HILLARY CLINTON AS A FEMINIST LEADER
July 29, 2016
Radical feminists have shown me
basic distinction between two culturally political definitions of leadership: the
ability to get others to follow one’s directions, historically associated with
patriarchy; and the ability to hear and organize to the needs and wants of
those in one’s care, historically associated with motherhood—leadership as
partnership, rather than as hierarchy.
One kind of leader makes decisions for others, the other with others.
Patriarchal leadership is
measured by what the leader has personally achieved. Indeed, it was Ms. Clinton’s jibe at Donald
Trump by promising what he alone could accomplish.
Instead, presumably under her leadership, the closing night of the
Democratic convention featured some five hours of personal testimony from those
whose lives she had personally touched, to whom she had responded, addressing
issues her proposed policies address, again as the result of a process of broad
consultation. They have been informed
and moved by the socialist spirit and planks that have inspired supporters of
Bernie Sanders. Ms. Clinton acknowledges
mistakes, as in having supported getting tough on crime during her husband’s
governorship and presidency. In sum, she
listens and tries to learn from her own mistakes. And she offers the electorate concrete plans
for what she proposes to do now, if elected, making them available for
continuing debate and discussion. She
continues to learn from those her decisions and commitments have affected. In Riane Eisler’s terms, she seeks to lead by
partnership; in Martha Ruddick’s terms, she thinks maternally. It is an approach to leadership that focuses
on connecting people, to hear and learn from one another to guide where one
tries going next, and which shifts course when those who suffer are attended
to.
It is interesting that Ms. Clinton has chosen a Jesuit-inspired Catholic,
Tim Kaine, as her vice president. I
recall it being said long ago that Ms. Clinton felt a calling to service as a
Methodist.
Earlier this week, a friend asked me to name a single thing Ms. Clinton
had done. I was at a loss for
words. In US media and political
dialogue, we look for personal achievements of those who seek high office. I come back to a lesson systems theorist Les
Wilkins taught me: In the decisions we make, how we (re)make them matters more
than thinking we know what is right or wrong regardless of the reactions we
get. It is not simply that Ms. Clinton
is a woman. Margaret Thatcher made
herself known to be “the Iron Lady,” a woman who proved she could be as tough
as a man’s man. In Ms. Clinton I see
someone who represents a feminist approach to governing that is rooted in, but
not limited to, women’s experience. It
is an approach to wielding power not over others, but with others, most
critically those whom power over others hurts most, for the sake of the
welfare, safety and security of us all, among ourselves and with the planet on
which our lives depend. If as I expect
she is elected over Mr. Trump, it will represent a cultural shift in the
qualities we in the US seek in those we trust to lead us. Love and peace, hal
No comments:
Post a Comment