What if All the Hillary Clinton Stereotypes Were Correct?

There was a lot of sexism expressed in the 2016 Election and Hillary Clinton is planning to address this in her new book What Happened.  I saw men who I registered last year who were bold and frank when they said there was no way that they could vote for a woman as President.  We heard in the media questions about Clinton’s “stamina” as a wink to support those sexist voters.  Clinton specifically did not want to look “too feminine” for fear of being portrayed as not able to stand up to Russia.  She did not show much compassion out of fear of being viewed as “grandmotherly” or worse soft. 

This comes from a Slate cover story in May by MichelleGoldberg, “All the ancient clichés about women—are they trustworthy, are they strong enough to be commander in chief—all those come into play,” says Madeleine Kunin, the former governor of Vermont. “If you’re too tough, you’re not feminine. If you’re too feminine, you’re not tough enough. There’s a very small space between those two that is safe territory.’”

Stereotypes usually have some small kernel of truth that are grossly distorted.  Now that we have seven months of reflection over the loss of Hillary Clinton we can have some perspective.  I contend that even if every stereotype were true, we would be in a much better place in the United States.  There is so much sexism in America which turns out to be stronger than the racism of a segment of the populations.  What if we accept the most extreme sexist statements regarding Clinton that one would hear over a beer at the local watering hole or on the pages of Brietbart? 

In the area of foreign policy, the sexists said that Former Secretary of State Clinton would never be able to stand up to Vladimir Putin or the leaders in Iran.  Okay, she is a frail and soft woman who would not be able to thump her chest or bang our war drums with any sincerity.  Would you rather be in the pocket of the Russians or have a President who is hands off and only willing to engage diplomatically?  Some of our most important allies are led by women, so Clinton could gossip with them or passing Beyonce baby updates with Angela Merkel, Teresa May and Christine LaGarde to bring the world powers closer together.  Bottom line, sexists cannot disagree that closer ties with Germany, Britain and the International Monetary Fund is a good thing no matter if they think that Hillary would be hosting sleepovers in the White House with other female world leaders. 

Domestically, we heard the stereotype that she would have mood swings that would make it difficult to follow her directives.  Assuming the worst stereotype, isn’t that better than the daily mood swings of the current occupant of the White House?  I mean he was so angry about the treatment he received over racist comments about Charlottesville that he banned trans individuals from the military by Tweet.  There is no way that a mood swing could be more pronounced with a woman when compared to what we have seen in the last six months. 

Hillary Clinton would rely on her nurturing side in the budget process.  The sexist stereotype would say she would give away the store because she could not say no to anyone.  I know one thing, we sure could have used some compassion and nurturing behavior in dealing with the victims of Harvey in Houston.   Clinton would have never proposed such a devastating budget that increased Homeland Security, the military and cut almost everything else.  The current administration proposed one of the most Alpha Male budgets in history that if it had any chance of passing would have crushed the middle class in America. 

The sexists believe that Clinton would be submissive and would do what she is told by Congress.  I say at least, something would get done.  Right now we are at a standstill with conflict and rhetoric the only thing rising in Congress.   Clinton is a flirt and would be too busy batting her eyes at Justin Trudeau to get anything done is another offensive stereotype heard on Facebook.  Being close to Canada with their respectful treatment of refugees and universal access to healthcare seems like we could learn a lot from our neighbors to the north, even if we discovered it through inappropriate contact between the leaders.

Senator Clinton played the “Woman Card” during the election and therefore would have regularly played a victim in the Oval Office was a common trope with some extremists.  Putting aside the reality that sometimes when a person says “there is a right wing conspiracy” they might be correct, what is the harm here?  She did not demonstrate victim behavior as a senator or as a Secretary of State, but I am not sure how this would play out in real life.  Once you take the most powerful position on the planet, it is difficult to become the victim.  Maybe she would whine that the Republicans won’t confirm her nominees that she was slow to nominate or maybe she would try to get special exemptions from the law for her friends or supporters.  These are hard to imagine that America would be confronted with a Whiner-in-Chief who blames everyone else for the things that happen. 

There were so many stereotypes and broad generalizations on the Internet with the Clinton nomination.  It was a tidal wave of false statements, sexist rumors, and rewritten history surrounding the Clinton campaign for President.  It was unique and I would argue unprecedented case in American history.  Hillary Clinton brought out the crazies and now we know the real basket of deplorables.  Bottom line for me was that even if the most extreme sexist stereotypes were true, America would be in a much better place in 2017 with Hillary Clinton as president.  No matter how stereotypical Clinton’s behavior as President, it cannot compare to the criminal behavior, coddling to racists, enriching family and friends, and threat to democracy that we are currently living through.  I can live through mood swings, but I am unsure how to deal with the suspension of the Bill of Rights by an agent of a foreign power. 

By Max Johnson