SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Should The First Female President Be A "political...

THE PLANK JANUARY 6, 2008

Should The First Female President Be A "political Wife"?

Reason's Kerry Howley had an op-ed in the Times yesterday which seemed pretty unconvincing. Here's Howley:

If you’ve ever wondered why India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan and the
Philippines seem readier to elect women than does the United States,
here’s your answer: Societies that value a candidate’s family
affiliation, and therefore have a history of nepotistic succession, are
often open to female leadership so long as it bears the right brand.
Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, among many
others, slashed through gender barriers on the strength of their family
names.

So far, so good. 

But their chief function to the cause is outside of policy. By their
very existence, these women attack the norms and assumptions that bar
other women from ascending to power on their own.

Women like
Lindy Boggs of Louisiana, who lost her husband in a plane crash in 1972
and then assumed his vacant office in the House of Representatives,
showed us they could lead as well as their husbands did — even if they
never would have been given the chance otherwise.

And, finally:

The great feminist promise of a Hillary Clinton presidency amounts to
this: If we elect a political wife now, perhaps we won’t have to later.

The problem with Howley's argument can be seen by the examples she cites above. Is Pakistan any more likely to elect a woman now than they were before Bhutto became Prime Minister? I doubt it. Further East, it's true that arguably the most powerful person in India is Sonia Gandhi, but she is--by marriage--related to Indira Gandhi and the Nehru family dynasty. The strain of liberalism in Indian society is perhaps a sign that a woman will soon become prime minister (the country currently has a female president, although the office is mainly ceremonial) but there isn't any evidence that this will have been even an indirect result of Indira's (illiberal) rule. There certainly may be some social value in electing a female president, but the evidence cited above does not quite bear that out.

P.S. I am not quite sure why Sonia Gandhi deserved this shot from Rick Brookhiser. 

--Isaac Chotiner 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 5 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

5 comments

Your criticisms of Howley are certainly on the mark, but it seems possible that her conclusion is correct despite that. A Hillary might still need the star power of a Bill to break the glass ceiling, but in the US, where we have a firm democratic tradition, it seems more likely to stay down.

- scharch

January 6, 2008 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

scharch is right.  Should Hillary or Barack win, it will help other women and minorities to run for office in the future.  Although I favor John Edwards, I would celebrate the victory of Clinton or Obama for the significant step forward their presidencies would represent for America.

Neil  

- purcellneil

January 6, 2008 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...in electing a woman or a "minority" member president seems to inform much of the discussion and enthusiasm where it exists for either Clinton or Obama.  (To his credit, Obama seems now to be winning new adherents at least through the power of his presence and rhetoric, if not so clearly because of his ideas.)

It would be much healthier, more honest, and better for the ultimate cause of women or minorities if we could completely erase the tokenist strains still residing in arguments for non-white, non-male candidates.

The only thing that ought to matter is electing the best candidate.  Race and gender ought to be irrelevant.  Most particularly irrelevant to those who believe in gender and racial equality.  Because it is they who ought most to exemplify the ideal of being gender and racial neutral when casting a vote.

Can we not go back to Reverend Kings injunction to ignore the color of a person's skin and weigh instead the strenght of their character?

- ChanRobt

January 6, 2008 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The first part of my opening sentence inadvertantly dropped out in the above.  

It said, "The idea that there is inherent goodness in in electing a woman or a "minority" member president seems to inform much of the discussion and enthusiasm where it exists for either Clinton or Obama."

- ChanRobt

January 6, 2008 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why can't there be more examples like the UK and Israel where a woman earns the high office without having to be related to someone important.

- stgla

January 6, 2008 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close