A Right to Rule
There is only one person who could have managed the feat of potentially losing a presidential election to someone with the character of Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton.
I watched the third and final debate with a kind of resigned bemusement at their responses, but one struck me in particular. Clinton, when asked about the allegations of corruption surrounding her foundation, proceeded to smile and deliver a response so plainly scripted and practically caricatured that Nixon himself wouldn’t have dared attempt it. Dodging the question completely, she instead talked about all the good work the charity has done, to which Trump expectedly replied, “it’s a criminal organisation.”
It was at this point I had to give a hand to Clinton. I don’t believe there is anyone else in the Democratic Party or even the whole of congress that could have run against Donald Trump and still have achieved her extraordinary heights of unpopularity. She could very well lose this election.
If you can picture Barack Obama, or one of the people who might have replaced Clinton like Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, running in the same election against Trump, I think you’d agree it would be hard to envision anything less than complete domination in the polls and an easy victory on election day. If you even took minor celebrities, such as her running mate Tim Kaine or congressmen like Chris Murphy, it’s still hard to imagine how they’d wouldn’t have been able to end Trump’s scandal-ridden campaign months ago.
Yet Clinton, with the omnipotent power of the entire Democratic National Committee (DNC) at her disposal, flanked by an army of financial donors and with more than a decade of preparation and experience for this very moment, is struggling to tread water. My answer as to why, as much as it may polarise her supporters, is that she has no right to be running in the first place.
I’m no misogynist. In fact I take pride in considering myself a feminist, and ardently believe that progress remains to have true gender equality. Women are already in positions of power – positions hard-earned – in a host of other powerful countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom. There’s no reason the United States couldn’t join this estimable list. I believe Hillary Clinton has no right to be running not because she is a woman, but because she is no Angela Merkel or Theresa May: she is not a politician worthy of being president.
Statements like these are bristling to the politically correct, which is dangerous because it discourages honest discourse. Some Clinton supporters endorse her simply because she is a woman and they crave the ultimate feminist achievement, and while this is without a doubt a worthy goal, far too many stop their analysis there, viewing her only by her gender and not by her character and history. Thus in the interest of true feminism – judging a woman as a professional politician, and not simply a symbol of women’s rights – I’m going to examine her as the Democratic candidate for the presidency that she should be seen as.
As a Senator, Clinton was a fair legislator and as Secretary of State travelled extensively. However in all that travel, what did she accomplish? For a long time people thought Clinton had been a model secretary, having travelled almost a million miles in her four years, a feat she cites often. However, when her successor, John Kerry, took office and began making such diplomatic forays as the deal with Iran and reviving the Middle East peace process, people started to wonder how successful she really was. Her Senate performance likewise involved few noteworthy achievements despite being considered generally an “effective” legislator. Yet little of the public looks at this career, referring to it by simply saying “she has experience.”
Perhaps more interesting is the question, as I asked for Trump, how has she come this far? Unlike Trump, who has almost entirely won his position on popularity, Clinton has had a murkier path. Rarely asked is the question of why only 3 Democrats ran in the primaries, compared to the dozens of Republicans. According to congressmen, the threat of retribution from her and Bill coerced the party into near-unanimous support and guaranteed that none of her serious competitors would dare make a bid. Against Sanders, she used the influence of the DNC to flatly interfere in the primaries in her favour, leading to unrest at the Democratic Convention and the removal of the committee’s chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Now, alone on the debate stage against Trump, Clinton still cannot find support from a nation horrified by the alternative. I said originally that Clinton had no right to be running, and I stand by that statement for the simple reason that the people have not given it to her. As twisted and devious the designs of politicians may have always been, it was nevertheless the country who chose people like Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, and it was those people who had to work to make a name for themselves in order to be recognised in the first place. Clinton has done neither. Not only has she used manipulation to come this far in the race, she did not earn the fame that allowed her to both win an office and run for the presidency, as her predecessors have done. Put simply, were it not for her marriage to Bill, though she would have no doubt still been successful, she would not be a candidate for the president today.
This is something that is not only unfair to the people, but irresponsible. I said before that Trump has not come this far on his own merit, but so too for the candidate now opposing him who gave no consideration about what might be best for the greater good as she worked tirelessly to secure her own place in the sun. In doing so, should she lose, it will have been by her efforts that Trump is sworn in as the Commander-in-Chief.
House of Cards is a show I’m sure you’ve all heard of, and I recommend watching it. Not for the content, which while entertaining, isn’t much more than soap opera theatrics. Its worth comes in the form of the main character: Frank Underwood. He’s a ruthless, calculated, and cunning man, who makes it his mission in life to achieve power and establish a legacy. Underwood is not Clinton, as despite my dislike of her I don’t think she’s fundamentally an evil person. Underwood and Clinton, however, do share one thing: they stop at nothing to achieve their carefully-planned goals.
One of the most common arguments for Clinton’s right to the presidency is just that; people say it’s a right. People say she has worked her entire life towards this single objective, only to be denied by Donald Trump of all people, and that she deserves the oval office. To those people, I say that simply wanting and working towards public office does not entitle you to it. The will of the people does. If hard work did entitle someone, Underwood would be just as deserving of the presidency as Clinton.
