World

World

US 2016: Defining Hillary

US 2016: Defining Hillary

As the US political campaign season begins in earnest for the 2016, J. BROOKS SPECTOR speculates on how Hillary Clinton will be shaping her political persona for the coming battle.

For the past several weeks, Democratic Party candidate for the presidential nomination for the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, has been unaccountably quiet – engaged in what she and her aides and advisors have termed her “listening tour” of America. One could also define this period as a time for her (and her aides) to learn what kind of candidate they believe the nation wants her to be – rather than what she already is.

Hillary Clinton’s “problem” as a candidate, of course, is virtually unique in American politics. In the past hundred years, perhaps only Ike Eisenhower was as firmly in the public mind when he set out to gain the presidency in 1952 as Hillary Clinton is now. Eisenhower, of course, had been the commander of all Allied forces in Western Europe during World War II and Americans – combatants and civilians back home alike – saw him as the central figure in the vast, ultimately victorious battlefield struggle. It would have been almost impossible to find a voter who didn’t already have a clear picture of Eisenhower by the time of the election.

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye from the time when she delivered a nationally reported anti-Vietnam War graduation speech at her university that was reported in national news magazines. Thereafter, she spent time as one of the young lawyers on staff with one of the congressional Watergate investigating committees. Then there was twelve years as the wife of the Arkansas governor, eight years as the First Lady in the White House, a senator from New York State, and, then, more recently, her defeat by Barack Obama in her effort to become her party’s presidential nominee. And all of her life lived in public preceded her surprise selection as Obama’s secretary of state during his first term as president – and now, inevitably, her declaration of her candidacy for her party’s nomination for the 2016 election and the strong likelihood she will gain the nomination this time around.

As a result, there are precious few American voters who don’t already have a pretty good sense about what they think of her, what they think they know about her (and her husband), and who have already made a preliminary judgment about her bona fides to become the next president. This is very different than the usual run of candidates who have to gain the public’s attention, as well as try to successfully convey a convincing picture of themselves to potential voters. In Hillary Clinton’s case, her biggest hurdle, rather than introducing herself to the public – may be in erasing the substantial number of negative opinions and judgments some hold about her, and replacing them with more positive, more nuanced ones instead. And then these more positive views must come together so as to form a mental picture both of inevitability and as someone who is ready to step into the ultimate driver’s seat – right from day one.

And so, this may help explain the presumed “riddle” of Hillary Clinton’s apparent disappearance from this early national media feeding frenzy over the candidates coming into view. Right now, of course, the commentariat’s oxygen is significantly being sucked up with all of the pushing, shoving, sharp elbowing, eye gouging and general goings on in the Republican camp when perhaps a dozen people count themselves as declared candidates. As such, even the growing awkwardness of those revelations about some dodgy mechanisms with the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising methods and the seemingly less than savoury relationship of those efforts with the life of the former president and his wife may be a passing storm in the news cycle as they are in competition with all those Republicans trying to get a share of public attention as they declare their candidacies and take pokes at each other.

Right-wing Republican supporting groups have already started social media campaigns directed at the left wing of the Democrats to try to get them to re-tweet or re-post without realising where the original messages come from. As The New York Times reported over the weekend, “For months now, America Rising has sent out a steady stream of posts on social media attacking Mrs. Clinton, some of them specifically designed to be spotted, and shared, by liberals. The posts highlight critiques of her connections to Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation and feature images of Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, interspersed with cartoon characters and pictures of Kevin Spacey, who plays the villain in ‘House of Cards.’ And as they are read and shared, an anti-Clinton narrative is reinforced.

America Rising is not the only conservative group attacking Mrs. Clinton from the left. Another is American Crossroads, the group started by Karl Rove, which has been sending out its own digital content, including one ad using a speech Ms. Warren gave at the New Populism Conference in Washington last May.”

While such efforts will probably make it more complicated for Hillary Clinton to make her case to the public without drama, once she wraps up that listening tour she’s on, that is, the real issue may well be what kind of persona she elects to put forward as her primary public face. Clinton, unlike her husband, is not a natural politician. Over the years, her detractors have accused her of having a kind of warmth deficit with many when she has tried to connect with them – or so goes the charge.

And so, the question becomes, what kind of model will she move towards in defining herself for this presumably final campaign of her political life? The problem for her will be compounded by having to differentiate herself from both the incumbent president (without resorting to overt, major policy criticisms) as well as from that ex-president she happens to be married to as well. She can’t really come across as simply Obama’s third term – or the Big Dawg’s third one either.

Accordingly, one path for her may well be to search out ways to portray herself in the mantle of other women politicians and national leaders to situate herself as the latest in an important, impressive line of such figures throughout history. The subsidiary point might be to say that her candidacy is not a full break with political traditions.

