Opinion
I’ll take a female president, just not her
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Gerald Cox:
- Options poor in county race (April 6, 2009)
- AIG sparks Congress' ignorance (March 22, 2009)
- Same old strategies won't save republicanism (March 2, 2009)
- Black leaders won't let America's racist heritage go (February 23, 2009)
- ASM constitution will not succeed without students (February 19, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton has been infused with a kind of novelty that only an "America's first 'insert race/sexual orientation/gender here' candidate" could invoke. At the same time, Ms. Clinton's apologists have dismissed gender as a legitimate issue. I think we can all be excited that America is finally breaking with an antiquated social norm by all but acquiescing to an eerie presidential sequence of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. However, I can't help but lament that America's first legitimate shot at a female president is such a bad one.
Some would argue that Ms. Clinton's gender puts America in a lesser position when negotiating with particularly paternalistic societies. Such arguments are an unfortunate and anachronistic platitude when one considers that Condoleezza Rice, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto have all shown that such societies can evince exemplarily respectful behavior when faced with female leaders and societies. The behavior and treatment of these women during their tenures have shown that they can be treated with as much disdain, disrespect, love and adulation as their male counterparts.
The reasons that Ms. Clinton is ill-prepared to be my president has little to do with my worries that certain extreme elements within the Middle East or elsewhere may respect our country less. Unfortunately for those who have long awaited a legitimate female candidate, Ms. Clinton is a self-serving and erudite politico, yet another special-interest servant who will do little to unite the country.
At first it seems interesting that Sen. Barack Obama and Ms. Clinton are front-runner candidates, considering the traditional hurdles non-white, non-male candidates have faced in the American political process. It perhaps speaks to America's desire to break out of its traditional mold. Personally, I'd say it speaks to the strength of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton. Their front-runner status is exemplified in the Iowa polls: A recent poll by the Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest newspaper, shows Mr. Obama, once trailing, now leading Ms. Clinton by three points.
What exactly was it that put Mr. Obama over the edge in the Iowa polls? It is Americans' realization that the only change Ms. Clinton brings to the American presidency is her gender.
Ms. Clinton's strongest asset is her experience, and especially, as her campaign touts, her experience with health care. Yet it is health care, and the hopelessness of her plan to recreate the American health care landscape, that exemplifies her inability to unite the nation or Congress behind her.
In theory, the Clinton plan will cover every American, and every American will dutifully shoulder the load. However, I'm partial to the Obama equivalent. I like the emphasis on health care that is affordable for every American, versus an unenforceable mandate that requires every American to buy health care in this country
Many voters find themselves weary of Ms. Clinton's ability to be honest. But her health care plan may be the most honest she has been with the American people. Her health care plan addresses a reality that Americans are unwilling to address: The European brand of government-controlled health care works, and America would be well to emulate the model.
As such, Ms. Clinton's plan calls for the biggest expansion of government since FDR's Depression-era politics. Isn't that just like a Democrat? Try getting that passed through Congress. Remember 2007's immigration reform? No? That's because it didn't happen, and health care is about the only issue as difficult to deal with as immigration.
Mr. Obama's equivalent effectively deals with the American public's aversion to a government-run health care system and avoids the sweeping mandates that Ms. Clinton prefers. Mr. Obama's plan puts the government into a role of enabler for Americans who can't afford health care; Ms. Clinton's, it seems, makes the government an enforcer. How Hillary of her.
Iowans may also have begun to notice something that her health care plan, thankfully, does not reveal: Ms. Clinton's anachronistic approach to the question of special interests and lobbyist money. Ms. Clinton's acceptance of a system that killed off her and her husband's original attempt at universal health care in 1993 is an aberrant stance among the three Democratic front-runners. Sound like more of the same? That's because it is.
The male-only presidency is a ridiculous legacy that America must change. After eight years of an administration that has completely undermined our standing and reputation with every nation in the world outside of Albania, there is no better time to change this sad legacy than now. Electing America's first female president would be a powerful way to convey a message of change to the world. While we progressive-minded voters are anxious to send an "America's first…" president to the White House, we cannot allow our zeal for change to cloud our vision for America. Ms. Clinton is more of the same.
I would welcome the change of having a woman as my president, but Hillary Clinton must not be that woman.
Gerald Cox (gcox@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in economics.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 8e07bd80
Wow. And this coming from the Communications Chair of the College Democrats! I know Hillary’s campaign on campus is non-existence, but the Obama campaign must be thrilled after your Saint Nick story printed.
IP hash: b5dce4e8
“The behavior and treatment of these women during their tenures…”
your intention are good, but that sentence is ridiculous. as if their behavior would be different based on their gender. treatment, of course, unfortunatley.
“we cannot allow our zeal for change to cloud our vision for America. Ms. Clinton is more of the same”
what zeal? Clinton may be the front-runner, but “zeal.” that’s a stretch.
i don’t usually pick candidates based on political party, but i’d pick Clinton over any rep. pol. that’s a certainty.
IP hash: 158a1efe
Mr. Cox, Please, you’re an economics major! Don’t you see the problem with not mandating health coverage?
Healthy people wouldn’t buy coverage because they don’t need it. What happens then? Sick people are forced to pay more for their health care because there are no healthy people to share the risk with.
I sure hope the CDems use their column this week to talk about the need for universal health care or about the importance of a mandate. They at least understand public finance economics.
IP hash: 04325861
public finance 441 Mr. Cox- take it next semester
IP hash: 332a58d9
8:36 comment
Healthy people wouldn’t pay for health care… then why are they doing it now? What are you even talking about?
The healthcare system in this country is hands down, absolutely whack. But adopting a system from our Europeans friends is not always the answer. Basically, this country needs to stop thinking in terms of money on this issue and more so in terms of health. Obviously things need to be paid for but if the ridiculous patent laws were altered so that people could actually afford new drugs that are unavailable because of the law there would potentially be a lot less sick people. Not to mention malpractice insurance that makes healthcare so expensive. AND the fact that they will charge someone $10 for a bandaid or gauze… it’s just ridiculous. I have a good job with so called good insurance but even I can barely afford to go to the hospital.
IP hash: 77fb27ef
My comment has nothing to do with the editorial, but 1:39, if you discovered the cure or effective treatment for a disease, would you be happy if the patent laws allowed others to profit on your work (the generics) while you made nothing on it?
The real problem with the health care industry is the lawyers (and those who hire them). Ask a doctor how much they pay for malpractice insurance, it is probably more than you make in a year!
IP hash: da9a5dc4
HEY! This whole health care debate is so very silly. The only debate is whether we pay insurance companies billions now or billions later.
I have no idea why everyone thinks this is some pinko plot to make sick people well. This is corporate welfare… again.