Social media is bustling since Hillary Clinton was declared the Democratic nominee. Ever since then, Clinton has been subjected to an immense amount of scrutiny, as she should be—it is important to assess everything she does, as we would any other presidential candidate. However, I would like to note that you can do so without expressing misogynistic sentiment (I’m looking towards you, Twitter). In fact, I’m about to do it. Women-haters, please take some memorandum of the absence of misogynistic slurs and references to the menstrual cycle. I know it’s super difficult for you all to be civil, but please, bear with me.
First and foremost, I want to discuss Hillary Clinton’s social media presence as of this week. Headlines are describing her as “revolutionary” and in my opinion, this is only a tiny fraction of the truth. While she is the first women to achieve the slot as the Democratic nominee, the media and her campaign are exaggerating the impact of her role. Clinton is being called “inspiration for women everywhere” and as a young, Person of Color, I cannot say that I relate to Clinton’s accomplishments.
In a speech delivered after the California primary, Clinton referred to her mother being born on June 4, 1919, a day where Congress was passing the 19th Amendment, permitting women the right to vote. Clinton also spoke of the Seneca Falls Women’s Convention and discussed feminist movements exclusionary to only white women. She never considered that it took another decade before activists responded to the disenfranchised votes of black women in the South. On top of that, the votes of Asian, Latina, and Native women were void until much later because of discriminatory laws (such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, as one example) or in the case of black and Native women, poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud, and intimidation also played a role in suppressing their votes.
I can’t say that the focal point directed on white women is a surprise, seeing that intersectionality is rarely discussed in politics. My only purpose in mentioning this was to serve as a distinction, to make one thing clear: Clinton is not revolutionary. I am not jumping in joy because the embodiment of White Feminism™ is finally a presidential nominee. This is just another victory for white women everywhere. While Clinton praises white women suffragists of the past and other white feminists applaud their personal win, I, along with other Women of Color, continue to be excluded from this campaign. Nothing is new for us.
Aside from Clinton’s feminist ideologies, her policies and political stances are colored in both good and bad (from a progressive point of view) like all politicians. Personally, I see much more bad than good. Although her campaign highlights her position as a pro same-sex marriage and pro-choice candidate (It is important to consider that previously, she had been against same-sex marriage and was part of the Republican party, it is hard to believe that much has changed), her voting records and foreign policy also prove her to be imperialist and intervening.
A major concern is that Clinton voted in favor of invading Iraq during the war. On top of that, she has admitted to being involved in the Honduran coup of 2009 (for those who don’t know, a “coup” is a violent seizure of power from another government. What basically happened is that the Honduran president was unlawfully forced out. Read more about how she justified her involvement and the events that occurred.). However, since many argue that all this is in the past (because the deaths of thousands living in foreign countries is easily dismissed as something that happened “in the past” when we live in safe, warm, America, right? Maybe time does heal!) and cannot possibly reflect her stance on military invention presently, I would like to reference something more recent: her pro-Israel stance. And she just isn’t pro-Israel, rumor has it she was bribed to be. Furthermore, in addition to these accusations, there is confirmation of her position in an interview with the Daily News Editorial Board, where she states that she continues to “ensure that Israel has a qualitative military edge.” Yikes. (sidenote: the transcript I linked is super long but worth the read because it gives a lot of insight on Clinton’s pro-military interventionist/imperialist view. Also, the interview is from April 9, 2016—how much more recent can I get?)
And I can keep going with this article, but my intent wasn’t to list everything I think is wrong with Clinton’s campaign. Essentially, the point I wanted to get out is that Clinton, like every other politician this election, is not perfect and certainly not revolutionary. We’ve seen politicians like her since America’s birth. I also wanted to get the ball rolling, encouraging people to go out and look at some of her positions on other topics like fracking, minimum wage, and Wall Street endorsement. Assess some more information for yourself. Because when I consider Clinton as a candidate, I feel a lot like we’re staying in the same place in history rather than moving forward.
Comments are closed.