In recent years, certainly, almost every presidential candidate, after all, has tried to draw upon the political and personal legacy of those who have gone before to make their arrival on the scene a logical, indeed inevitable, event. As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama clearly drew upon the persona and impact of Abraham Lincoln in creating his political person – right down to the frequent quotations from and references to Lincoln in his public oratory. This was helped along by the fact that the two men had been elected president from Illinois and the fact that it really was true (based on his two books) that Obama had been deeply influenced by Lincoln’s political passage, well before Obama made his first run for the presidency.

Among Republicans, Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been reaching back to (Democratic) President John Kennedy by his references to this upcoming election being the time for a new generation of Americans to step up and take charge. And, of course, Ronald Reagan remains a perennial favourite among all Republicans for his decisiveness in office as well as presiding over one of the most important political moments of the 20th century – the collapse of the Soviet Union’s “evil empire”. Given the uncertainties of the global geopolitical environment, 2016 is going to be a virtual orgy of Ronald Reagan references in political speeches.

Now, circling back to Hillary Clinton, the writer believes American voters are going to subjected to an increasing number of references to female leaders, historically, in the Clinton rhetoric we shall hear over the next year – all as a way of placing her in a larger, vibrant storyline of female leadership. The challenge will be how to do this in a way that doesn’t sound presumptuous or silly – and that does resonate effectively with her real psyche and background, that is to say it doesn’t ring false with what people already think they know about her. As far as finding inspiration in the strength of purpose and political savvy, walking hand in hand with the ghost of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher would seem, at first blush, to be an obvious choice. But that would be far from trouble-free for her, given the late UK prime minister’s warm relationship with Ronald Reagan and the kinds of policies Thatcher espoused that would seem to trip over the “creating greater equality” message Clinton has already been rolling out as a key campaign theme.

So, who else then? What about Angela Merkel, Indira Gandhi, Gold Meir or Gro Harlem Brundtland? Let’s toss out Gandhi to start with, given her none-too-savoury associations with that bugbear of political dynasty creation. Wrong message there, for sure. Then there is Israel’s Gold Meir. Meir’s message could be read to say, “Women can be tougher than men when it is necessary.” And Meir was even born in America. For many Americans still, Meir has a good reputation, even if the Middle East thing might be problematic with some audiences, so many just an occasional reference in a speech or two. And of Brundtland? Good vibes, very positive, very caring, except for the awkward fact virtually no one in America knows who she is or has ever heard of her international good works. So, still in Europe, what about Chancellor Merkel? Better vibes here, perhaps. Expect to see, sometime during the campaign, pictures of Clinton and Merkel, deep in conversation in some meeting or panel discussion of the great and the good about world issues. The subliminal message here could be: “Women can be very effective in these really big jobs, maybe even better than men.” Might work, just as long as the EU, the euro and the Grexit thing doesn’t blow up.

For the historically minded, would it too much of a stretch to see Hillary Clinton show up at some performance, somewhere of Shakespeare’s play, “Anthony and Cleopatra”? The historical Cleopatra is almost certainly the most famous female ruler of the ancient world and she was, by the usual judgment of historians, an effective ruler of her nation at a very difficult geo-political moment – at least until Julius Caesar came along, that is. And don’t be outrageously surprised if, during some trip to Britain to update her international credentials, she pitches up at some historic site associated with Celtic Queen Boudica. Well, okay, that one didn’t come to such a good end either, but surely no one doubted her courage in battle.

Ah, but closer to home, maybe here’s the most likely political mentor of all for Clinton. Meets all the tests. She was an energetic first lady; she had empathy by the truckload and despite her privileged upbringing she mixed and mingled with the downtrodden; she served as her husband’s eyes and ears, she came back to the White House and made important, specific policy proposals to help deal with the country’s social and economic problems; and she had a fine ear for the vivid sound bite too. So, here’s our bet: expect to see and hear from the Clinton campaign – and from Hillary Clinton herself – about Eleanor Roosevelt, and how that great lady made the White House listen and empathise with the realities of those who were on the wrong side of the economic divide in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression. And Roosevelt could write well too, keeping up a newspaper column she drafted herself for years. Roosevelt argued, “It isn’t enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn’t enough to believe in it. One must work at it.” And she could laugh at herself, too, as when she noted, “Women are like teabags. We don’t know our true strength until we are in hot water!”

Remember – you read it here first. DM

Photo: Former US Secretary of State, US Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses the Sixth Annual Women in the World Summit at the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center in New York, New York, USA, 23 April 2015. EPA/JASON SZENES

For more on the contemporary political moment in the US, read:

  • The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton at the New York Times

  • Clintons have made more than $25 million for speaking since January 2014 at the Washington Post

  • Hillary Clinton Sold Her Soul When They Accepted That Money’ at Politico

  • A choice, not an echo at the Economist

  • Wide GOP field has party leaders anxious about ’16 at the Washington Post

Gallery

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Every seed of hope will one day sprout.

South African citizens throughout the country are standing up for our human rights. Stay informed, connected and inspired by our weekly FREE Maverick Citizen newsletter.