Follow me on dKos, friend.
--
The Atlantic has a great new piece out titled Deval Patrick Won't Run for President in 2016. Among other things, Patrick admirably asserts that he didn't run for Governor as a stepping stone to the White House--that he ran for the job in order to do the job (well). But the real attention-getter is the following excerpt regarding Hillary Clinton's presumed bid for the presidency:
Patrick did, however, offer advice to the Democratic leader in 2016 preference polls: Hillary Clinton should find a way to tamp down the "inevitability" talk.
"Secretary Clinton has been an extraordinary public servant and would be a terrific candidate for president," said Patrick. "But I think that the narrative that it's inevitable is off-putting to regular voters."
"I don't mean that as a criticism of her; I just think people read inevitably as entitlement," he said.
This is really key. Being rich and politically-connected (Romney, anyone?) aren't good enough reasons to serve in the country's highest public position. Running for a seat in the Oval Office isn't something anyone should ever do because there's nothing else to do or because there aren't any other checkboxes to tick off. There has to be a "there" there to why someone wants to be President of the United States, and I take Patrick's point to be that suitors of the job need to convince voters that they deserve their votes. There's something to the Clintons that has always made me think they were Type A go-getters in high school who sat down at the ages of 16 and made a long list of accomplishments they needed to rack up in order to successfully run for office, then executed their checklist over the next several decades. Or maybe I read that in a book somewhere years ago. The difference between helping people as a byproduct of leadership skills and
seeking to lead because you want to help people is very important. The former wreaks of power-hungry entitlement whereas the latter speaks to what I think should be the reason any elected official runs for office. Hence the poignancy of Patrick's next point:
"And the American people want, and ought to want, their candidates to sweat for the job, to actually make the case for why they're the right person for the right time."
Precisely. Though she hasn't yet announced running for the position, it's practically a foregone conclusion that she will. Personally, I've yet to find or hear a compelling argument for how Clinton will make the country better, advance the needs of the population, or build a wave of progressive action I should get behind. This is something I hope Clinton will address in the coming election. In the interim, and in the interest of preemptively finding evidence of a story I can rally behind, I've liberally clobbered together a summary of Clinton's political story from
her extensive Wikipedia page:
Despite spending her formative teenage and first few college years working to advance Republican aims (canvassing for Republican candidates, serving as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans, interning at the House Republican Conference, and attending the 1968 Republican National Convention), Hillary built a track record as a serious researcher of children's rights and conditions faced by migrant workers. After failing the DC bar exam but passing the Arkansas bar, she moved to that state to be with Bill; racked up a number of important, gender-related firsts; worked for law firms while advancing interests in child and family law; and became a hot thing in certain scholarship-activism circles. She served on various advisory boards, became Arkansas's First Lady, traded cattle futures contracts, sought to reform the state's public education system, fought gender inequality in the law sector, served on the boards of many corporations (pushing for more environmentally friendly practices at Walmart), and became First Lady of the United States. During that time, she sought to make employer-provided universal healthcare a reality, helped implement various advances in the provision of healthcare to children of the poor and to women, and worked to improve women's rights at home and abroad. She later became a two-term US Senator, ran for office in 2008, and became our Secretary of State.
I think it's inspiring that Hillary has devoted her life to advancing the needs of children as well as championing gender equality. We absolutely need that in the world, and we absolutely need that in our country as a precursor to all sorts of progressive pursuits. Change begins with the sorts of tools that can only be built by taking care of children and minding our fundamental equal rights as people. Additionally, Clinton has shown herself to be a reliable leader in all sorts of contexts, private and public.
But, honestly, I also want the romance. Maybe Obama set the bar too high by being such an inspiring campaigner and having a far more (to me) compelling backstory ("community organizer reluctantly seeks office in order to fight for unity and structural change" reads as more interesting than "career-minded politician lines up a series of ducks in order to run for office"). I don't care: I want the romance. I want to get behind the social movement to ensure equal access for all genders. I can get behind the story of a woman who for years refused a man's marriage overtures because she thought that might derail her career. It's not a sexy story, but it's an important story. It's worth telling. I want my sister to hear that story. But I want Clinton to sell me. Sell me on wanting the job because of what the job will allow you to do for the people. Sell me on wanting the job not because it's been a lifelong dream, but precisely why it's been a lifelong dream and how securing it will create a better world here and abroad. Convince me, like Patrick did, that you haven't been racking up jobs in order to land another one. The right is motivated by hatred; the left is motivated by inspiration. Avoid the trap that has ensnared every Democratic front-runner in the last 50 years.
Sweat for the job. Make the case. 2016 is not guaranteed.