton is already one of the least liked candidates, for various reasons, some valid and some mortally valid and repeated ad nauseum, second only to Trump, and arguably on par with Cruz.

The point? People that want a female president for the sake of a female president should consider the legacy a president leaves behind, instead of settling for a token in a candidate we already know is flawed. I would vote in a second for Elizabeth Warren or even Zephyr Teachout, if they ran for president. Margaret Thatcher was the first female prime minister of the UK, and the only one since.


0|0
1|2

Join the discussion

0/2500

Submit

What Girls Said 1

What Guys Said 2

  • People are tired of the same thing not working over and over. If you get to the core of it, past the republican propaganda. People don't want a repeat of a lot of presidents and in recent years, we have had a very bad slew of presidents. So as a matter of perspective people want something fresh, not someone backed by multi-billion dollar corporations, pressing a healthcare system that is full of shit, nor has in IQ below 100, like bush.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Interesting myTake. But as a lawyer I have to pick a nit. The FBI Director cannot make the decision to indict Queen Hillary or anyone else. All the FBI Director can do is make what is known as a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. It is the DOJ (through its U. S. Attorneys and with the approval of the Attorney General) that decides whether to seek an indictment from a federal grand jury. This is critical to know. James Comey, the FBI Director, is a standup guy and a straight shooter. I think he'll do whatever the evidence tells him is right. I don't think he'll hesitate to make a criminal referral. But the DOJ is another matter. Do you really think Obama is going to let his DOJ seek an indictment of Queen Hillary for mishandling top secret classified information? No. I don't either.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Regardless of anything, the motion to push for it would be enough. This is about the politics of the matter.

Loading...