Given a choice, I wouldn’t have voted for Hillary, either

Hillary and Donald. Image by DonkeyHotey (via Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA 2.0)

I’m a British citizen, but if I played my cards differently, I could have been a US citizen so I think I can comment on the US election. If a voted now, I’d have voted for Hillary — a choice between a misogynistic, racist reality TV stalwart and tax-avoiding billionaire and anybody else is no option, really.

But given a proper choice, say, between a timeworn white man and Hillary, I would’ve voted for Berny — and most of the young people did Nad got upset when he lost. Not because I don’t like an idea of a first female US President, on the contrary, as a card-carrying feminist, I love the idea. It’s just Hillary is the wrong woman.

There’re two myths concerning women in politics. The first is that women politicians practice a different politics because of their “nurturing nature” and only if we elected all-female leaders of the world countries, the wars and maybe even poverty would cease overnight. This is bullshit and a pink, benign shadow of the sexist attitude that at their core women are different from men.

The nurturing, caring women stay at home (or go to work but use their energy to support their family). If they decide to improve their family and neighbors life, they become a local councilor or a member of Parliament. But to raise at the top of a political party, to become a Secretary of State or a Prime Minister, you need to have balls — literal or a metaphorical. You have to be more ruthless, more scheming than the next male.

Margaret Thatcher is a case in point. As a Secretary of State for Education and Science, she abolished free milk for school children, earning a rhyme “Thatcher, Thatcher, the milk snatcher.” As a Prime Minister, she dismantled the coal industry, dealt a crippling blow to many trade unions and went to war with Argentina. The track records Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi (war with Pakistan) and of Pakistan — Benazir Bhutto (corruption charges) are not better.

And the track record of Hillary is not exemplary. Nobody, even Trump himself, denies that Hillary is an extremely able and experienced politician. But in our days this is not an advantage, but a handicap. Being a spouse of a former President, she is a politician’s politician. I still cannot get my head around political dynasties such as Bushes in the US, which claims to be the shining torch of democracy. Why being related — or married — to a politician suddenly qualifies you ahead of everybody else?

She is also pro-Wall Street, and they engage in mutual back scratching. Under pressure from Bernie Sanders she had to shift her rhetorics to the left, but I cannot shake a feeling that it’s just words. As a politician, she is prepared to say whatever she thinks is necessary to get the votes of the target demographic and then do as she deems necessary. The threat of “more of the same in the Middle East” doesn't help, either.

So the lack of enthusiasm of voters who supported Obama is understandable. I am a politically active person, I vote in UK elections and referenda and would've voted in US but I see how a “more of the damned politicos” does not propel to go to a polling station, even if the alternative is just horrible — the liberal press did too good a job convincing everybody that Hilary will win.

Myth number two is “women prefer female candidates.” The opposite is true. I explained my reasons for looking at the policies and the person, rather than gender. And the conservative female voters think that a man is better in public life and the man knows better. They vote with their husbands and fathers.

To vote for a woman just because we share gender would be irrational and proving the anti-feminist point that women live through their emotions. I support a woman candidate if she is at least as good as a man opposing her. Elizabeth Warren for President in 2020!