|
It's true. As girls, we are socialized not to fight, to be polite, to share and to take turns. If there is one thing everyone wants, and it can be shared without being consumed--such as use of a toy--but we cannot all enjoy it at once, we have been socialized to determine a hierarchy of "who deserves it/should have it first, who gets it next, etc." Normally, this works out quite well. For example, if there's a tire swing in my yard and you come over to play, you're the guest, so I'll offer it to you to ride first, and we'll take turns from there.
If we were boys, we might be more likely to fight over use of the swing. Or, you might come over to my yard and start swinging, and I'd run out and say "Get out of our yard, that's MY swing." We might end up trading blows.
There are certain levels of politics at which it's understood that turn-taking is the norm. Normally, though, that's at a lower level, such as local town politics, and it's done in such a way that everyone who seriously wants a chance to hold a given position has it. At that level, it's more or less possible, and it's usually because everyone recognizes the position as a temporary stepping stone to something better, and as people move on to that something better, they leave the position vacant for others after them to gain the experience.
Obviously, once you get to President of the United States, that's no longer possible. Not everyone is going to reach that pinnacle, and it has to be earned through a lengthy process of campaigning and winning primaries and then a party nomination, followed by a general election. Turn-taking doesn't really enter into the equation.
But something tells me that privately, within the Clinton household, there was an understanding between two very strong and ambitious people that while both wanted to be President someday, both could not do it at once, so one would have to do it first. That one would be the man, because it would be easier for him to win. His win would then, as they saw it, pave the road for the woman.
That's how the Clintons, between themselves, agreed upon it and set it up. He would win first, serve for eight years if all went well, then he would step out and she would lay the groundwork for her own eventual election by running for, winning and serving in the Senate. When sufficient time had passed for her to not look like an upstart who had accomplished nothing on her own, and to gain some serious political and financial mojo, she would then throw her hat into the ring. With any luck, it would be at a point when the opposing party had essentially bankrupted its own chances to win. As it so happened, this year, the climate was exactly as they hoped.
What they didn't count on was an interloper. Yeah, sure, they knew that technically, no one else who wanted to be President was obligated to play by their privately agreed-upon "turn-taking" rules. They knew that others were free to run if they so chose. What they expected, though, was that the other players contending for the nomination would lose primaries to the point where they would eventually, gracefully, drop out, leaving Hillary alone as the nominee.
It didn't turn out that way. Something happened on the way to inevitability, and that something was Barack Obama, and the enthusiasm and support he was able to raise.
He upset the Clintons' apple cart. He ruined their turn-taking plan--and he did it without following the same plan she did, to become a two-term senator first.
As far as they're concerned, in their minds, he jumped the queue. He failed to realize it was "Hillary's turn." And they cannot forgive him for it.
And many of Hillary's female supporters, having been socialized to believe in the all-importance of turn-taking, cannot forgive him either.
The Presidency is a limited commodity. Not everyone can have it, and there's a small window during which winning it is realistically possible for anyone. They see that window as closing for her--and not just for her, but for WOMEN, ALL WOMEN, period, if SHE doesn't get it RIGHT NOW!--whereas for him, and presumably for men like him, it will be open for quite some time longer. So the whole business of who actually EARNED it through following the rules and fighting the best political fight matters nothing to them.
In their eyes, if he wins it, even by completely fair means, it's not "fair," because he's trying to take it away from someone for whom this may be the last chance of getting it, when he could easily step back and get it another time.
The way they see it, he SHOULD be polite, step back and let her have it this time. Because, while he may have earned it, it's HER TURN.
It's an absurd way of thinking, because of course the Presidency isn't like that. It isn't supposed to go to the person whose "turn" it supposedly is, it is supposed to go to the winner.
But that's not how they see it.
Does this at least help you see their line of thinking?
|