If Hillary Rodham Clinton loses the November 2016 United States presidential election, it will be because she is a woman. Not exclusively of course, but substantially. Decisively. How can one be sure of such a categorical statement? Because the observable conditions point precisely to this conclusion.
No male presidential candidate who had so comprehensively out-gunned his opponent on all of the key performance indicators required for national leadership would find himself in the current neck-and-neck race – especially against such an obviously defective alternative as Donald Trump.
![America's options: The Donald and HRC.](/web/20161002093729im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/r/q/t/i/s/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.grsd30.png/1475353679239.jpg)
Think about it. A highly qualified, governmentally experienced and broadly credible mainstream candidate with a lifetime of political service and national-international exposure is defeated by a naive outsider armed with nothing more than money, bravado, and a reality television fame for declaring "you're fired!" ... of all things.
HRC, as Barack Obama noted at the Democratic National Convention, is probably better prepared for this unique office than any presidential candidate in history. And that is a fact acknowledged across the aisle by numerous Republicans – many of whom intend to vote for her.
Yet she, the putative "establishment" insider, is in danger of being dismissed by ordinary voters in favour of a gaudy businessman who is unquestionably the least experienced major party nominee in modern history.
Large numbers of Americans across all demographics – but most notably white male working class voters – are proposing to hand over the presidency to a charlatan with no record in public administration or elected office, no demonstrated understanding or interest in the complexities of international affairs, and few detailed policies beyond an angry manifesto propelled by protectionist nostalgia and his own vulgar self-adoration.
Swap the attributes around and imagine how seriously a woman would be taken, if she suited up for the number-one job with zero credentials – and then tried to make a virtue of it?
But there's another edge too. Trump, despite his billionaire success, built from gaming the system in everything from strategic bankruptcies to avoid paying contractors and employees, to federal tax avoidance, is the cleanskin, the Washington outsider.
Of course, Clinton already saw off one of these in the form of the leftist populist, Bernie Sanders, when she secured the Democratic nomination earlier this year. But the fact that both parties came to be dominated by this outsider sentiment, this loss of faith with mainstream politics and economics, demonstrates the depth of trouble the establishment is in.
Consider this telling moment from Monday night's debate when Clinton hit back at The Donald's criticism of her taking time off the campaign to prepare for the encounter: "I think Donald just criticised me for preparing for this debate. And yes, I did," Clinton said. "And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president, and I think that's a good thing."
In Trump's estimation, this merely makes his opponent a "girly swat", whereas he possesses the innate ability and moral authority to learn on the job. He even positions knowledge and experience as evidence of the problem – as a recipe for politics as usual. Voters seem to think this sand-castle kicking is fine.
Besides, Trump apologists suggest he will be surrounded by smart guys, advisers who can read briefs and then "know" stuff on his behalf. This ignores the reality that on complex matters of national security, strategic policy, and international diplomacy, advisers are invariably split. Leaders must decide what to do from a variety of competing angles. What would Trump do? Ask Twitter, perhaps.
Malcolm Turnbull is not the only world leader to view Trump as not so much change agent as chaos bringer.
Trump's arrival presages possibly the biggest and most traumatic upheaval to the global power balance since the Second World War.
At risk is the trilateral relationship between the US, Australia, and Japan, the management of an increasingly assertive Beijing, and a resurgent Moscow, and the proxy war being fought out in Syria at present.
Clinton's experience in wrangling such complexities is undoubted – even if her judgment as a past supporter of the Iraq war is hardly impeccable.
Citizen Trump supported it too but dissembles on this question now, as on most.
Perhaps the signature evidence of the double-standard at play in US politics (although undoubtedly not just the US) is the fact that Clinton's greatest fault as expressed most often by voters, is her lack of honesty and trustworthiness.
The prime example cited is her use of a private email server while Secretary of State under Obama. She has admitted this was a mistake although her admissions have come reluctantly and have imparted a strong sense of the politician being slippery with her words.
There have been other problems, too, that pull at the threads of her integrity and suggest, as her critics charge, that for Clintons the ordinary rules don't matter.
Yet these arguments are laughable when stacked up against the blatant bald-faced lies and insults thrown around by Trump like confetti. That Clinton's "honesty" could be an issue against such a serial liar is the clearest example of the double standard.
More evidence that as Trump and his supporters position him as the outsider, the real outsider in this race is a well-read woman. How dare she?
Mark Kenny is chief political correspondent.
0 comments
New User? Sign up