When I discuss the upcoming Presidental election with my friends, I’m shocked at the number of people that respond ‘I just don’t like Hillary’, and therefore would prefer Trump to win the election. For the life of me, I am not sure when likability became an important personal attribute to leading the free world, but let’s look at that word ‘likability’ and what makes someone ‘likeable’.
So, what is it that makes someone likeable? Is it their honesty?
Who Lies More.png
With all the FBI investigations into Clinton’s emails, a fair amount of suspicion has been awakened, which has been fuelled significantly by the Trump campaign and the Murdoch-run Fox News. They are pushing the point on the emails, as well they should, despite the FBI campaign (to date), clearing her of any illegal activity. But what about honesty and trustworthiness in general? Well, PoltiFact, an independent fact checking website ran the numbers.Statements of all prominent 2016 American politicians since 2007 were checked and ranked for their truthfulness: Clinton comes out as the second-most truthful, behind Obama. Trump? Unsurprisingly the worst. Donald Trump seemingly has another set of rules to play by in this election: perhaps because he is not a politician. Perhaps because he is a ‘self-made’ (I disagree with that, but I digress) businessman so he has ‘earnt’ the right to play by different rules? I don’t know.A note here – it is worth remembering the Ju-liar campaign that the Liberal Party ran against Julia Gillard throughout her term because she negotiated a carbon tax in order to lead government. She was labelled a liar, because this flew in the face of her famous statement ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. Two things:
The Labor Party did not win a majority vote, so they had to engage crossbenchers in order to govern the country. Negotiation was vital in this process, and it is openly acknowledged (see this Tony Windsor video) that Tony Abbott would have done the same.
In actual fact, Gillard introduced an emissions trading scheme, with a fixed price on permits for the first three years. But this was too difficult to understand, and the word ‘tax’ has a lot more negative connotations, hence being used to great effect by the Liberal party.
So, if likability isn’t rationally based on honesty, then perhaps it’s qualifications for the role?
Hillary Clinton is The Most Qualified Person to ever be nominated by one of the major parties or otherwise. Her qualifications include (but are not limited to): four years as Secretary of State, eight years as the junior Senator for New York, pushing for health care reform while First Lady, in addition to running in two Democratic primaries. No, she has not been Governor of a state, but that is not a prerequisite, and nor has Trump being a state Governor.Taking out the professional experience, perhaps we can make this a more fairly even ball-game (although I’m not sure why), by comparing the personal attributes that it takes to be a qualified President. Of course, this is subjective, and I’m not sure that a Trump supporter would agree with these traits, but surely some level of the following is required: negotiation skills, humility, understanding of world issues, level-headedness, listening. From his performance in all three debates alone, it is clear that Trump has none of these qualities, and that is not a subjective statement.So on both political experience and personal traits, Clinton is more qualified than Trump.
So why is she not likeable? Well, perhaps it’s her connections to Wall Street and the ‘dirty’ money that supports her which people dislike?
