“MUCH of the beauty of light owes its existence to the dark. The most powerful moments of our lives happen when we string together the small flickers of light created by courage, compassion, and connection and see them shine in the darkness of our struggles.“ – Brené Brown, Ph.D., L.M.S.W.
None of the founding fathers intended for our White House to be led, exclusively by white males. Yet, how is it that we are predisposed to accept males only to this powerhouse, that some of us believe the falsely made caricatures about this woman presidential candidate, named Hillary Clinton?
Isn’t it a big societal farce that women can give birth to our most important assets: our leaders of this nation and the world, our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and yet, in our psychological states of mind, women are structurally barred from leading us in The White House? But not in 46 countries of the world.
46 out of 196 countries in the world are led by women
On January 16, 2016, voters of Taiwan elected its first woman president, Tsai Ing-Wen.
Even Aung San Suu Kyi led the National League for Democracy to a majority win in the first openly contested elections in 25 years, in Myanmar, on November 13, 2015.
46 out of 196 countries have now allowed women leaders in positions: Taiwan, Myanmar, Iceland, Great Britain, Germany, Philippines, Tannu Tuva, Mongolia, China, Argentina, Bolivia, San Marino, Malta, Guinea –Bissau, Switzerland, Haiti, East Germany, Nicaragua, Ireland, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Liberia, Ecuador, Guyana, Latvia, Panama, Finland, Indonesia, Serbia, Georgia, Austria, Chile, Israel, India, Gabon, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, Costa Rica, Brazil, Kosovo, Mauritius, Malawi, South Korea, Central African Republic, Croatia, and Nepal.
The Philippines had two women presidents, Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (who is now under house arrest for election fraud).
23 percent of these countries have moved forward. If we include women prime ministers or appointed women as governor generals — like Belize, Canada, Barbados, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, The Bahamas, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia and Grenada — 57 countries now have had women leaders at the helm of public governance, increasing it to 29 percent, close to a third in the entire world.
Given that a third of the 196 countries are run by women, either elected or appointed, would we now think it is time for America, the perceived leader of the first world, to elect its first woman president in the 21st century?
A compelling president-to-be Hillary Clinton
After all, America has a very compelling candidate in Hillary Clinton, given her meritorious qualifications: experiences in non-profits, a private firm, as First Lady, positions at the state and federal levels of the government, and most recently national Secretary of State with foreign policy experience in diplomacy and forging relationships with nations and countries.
In philanthropy, she has supported 26 charities and 30 causes.
From 1977, she has been an advocate for Children and Families, close to four decades of living a life, in service of others.
On her resume, there are a number of firsts, but the best one to my mind, is to be listed as one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America,” and the First Lady who dared to work on the issue that we all need a universal health care insurance system. Albeit, it did not come to fruition under the term of her husband, Pres. Bill Clinton, we see now the benefits of 19 million Americans insured under Obamacare.
Thanks to Affordable Health Care Act, many artists in our communities are now going for their preventative physical check-up and are not afraid for their health and welfare. They are part of the 19 million insured Americans and residents. They seem to be more engaged as artists and are organizing their ad-hoc gatherings, as now they feel, that their families are well-protected, and the critical surgeries they once postponed, can be done. And their lives can now be lived, and that is no small measure. Should we not continue this progress?
Why the inertia at rest?
Would it really be difficult for progressives, independents and conservatives to embrace this woman candidate, with superior meritorious qualifications?
Could it be that Hillary Clinton is held to a much higher standard than her male counterparts? Could that be the cause of this perceived inertia at rest, not moving to support with energy and enthusiasm the best woman candidate for president?
Or could it be that the issue of inequality drew a wide enough blanket, to include 98 percent of us?
But, has this male candidate not spoken of these issues since 1991?
My question to him: It is now 2016. Why be content as an advocate? Have you brokered changes and solutions amongst your colleagues? 25 years, and you have not moved the pendulum towards solutions?
Moving the pendulum towards solutions
With Hillary Clinton, we are witnesses on how she moves the pendulum from where the problem is, from the right to the left, encompassing more families into the solution of providing health care insurance. She may not succeed at first, but at least, she lays the foundational bricks for others to build on.
There is some movement too, when she became a senator in 2000, after being a First Lady, and then as Secretary of State in 2009 to 2013, when she was at the forefront of the world’s hot spots. As part of the White House’s security team, she oversaw the military operations to get Osama Bin Laden and secured justice for those who perished in 9/11.
She also helped in the repair of US’s standing as an ally in the world, where before, we were viewed with such disdain, during the Bush years. While abroad during those years, we felt disdain, as US citizens, as if our blue passports were the equivalence of chaos in Europe, given the war in Iraq.
But as the pendulum swung from being a force for peace, she also became a pendulum of military force.
Senator Hillary Clinton voted along with 76 other Senators and 23 against on Oct. 11, 2002, along with 297 Congresspersons who voted yes and 133 against, with three not voting, for the use of military force in Iraq on Oct. 10, 2002. There was a climate of duplicity fostered by the White House then, under Pres. G.W. Bush, alleging weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that posed a security threat in the world.
Our national issues
Name me one male contender against Hillary Clinton, who has grown from being in a multiplicity of platforms, much like Hillary when she was a non-profit leader, to a private law firm partner, to a White House First Lady, to a publicly elected senator, and then a presidential-appointed Secretary of State. All this service in the non-profit, private, public and international fields showed her resiliency, but also her full sense of confidence that she can perform a multiplicity of functions and responsibilities. Can you point to one male contender who has done so? I dare say, none!
Yet, we are content for the mainstream media to define the elections in very narrow terms of bombastic hateful words from the “loudmouthed-bullies.”
Or are we not?
If we are not, are we pushing for issues to be addressed in this country, like decent child care systems for families, affordable housing for working families, affordable higher education for our students and safe drinking water (no chemicals as in Flint, Michigan)?
Are we addressing issues of discharges of methane in the air from natural gas? Or climate change in how we can care for our common home, Mother Earth?
Given the Chinese proverb, “Women hold half of the Sky,” should we not put to bed the myth that the White House is for males only? And for 43 out of 44 US presidents, for whites only?
Or will we break open our hearts and minds to embrace this meritorious, smart and compassionate woman to vote for her as our first Woman president?
Will we be able to pierce our collective consciences to make that transcendent gender justice happen? Will we see flickers of light continue to shine in the White House, after having the first black president, to now have our first white woman president?
* * *
Prosy Abarquez-Delacruz, J.D. writes a weekly column for Asian Journal, called “Rhizomes.” She has been writing for AJ Press for 9 years now. She contributes to Balikbayan Magazine. Her training and experiences are in science, food technology, law and community volunteerism for 4 decades. She holds a B.S. degree from the University of the Philippines, a law degree from Whittier College School of Law in California and a certificate on 21st Century Leadership from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. She has been a participant in NVM Writing Workshops taught by Prof. Peter Bacho for 4 years and Prof. Russell Leong. She has travelled to France, Holland, Belgium, Japan, Mexico and 22 national parks in the US, in pursuit of her love for arts.