It started with Berlsuconi. Out the Italians voted him and in came Prodi: Style, image and flamboyance gave way to substance, intelligence and experience. Prodi, a former professor, is undoubtedly able and serious, but he has about as much charisma as, well, Gordon Brown. The Brits didn’t kick the image-maker Tony Blair out of office but the result is the same. We now have at 10 Downing Street a man who cares more about policy and results than persona and personal legacies. And about time too.
European leaders — with one notable exception but more on him later — are now almost universally bland. There is a definite trend to move away from the politics of photo-ops and spin toward good old fashioned solemn policy-making. The voting public has become cynical and weary leaving politicians no option but to show themselves to be doing their job if they want to be elected. After all, there is no shortage of popularity contests for us to vote for, whether it be big brother or some other reality TV spin off, so when it comes to politics a little bit of, well politics, is rather welcome.
Across the pond, the same trend is beginning to show. The next resident of the White House is more likely to be Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, and this to the surprise of many, for Mrs. Clinton lacks that effervescent star quality that made her husband such a successful politician and which the young Obama also has in bucket loads. But what Hillary Clinton does have is toughness and a deep knowledge of politics. She is, to put it in one word, able.
But Mrs.Clinton is a woman and her gender is arguably the most problematic aspect of her campaign. Is the US ready for a female president? I fear not, or at least that Mrs. Clinton fears not. Since becoming a senator she has tried hard to minimize her femininity. There is a clear subtext in the way in which she presents herself, an almost desperate need to show herself to be serious, to be anything but what one can imagine many American voters see in the idea of a woman president. The word president is in itself so masculine. While prime minister or a chancellor lends itself relatively easy to being feminized, president is so much harder. It’s little wonder Hillary Clinton has tried to appear as unfeminine as possible.
The problem she faces is a common one for many women with career aspirations. If women are not taken as seriously as they ought to be by their male colleagues and if women’s bodies are sexualized in a way that men’s bodies are not — and the evidence points to both being the case — is the only way forward to hide your femininity and take on a masculinized persona? Or should you on the contrary revel in your femininity?
In European politics only two women have succeeded in being elected as leaders of their country: Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel. Both exuded a similar nonsexual femininity. It is easy to think of Margaret Thatcher as so tough as to be masculine. She was the Iron Lady after all, but the moniker in itself shows how she used her femininity to best advantage. In fact during her first election campaign her advisers were insistent on emphasizing her gender. The image they wanted to show was of the responsible, hard-working housewife. They staged a photo-op of Thatcher in her home doing the washing-up and other tasks around the home. The idea was that the voting public would trust a woman to run the country just as they trust a woman to run a household. It seems an odd image now, but back in 1979 it resonated.
Her advisers worked on her voice too, altering the way she spoke to make it softer and more feminine. As for the way she dressed, she was never seen in a trouser suit; instead she turned the skirt suit into the power suit. And her handbags! How she turned this symbol of womanhood into a weapon is now legendary.
A generation later we have Angela Merkel in Germany. She is much softer than Thatcher and does favor the trouser suit over skirts and dresses, but she remains at ease with her femininity, unlike Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps Clinton has taken heed from the failure of Ségolène Royal to get elected in France this year. Unlike Thatcher and Merkel, Royal is glamorously feminine. She does not hide her attractiveness, quite the opposite. She epitomizes the modern career woman who is not frightened of wearing heels and using her charm, who does not consider being seen as sexy and being taken seriously as mutually incompatible.
But it was not her image that cost Royal the French presidency. Royal failed to get elected because her policies did not add up. It was a case of substance over style. Meanwhile Sarkozy bucks the trend since he is as image conscious as Blair ever was. But as much as his flamboyant style may stand in sharp contrast to his European colleagues, no one can accuse him of putting style above substance.
And so Hillary Clinton finds herself between a rock and a hard place. She is a woman who wants to win a man’s job. Being overly masculine has her critics accusing her of being too much like a man. So what does she do? She leaves her unremarkable dark trouser suit in the closet and dons a pink jacket. Beneath the jacket she wears a top with a v-line. The outfit would not cause anyone in a European Parliament to even blink, but that is Europe. Not so in the US where the headlines would make you think she appeared topless when in fact hardly any cleavage was visible in her outfit.
Is it still so shocking in today’s America that a woman could have both breasts and brains? It seems so. Hillary Clinton faces an uphill struggle. Clearly she has substance; now she needs to find a style that can put American voters as ease — a style that does not threaten those who find her qualities too masculine nor those who feel uneasy at seeing an attractive woman lead the country.
