It was this photo in the New Yorker that illuminated perhaps the number one reason why our country seemed and continues to seem so fragile to this citizen? How did we wind up with contests among potential leaders who are at once vicious, laughable, and childish? Is this yet more evidence that a woman leader must -- must -- be elected?
No. Because (uh-oh! this is going to make some women furious) achieving equality turns out to mean beating men at their own game rather than changing the game. Big mistake. I think I've just uncovered the reason why I can't vote for Hillary. She is a posterperson for monkey-see monkey-do ... right down to the pantsuits.
Not my vote. Not sure Clinton even deserves "but she means well!"
Amy Davidson writes in the same New Yorker article that we have come to accept a system in which we're given a choice that isn't a choice. Democracy is an illusion.
As many observers have pointed out, political parties get to set their own rules. But that does not mean that voters like those rules. The problem for the public is that these days there is generally no effective way into the political process except through one of the two major parties. The Democrats and Republicans have become duopolists—too big for anyone else to succeed. That reality creates an expectation that the parties themselves will be reasonably democratic. ...Davidson,NewYorker
That same illusion exists in our perception of the difference between two candidates in the system. There is no difference until and unless the system itself is changed.
