Skip navigation.
The Texas Blue
Advancing Progressive Ideas

What A Difference Consciousness Makes

She proved all of the pundits wrong.

Women voters gave Hillary Clinton a surprise victory in New Hampshire, after breaking with the Obama campaign in significant numbers to side with Clinton.

Some thought that crying in public made Clinton appear more “human.” Others were convinced it could make a female candidate uniquely vulnerable to defeat.

But we’ve come a long way from 1987, baby.

That post-feminist year, Representative Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo, ran for president. She had been blessed with a supportive spouse who was ready and eager to break other barriers by becoming First Gentleman.

But when she cried on the campaign trail, people openly questioned Schroeder’s leadership capabilities. It wasn't enough that she was a staunch and reliable progressive vote; Schroeder was also expected to be tough, and some people found a crying candidate disconcerting during the Cold War. American Democracy in the 80's was supposed to be ultra-macho and proactively aggressive.

The incident became late night TV fodder and it illustrated a big political double standard. Schroeder had proven herself too “soft” to continue the race. While the guys were supposed to come across as “sensitive” to obtain women's votes, women had to hide who they were to get elected to the same offices.

Today, female candidates can finally cry in public without sacrificing the integrity of their campaign. Women no longer have to straddle a paradox of being both professional and warm. Historically, they have lost out either way on the campaign trail, and this catch-22 hurt every American. We might have been denied the best leaders simply because they were not from the right demographic group. How would America have fared if Shirley Chisolm and Sissy Farenthold were elected in 1972 instead of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew?

Undoubtedly, we could also compare this season to 1992. That year, a record number of women ran for, and were elected to, federal offices. It resulted in the “year of the woman,” especially for blue seats. Being a progressive, political woman was at last mainstream.

Taking note of an emergent election trend, the media suddenly developed a newfound interest in covering women’s issues, including our voting patterns, the gender gap, and overall sociopolitical status.

This year, everything changes and forever. Getting more seats is not enough. This time we are going to fundamentally reshape what democracy means. It’s overdue for rejuvenation.

I grew up thinking that books using a male universal pronoun were odd, and our children will find it sincerely amazing that American presidents had once been all white men. They are only going to know a world where any American-born citizen can occupy the Oval Office. And that’s exactly how it should be.

Candidates crying

Don't you remember how when Edmund Muskie cried in helpless anger when the Manchester Union-Leader's Loeb defamed Muskie's wife Muskie was destroyed? Muskie had good cause for his display of emotion, but that was perceived by the media as weakness.

Muskie

I never thought we would have occasion to discuss Ed Muskie as much as we have in the last few weeks.

Oh how America's evolved on this one

It was even further back that male candidates were blasted for their public crying. I'm impressed American politics is now reaching the point in time where everybody can be open with their emotions. A candidate too tightly wound up comes across to me as more plastic and even dangerous.

Syndicate content