It's difficult to write positively about politicians because everything in our culture and media militates against it. Anyone who is in politics, who is seeking any political power (especially the highest elected office in the land) is, by default, under suspicion of shenanigans and ego and greed and arrogance and shady deals and being per se just the sort of person you don't want in office.
That stereotype has always existed in this country (and elsewhere), but it seriously festered and burst during Nixon and Watergate, and, in many ways (and bolstered by the constant low fever of, yes, the inevitable but now more looked-for corruption and misused power), has remained prominent in our culture ever since.
(And all of those traits that lead to that assessment of politicians — ambition, assertiveness, pragmatism, guardedness — are considered far worse when describing a woman.)
And nobody wants to be the person fooled by a politician, except people who are still looking for a champion on a white horse to solve all the problems, and are willing to ignore or handwave or deny any flaws in their chose candidate — of whatever party. For folk who actually try to consider the choices, there's a gut-level aversion to being mocked as naive, as being blinded by the campaign propaganda, of being dismissed as someone who drank the Kool-Aid. We don't want to be disdained by more sophisticated or cynical friends, or, worse, actually be fooled by those awful candidates. It's easier — maybe safer, but also maybe more seemingly clever — to assume the worst.
But there's a trap there, too. Assuming the worst is as naive as assuming the best. It makes us less critical of criticism leveled, or accusations made, or generalizations bandied about. Hear enough times that someone is "untrustworthy", even without specifics being given, and it's far too easy to say, "Well, yeah, of course, that person is untrustworthy — they're a politician, fergoshsakes — but maybe that person is especially untrustworthy, even for a politician, because of all those echoes I keep hearing about their untrustworthiness."
I don't know Hillary Clinton. I've never had any direct dealing with her. Everything I know is filtered through other people and through the media. I have to go by actual actions she's taken. And it seems to me that, within the bounds of ordinary human imperfection, her actions and behaviors are not noteworthy as bad or evil or corrupt. There's certainly a lot of smoke there, but every time (usually at massive, repeated taxpayer expense) someone has tried to find fire (and we should have firespotters in forests half as diligent, if not rabid, as the Clinton delenda est crowd), it's come up pretty much empty.
And, meanwhile, she's amassed a remarkable amount of experience in statescraft and politics and leadership, and has a record of accomplishments that is, at the very least, respectable, even if each one of them is, in turn, frantically shrouded in accusatory smoke by her critics.
Who is she as a person? A kindly and dedicated saint? A shrill harridan? I certainly don't know. I can only judge by the results I see. And those results paint someone I would like to see as president, even if the alternative offered weren't so awful.
Originally shared by +John Wehrle:
I am tired of people who think they know that Hillary Clinton is a horrible person or that she's the "lesser evil". I mean, I'm just sick of it.
Talking about a person's positive character traits does not come easily to me but I have been forced into this position by the stakes of the election and by my own disgust at the current state of popular opinion in some circles.
So here are some patterns you probably have missed:
1) She responds personally.
She responds to letters personally. She sends letters to strangers she is impressed by. I can't tell you how many letters and messages to strangers from Hillary Clinton I have seen over the last year. It's almost as if the woman doesn't know what a form letter is. The subject of this Wonkette blog links to a few such message. And these messages are not formal, aloof or short. When Hillary Clinton writes you a letter it is impressive. You can tell, this is a woman of letters. She writes. She reads. She connects with you in the art of the letter – all while running for POTUS.
2) She intercedes personally.
I've read about several people (and even met one person) who have stories of Hillary Clinton making calls and putting pressure on institutions on their behalf. None of the people she's helping are known to her. None of them are connected to her in any way. But from making calls for individual 9/11 first responders and for veterans trying to get care from the VA, to changing State Department policy on acceptable IDs when she became aware that trans State Dept. employees were running into difficulties – she gets involved. She does good works for no external reward.
3) She keeps promises.
She makes a point of following through, of staying loyal, of keeping her word to anyone to whom she gives it. It doesn't matter if you're a poor girl from the Bronx if she's promised to attend your High School graduation – she'll be there. Just about everyone who's ever worked with her has said as much. Some of her most viscous enemies have come away after working with her in person and said, on the record, she works hard and she keeps her word.
However, THESE are not stereotypical masculine character traits. THESE are stereotypical feminine character traits. And so you either never hear about them or you dismiss them or you discount them. They are not podium pounding. They are not angry. They don't fit the image in your mind of what a famous person does – how a famous person treats strangers. They conflict with your expectations of a politician.
But they are real and they are powerful and they are, as far as I can tell, the pattern of her life.
And so it's left to me – a bumbling goof who doesn't express himself very well to speak up, to say "Hey, um, don't believe those really nasty lies about this good woman."
That's all.
Hillary Clinton Is A Good Person
Stop with the lesser of two evils crap.
Well said.
I think one thing I find indicative here is that it feels nearly impossible for me to write something positive about Clinton without adding in caveats ("Even if she has a penchant for secrecy, she is a better candidate than …" "True, Clinton showed poor judgment about the email servers, and mishandled the pneumonia issue, but …"), even if none are actually needed for the point being made. It should be possible to be pro-someone and praise them for something without being defensive about it or scrambling to assert that you are not a mindless drone by acknowledging all manner of shortcomings, but it's damned difficult.
When I recall the way my grandparents thought about politicians and compare it to general tendencies today I am struck by their sense of equality with leaders.
They tended to judge politicians by the same standards they judged ordinary people in their lives. Today we seem to judge politicians as we would Olympic athletes competing for gold.
+John Wehrle I wonder if there was more emphasis on local politics then — and on even higher up people starting from more local origins. Too, though wealth has always been a part of the political class, there were plenty who got into it from more humble beginnings.
Beyond that, we live in an era of celebrity, and everyone in the public eye is treated that way, from movie stars to pols. And their fame and reputation are just as volatile.
What’s your view on the Wall St speech leaks? I’m not sure of the time line-was she in a elected position at the time. I personally don’t see them as da,mining as her detractors make out. Certainly no where near a as bad as legislation the right are always trying to enact.