The scrutiny of the candidates’ spouses is a traditional sideshow in the summer of a US election, but this time it has added spice, because the discussion of what kind of woman the country would prefer to stand beside the guy taking the oath of office occurs after a campaign that rejected the most plausible female candidate for presidency there has ever been.
Four election cycles since she traded cookie recipes with Barbara Bush in an attempt to deflect fears about her feminism, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is forced to watch Michelle Obama going through the same process simply to gain a non-elected job that becomes available only through an accident of marriage.
The Democratic candidate’s wife appeared on The View, a US talkshow with an all-female panel, in what looked like an attempt by her husband’s media strategists to soften her image and correct an impression of black, leftwing militancy that has been spread on the web and picked up in other media.
We have come to accept that presidential candidates will have to address “character issues,” but to watch their partners being spun — and, in this case, specifically home-spun — induces fresh levels of depression with the political process.
Commendably, though, Michelle Obama went sufficiently off-message to suggest that she believes Clinton to have suffered from sexism. Well, she should know: The same prejudice led to the need for her to make this appearance.
The sexual politics will become even more noxious if Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opts for a woman running mate. Sharing the ticket with Clinton seems unlikely, but Kansas Governor Katherine Sebelius is a possibility. If the job were offered, though, the governor might want to think hard about whether politics is ready for a gender shift, even in this secondary position. Has there been any progress in the quarter-century since Geraldine Ferraro made history as the first female vice presidential nominee, but failed partly because of suspicion over her marital finances?
Clinton didn’t lose the Democratic nomination because she was a woman: It was her misfortune that her run coincided with the offer of an even more progressive and historic candidate. But it’s clear from the campaign that, even now, non-male contenders have to face pressures that are never suffered by men: an antiquated, muttering sub-debate over how they dress, speak, feel and whether they provoke castration complexes in the male population.
US broadcaster Katie Couric, the first full-time female anchor of a nightly news bulletin, this week posted an angry video blog suggesting Clinton lost partly because of “the continued and accepted role of sexism in America — particularly in the media.”
Clearly, there was a testy empathy in Couric’s words, as she may attribute her low ratings at CBS to the possibility that a section of the population not only doesn’t want a woman in charge of the country but won’t even tolerate a woman reading out the facts about what the men who run the nation are doing.
Even so, only a redneck who’s had too many beers could seriously argue with Couric’s central point. There was chortling reporting of placards at Clinton rallies reading “Iron My Shirt,” and novelty Clinton nutcrackers on sale at airports. Yet public expression of similar prejudice toward Barack Obama — signs, perhaps, reading “Shine My Shoes” or keyrings with simulation shackles — would, quite properly, lead to front-page outrage and criminal investigation.
Racism is no longer publicly acceptable, although Barack Obama’s polling performance in November may show if it remains privately an issue in the US. But sexism is permitted to thrive both overground and underground. The sad spectacle of a Democratic candidate’s wife having to “reposition” herself on TV in case she threatens his electoral chances, shows us that US politics still has a problem that is not being addressed.
The fundamental unfairness is that visible political wives are accused of stridency and interference, while invisible ones are criticized for failure to stand by their men.
In Britain, comparison between the administrations of former prime minister John Major and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has become standard — house price crisis, record poll lows, turning to jelly on the telly — but there is another similarity. Their wives Norma Major and Sarah Brown are private people.
Norma Major, though, despite what we later learned to be tension in their marriage, was eventually forced to hover at John’s elbow for photo-ops and give interviews supporting him. And, intriguingly, the Downing Street press machine enthusiastically spread the news recently that a banquet for US President George W. Bush had been largely organized by Sarah Brown, who was credited with selecting the menu.
So Sarah Brown is good with food and Michelle Obama is not a “femi-nazi.”
The fact that such reassurances are still thought necessary is far from reassuring.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath