Because I frequently (relentlessly) advocate in this forum for the election of Senator Hillary Clinton as president, a number of readers have challenged me to define the leadership qualities that qualify her for the office. When we imagine a leader, perhaps we think of the bold statements of purpose of past presidents. John F. Kennedy challenged us to "think not what our country can do for you, but think what we you do for your country". Then, he authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Ronald Reagan said, "Tear down this wall!" and the wall came tumbling down, as did America's social safety net, our national consensus about civil rights, and the elected Government of Grenada. Now we have a true leader in the White House who, having brought civil war to Iraq, believes his remaining mission is to destabilize the governments of Iran and Syria, whatever the costs and come what may on the road to Armageddon. So what type of a leader does America want?
Merriam Webster's defines "leader" as
2 : a person who leads : as a : GUIDE, CONDUCTOR b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit
In turn, Merriam Webster's defines "lead" as:
to guide on a way especially by going in advance b : to direct on a course or in a direction [ http://m-w.com/... ]
Let's look at the leadeship qualities of Hillary Clinton. There is one above all that is most discussed here at DailyKos: She wants to lead the Democrats to winning the presidency again, as we did in 1992 and 1996, by moderating the politics and public perception of the Democratic Party, softening the sharp edges that many voters find threatening. As a counterpoint, we have the leadership of David Sirota and Kos, who say we can win the presidency by severing all contacts with corporations, their officers and employees, refusing all corporate financing of campaigns, rejecting all corporate political concerns, and then marching victoriously into Washington on the strength of "people power".
If that didn't work for Lula in Brazil (he was forced to moderate and consider corporate concerns) and it didn't work for Allende in Chile (he was assassinated by the military) then why would that strategy work in the bastion of capitalism that is the United States of America? Suffice to say that there is no successful precedent whatsoever in the United States for the presidential strategy that Kos and Sirota propose.
As much as others may revile Hillary Clinton for her DLC leadership, yet there can be no doubt what her prescription is. Her prescription for electoral success is the most well known and most discussed of any of the candidates for 2008. Moderate, assuage concerns, co-opt the Republican opposition, mollify the press and win office before implementing grand liberal schemes. Here's a tip for choosing a leader: she's the one who has plan and a strategy.
Compare that strategy with those of other recent Democratic nominees. Although Gore discussed some important issues in 2000, his prescription for electoral success was unknown to Democrats even as the votes were being counted. Now, if Gore is running at all, his prescription seems to be to convince a country consumed by fear of terrorism today that Global Warming tomorrow is actually a greater concern. Hmmm. I'm sure he can convince the Left of the Democratic Party, but I doubt he can convince all of America.
Kerry, also discussed some issues in 2004, yet the Republicans were able to take him apart because it was never quite clear where he was coming from. And everything he said had the emotional punch of a car repair book.
Now consider the leadership of Hillary Clinton. It takes a leader to envision and single-mindedly implement a clear electoral strategy in the face of detractors. Much of the Democratic Left reviles her prescription of moderation, and yet it is absolutely clear what her prescription is. It is precisely because the Left so reviles the prescription that no one can doubt that she indeed has a prescription. She wants to guide the Democrats to the presidency in the moderate Clinton way.
Some accuse Hillary of wanting to be all things to all people, yet her refusal to stop moderating, even when this infuriates the Democratic Left, proves that she is decidedly NOT trying to do as everyone wants. She is determined to take the presidency for Democrats through moderation and she steadfastly rejects demands that she change this strategy. She embraces bipartisanship on issues where it can be helpful (medical care and flack jackets for troops, computerization of medical records) and even arguably has gone overboard finding a middle ground on a few notable occasions. But those excesses confirmed rather than detracted from her strategy which is well known.
Some people hate the word "strategy". After eight years in the presidential wilderness, the Democrats clearly need a strategy to take the presidency. Many people are able to bemoan the current state of affairs very eloquently and at great length, yet a "leader", like Martin Luther King, Jr., is a person with a strategy for changing that state of affairs and the courage and determination to carry out that strategy, even in the face of intense opposition. Hillary's ability to continually insist on moderation even in the face of ardent demands that she do otherwise angers the Left and proves that she has a strategy for success which she is determined to implement, because she is a leader.
A leader is "a person who guides", and Merriams defines the word "guide" as:
1 a : one that leads or directs another's way [ http://m-w.com/... ]
We need someone who will "lead and direct" the way of the party to win the presidency, whether we like it or not. The question is not whether Hillary Clinton offers this guidance but whether the tributaries of the Democratic Party will accept the particular leadership that Hillary offers, and when.
So often we hear the question, "Who is Hillary Clinton?" If the same question were asked often enough about Abraham Lincoln, much of America would begin to doubt his identity as well.
It is quite clear who Hillary is. Hillary, like her husband Bill in1992 and 1996, is the candidate from the Democratic Leadership Council who believes that the Democrats must moderate to be elected. Hillary is the candidate who is determined to lead the Party in achieving that moderation and she is so determined in this belief and strategy that she started moderating years in advance.
There is a significant difference between, on the one hand, grudgingly accepting leadership after a long slugfest that ends three months before November 2008 and, on the other hand, coming together much earlier to focus our invective on our Republican opponents. There is a difference between being the party of moderation now and having a battlefield conversion at the last minute, and under duress. America is often gullible but America is not stupid.
Hillary has a plan. Meanwhile, much of the Left acknowledges that there is no other Democratic candidate who has expressed a clear competing plan. Still, they want to wait and see if an alternative plan develops at some time in the future. Considering the institutional advantages that the Republicans will have in 2008, adopting one plan soon might be a good strategy for Democrats, and sooner rather than later.
Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela not only understood racial injustice but challenged us to overcome it when doing so seemed impossible. That is what made them leaders. A critical measure of leadership is whether it seeks to accomplish that which is common (which is hardly an accomplishment at all) or to achieve that which is both desperately needed and seemingly impossible. That is why those who discount the necessity of women's equality in the United States and the world make me sick.
If you discounted the historical necessity and improbability of racial equality in the United States and South Africa, it would be impossible to recognize MLK and Mandela as leaders, because it was precisely their willingness to fight for racial equality when it seemed impossible that confirmed them as leaders. Likewise, if you discount the fact that no woman has ever been president of the United States, which is really only one facet of an entire fabric of male dominance, then it becomes impossible to perceive the immense leadership required for a woman to credibly aspire to be President of the United States. It's like judging the quality of swimmers while ignoring the length of the pool.
It is BEYOND sexist to ignore the courage and leadership it takes for a woman to aspire to be the first president of the United States. It is the ESSENCE OF OPPRESSION to continually insist that a woman demonstrate leadership while discounting the leadership she continually demonstrates. Does Al Gore show more courage by making A MOVIE about ecology than Hillary Clinton shows by leading A LIFE in politics pushing on the cutting edge of women's equality? People who think a cutting edge movie is more courageous than a cutting edge fight to break the chains on women's potential have lost the ability to distinguish between movies and real life.
Let us imagine for a moment that the people of South Africa had said, "It makes no difference whether South Africa ever has a Black president. "We just want the best man for the job regardless of his color." This would have constituted a willful ignorance both of the right of the majority to be represented and the historical barriers of injustice that prevented that representation. Women are the majority in the United States. Is it inconsequential whether they are represented in government?
Frankly, the fact that some people on the Left have lost the ability to dream for Blacks and women makes me sick. Maybe the Left lacks leaders because they have lost the ability to dream and because they couldn't care less about the "mountaintops" that inspired previous generations. If this is so, then screw them!
When Leftists no longer thrill to see disadvantaged groups achieve what was once unthinkable then it becomes hard to distinguish the Left from the Right. When they discount the leadership inherent in efforts to do what recently seemed impossible and what still has never been done before, then they ignore the plight of women generally, and that frankly makes me very angry and discouraged for the future of our nation. You might well disagree with the strategies of Hillary Clinton, but you can't reasonably doubt that she has a strategy, and strategy is essential to leadership. You cannot lead unless you know where you're going. You might not want Hillary's leadership, but when she attempts to do that which none other has ever done, you cannot reasonably doubt that she is, in fact, a leader. And if all of that doesn't inspire us, even a little bit, then maybe we simply don't deserve a better nation than the one we have.