The media now drops the term “dynastic politics” almost as frequently as they mention Trump’s toupee. The January edition of the New York Times featured a piece entitled, “Are Two Dynasties Our Destiny?” referring to what the author perceived as an inevitable presidential ballot between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. But media conversations about Clinton and Bush have been approached from two different angles, creating a problematic comparison that has implicitly pervaded political discourse. While Bush typically is discussed based on his policy perspectives—particularly in comparison to his father and brother—views of Clinton often focus more on her character than her policies. In this way, the presidential election is yet another example of sexist treatment of women in government, which sidelines policy for personality politics.
From the unofficial launch of Bush’s campaign, he has sought to repudiate the rather unfortunate connotations of the Bush name while still appearing a loyal brother. He gets attacked on foreign policy within the context of his brothers failed foreign involvements. In the context of her husband, however, Hillary is rarely confronted with policies. Comparisons deal predominantly with her more distant, less personable personality. Next to Bill, she fulfills the trope of ambitious, uptight, cold wife next to her fun-loving, charismatic husband.
Bush deals with the omnipresence of his brother’s legacy by trying to distinguish his foreign policy agenda from his brother’s. At the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, where Jeb first delineated his foreign policy agenda, he assured the crowd, “I am my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences.” But, Bush has been bombarded with several questions regarding his brother’s decision to invade Iraq after misleading the public with faulty intelligence. In an interview with Megyn Kelly, Jeb was asked, “knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion [of Iraq]?” He responded that he would have, given the evidence available. After the public outrage that ensued, however, he recanted, saying, “I would not have gone into Iraq,” at a town hall event in Arizona. Even on the campaign trail, he’s been heckled several times by protestors, who claim his brother played a large part in creating the kinds of conditions that fostered the emergence of ISIS. A video went viral of Ivy Ziedrich, a student who accosted Bush at his town hall meeting in Reno, saying, “Your brother created ISIS,” in response to his comments indicating President Obama should be to blame for the group’s inception.
But above all, this predominant narrative in comparing Jeb to his brother and father is one that centers on foreign policy and national security. These comparisons have placed significant impediments for Jeb on the road to the White House, however, they haven’t cast aspersions on his character or personality — a stark contrast to what unfolds before Hillary. When Hillary gets placed in the context of her husband’s presidency — the dialogue seldom surrounds policy.
According to an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 56 percent of people share a positive view of Bill Clinton while only 26 percent bear a negative one, making the former president more popular than George W. Bush (35 percent and 39 percent, respectively) and President Obama (44 percent and 43 percent, respectively). Her husband’s popularity, however, doesn’t seem to translate; the same data shows that 44 percent of Americans have a positive view of Hillary Clinton while 36 percent have a negative one.
In the case of the Clintons, juxtaposed personalities precede over policy comparisons. Next to the charismatic, charming, and warm character of her husband, Hillary gets cast as the cold, ambitious, power-seeking wife (practically the reigning trope of the 21st Century woman). Hypersensitive to the coded-sexism toward Hillary, one of the founders of the Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) Super Volunteers Group, John West, even emailed news outlets and journalists, asking them to steer clear of rhetoric with sexist undertones. This included phrases like, “ambitious,” “tired,” “entitled,” “worn out,” and “will do anything to win.”
Though this may appear a mere PR campaign, he does touch upon a lot of truth. On SNL, where political impressions can make or break political candidates, Hillary often gets mocked for her polished—even stiff—stature, her inability to blend in, and her seemingly unbound ambitions to lead. In fact, her scenes often parody Hillary in her famed pantsuit, asking questions like “why won’t they just let me lead already?” as easy-going Bill pounces on stage, lands big laughs, and mocks Hillary. The bit echoes an all-too-familiar scene of the fun-loving dad teasing his uptight, work-a-holic wife in front of the kids. While this depiction get’s re-enforced by her difficulty to connect with people in interviews and her seemingly over-rehearsed responses, the juxtaposition to her husband brings home the trope of ambitious, distant, all-too-serious wife, as a hurdle for women in the workforce, since professional opportunities expanded in the 1960s.
The merits of these impressions and criticisms, however, are less significant here. What bears far more concern is the way in which Hillary ostensibly faces a similar issue as Jeb Bush — dynastic politics. And yet, perhaps by virtue of being a woman who gets compared to a man, rather than a man being compared to another man, that issue becomes a conversation around personality, rather than policy.
It seems odd to imagine the smoother George W. lampooning his lack-luster brother on SNL — much less it entering the discussions of political pundits. Similarly, we may find ourselves hard pressed to find articles comparing the Bill’s policies to his wife’s. They do exist — but in a much smaller and less visible sense. And those who do approach Hillary about the mistakes of her husband, like the Black Lives Matter Movement, have incited some compelling conversations for her on the campaign trail. Footage recently revealed a conversation between Black Lives Matter activists and Secretary Clinton in which they blamed her husband for the policies he implemented during his presidency, which he himself admits placed “too many people in prison for too long” and “overshot the mark”. Hillary had to confront the fact that his policies played a significant role in growing the US prison population from 847,000 to 1,334,000 throughout his two terms in office. It placed much-needed pressure on the presidential candidate to propose a criminal justice agenda that reforms a broken system, without incriminating her husband for the tough-on-crime laws he championed in office.
Last month, Hillary actually put forth a series of reforms for the failing criminal justice system. She’s calling to reform mandatory minimum sentencing for low-level, non-violent offenses, as well as seeking alternative punishments for those low-level offenders. She proposes increased support for mental health and drug treatment programs and to eradicate private prisons. In regards to police brutality — a major cornerstone of the Black Lives Matter Movement — Hillary has called for body cameras for every police offer across the nation.
Though Hillary is seldom asked about her husband’s policies, in the few times she has, Hillary has differentiated herself in a way that Jeb still struggles to. She’s willing to overturn failed policies from the Clinton administration and admit that mistakes were made, a concession that would have likely saved Jeb a lot of backlash with regard to Iraq.
While the implications of dynastic politics have affected both candidates along the path the White House; the media’s attention to Hillary’s personality against the backdrop of her husband — as opposed to her policy — only highlights the unequal treatment of women, not just in government, but the entire workforce. Given the opportunity to discuss the policies that discern her from her husband, we may find her a more distinguished candidate than Jeb, who, though often asked about the policy differences between he and his brother, frequently fails to adequately distinguish himself.