On this point, I think that people seem to forget that the President is a political position. Clinton has been playing politics, and part of that, as referenced above, is negotiation. The understanding that a country cannot be run without the cooperation of everyone is vital to the democratic process. Again, this could be where Trump supporters differ, with many excited about his nomination because he will not work with others, either internal or external to America while being President. Trump has turned effective working relationships, which involve trust, negotiation and cooperation, into a weakness. He has been supported in this by the childish actions of the Republican Party in Congress for the past eight years.However, I digress. Clinton and Wall Street.Yes, Clinton has earned money from speaking events that have included Wall Street royalty, as is her prerogative from being a politician. All other politicians do it, as does Donald Trump, so let us not take exception to her. As of March 2016 (so long before the race was down to two candidates), 19% of her individual donations for the campaign were from people that donated less than $100. At the same time for Trump it was 22%, however that percentage is skewed because there was a smaller amount donated for Trump. I cannot find anything more updated – although I would love to compare the average donation amounts since it became a two-horse race.While discussing Wall Street, it would be an omission if I did not recount Trump’s comments regarding the subprime mortgage housing crisis, which was one of the key causes of the GFC. Because let us not forget, Trump is a member of the Wall Street elite, even if he tries to deny the claim. Two years prior to the GFC, Trump is on the record as saying that he ‘sort of hope[s] that [housing crisis] happens because people like me would go in and buy…if there is a [housing] bubble burst, as they call it, you know you can make a lot of money’.Let us just put that into perspective: Donald Trump hoped that the housing crisis and resulting GFC in 2008 would happen so he could make money. The housing crisis that saw Americans lose one-quarter of their net worth, the American GDP contract for six quarters in a row and American unemployment rise from 5% to over 10% - that is, double, in just over 12 months. Of course though, not everyone is our society is equal, so the damage disproportionally hit those that had subprime mortgages, which of course tended to be US minority groups, many of which still do not have reliable housing and a solid income. On the other hand, Trump came out of the disaster with a roof over his head, a job intact, and the financial benefit of the misfortune of others.Interestingly, after these comments, Trump launched Trump Mortgage and brokered subprime mortgages for those in need, despite being aware of an imminent collapse of the market. As with many other Trump businesses, the company did not do well, however Trump blames the people he hired rather than the ludicrous idea of entering the mortgage market on the brink of disaster. In some countries, misleading the public for your own financial benefit is illegal, yet again, Trump seems to play by a different rule set.So yes, Clinton hobnobbing with Wall Street elite is is distasteful, but in comparison to the way that Trump behaves, it a long more understandable and palatable.
So, why else could Hillary be unlikable? Someone mentioned to me last week that they thought less of Clinton for staying with Bill when he had cheated.
Oh lordy. Let us consider the alternative: the First Lady leaves her husband while he’s President, something to have never happened before and likely never to as scandal in the White House is not helpful for leading the country. This person told me that it made Hillary look ‘power hungry’.Take a moment to get your head around that. Bill Clinton has an affair, in the Oval Office, and HILLARY looks power hungry? A fact for you: Bill Clinton’s highest approval rating during his eight-year term was during the Lewinski/impeachment controversy. Yet now, Hillary is being vilified for staying with her husband and supporting him? Can you imagine for a moment if she had an affair when in office – what that would do to her approval rating? We all know that men are praised and slapped on the backs for affairs, and women are chastised and labelled as sluts: here is a professional example.Again, let’s compare this to Trump: he is on his third marriage and has five children across his three wives. Trump is openly considered power hungry, and has often admitted to it. So – how come he is allowed to be politically ambitious, despite no qualifications, yet Hillary, who has made politics her life-work, is labelled as ‘power hungry.’
I am at a loss.
I cannot understand why we are still having these conversations. Why is it that people have one standard for Clinton, yet another one for Trump? It makes no sense except to say that it is because she is a woman. And of course, no one likes being called sexist, so we are dancing around the fact that the inherent misogyny in our society is causing us all – men and women – to have a bias view on the facts. But women the world over know what it is like to have to live with a different set of standards. We know it from the labels that we are given, the dreams that we are allowed to dream, the clothes we wear, the way we talk, the way that we act, the names that we are called.When I set out to write this, I wanted to avoid mentioning sexism or misogyny, because many of my friends know me to be a feminist, which of course, is a word with connotations of its own. I wanted to actually work out why it was that Hillary is disliked, and why that mattered. But I cannot work it out without reference to her gender.Please – if you have another reason, that is based on fact, share it with me. But if not, realise where and why we, society and the media are viewing this race the way that we are. And make the difference where you can: in your own house and with your own family. Discuss why there are different standards and whether that is fair. Tell your children that they can be whatever they want to be, regardless of their gender. Acknowledge that your female colleague is being paid less than you for the exact same job and speak up about it. Otherwise this will be the first and last time that a woman may have the opportunity to be the most powerful person in the world, and for us all, that would be a great shame.