Pledging to Fight Injustices, Hillary Clinton Focuses on Transgender Rights in Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/politics/pledging-to-fight-injustices-hillary-clinton-focuses-on-transgender-rights-in-speech.html?ref=politics&_r=0
Hilary Clinton speaks to a crowd of the Human Rights Campaign, emphasizing her support for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and lesbian Americans. She tells them that she is aware of the injustices and dangers at which they are positioned at, and that she is here to end them once and for all. For injustices, she went as far as rejecting her husband Bill Clinton's policies that were made during his presidency, of which drew back gay rights. I think she's trying to say that she is even willing to go against her husband's previous beliefs and policies if she can support their group. She seems to pull the focus and make an effort to prove her support and commitment to them, sugarcoating her words in order to "woo" the group, as she says things like "Transgender people are valued. They are us." She doesn't say what she plans to do, but rather, what she believes need to be focused on, saying "we need to do this," we need to focus on that," and so on. She also makes her views on Obama and Bill Clinton's policies, but does not mention what policies she plans to work for during her presidency. I think she knows that making specific promises will follow her throughout her whole career and so, is being careful.
Seth Kalish, the graphic designer interviewed in the article, said, "I think she's been very good on the L.G.B.T. issues, but always in the context of politics. It's typical for someone wanting to get to the White House to be cautious." This seems to not be the first case of observation at her political means overlapping with her L.G.B.T.s support. Even in her interview last year with Terry Gross, she was shown to have snapped at her interviewer Gross' suspicions and said, "No, I don't think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that's just flat wrong...I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I've done and the progress were making." I have to admit that it is important for Hilary Clinton to carry out a display of her passionate support for the L.G.B.T. because the Human Rights Campaign has members that are politically active across the nation with the L.G.B.T., and thus, is an important organization to please. However, I cannot say that Hillary Clinton has absolutely no political reasons for her strong emphasis for the gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders. Considering that she has used up almost all her campaigning funds and has also recently lost support from a major organization The International Association of Firefighters (who were influenced by the possible Democratic candidacy of Joe Biden), it is likely that she needs the most support that she can get. It seems that her criticism of the Republican candidates' attitudes towards L.G.B.T.s can give her campaign positive points, allowing Hilary Clinton to gain acknowledgement from the Human Rights Campaign. However, considering that she missed a gathering invite from them to appear on Saturday Night Live and had to get re-invited to a breakfast meeting is not so appealing. These small decisions that she makes seem to have a lasting effect on her commitments and means. It may seem that she is stronger on her words than in her action......
I agree that in today's day and age, supporting LGBT issues has become more of a stamp of public approval in the realm of politics rather than an actual platform that a politician is passionate about. I remember during the Election Simulation of my freshman year, the senior who played Barack Obama endorsed a special interest group that advocated for LGBT rights and I couldn't help but notice that while the special interest group seemed elated to be endorsed by Obama, Obama seemed to care more about the publicity and approval it granted him. He couldn't answer any of the questions that the interviewers posed for him in regards to the LGBT community, which was an obvious sign that he did not really care for them. Although that was a simulation and the real Barack Obama might very well feel strongly towards equality for LGBTs, I think this situation points to a larger, more perpetual issue that will never really die out in politics. It is that politicians are so often blinded by their reputation and public reception that they forfeit what they are truly passionate about and what they truly stand for. How unfortunate that this is the reality for the people who are fighting for the position that represents and protects the passions, visions, and dreams of the American people.
ReplyDeleteI think that Clinton is being highly unreasonable. I think that there are more pressing issues occurring in America than making sure that everyone gets the exact same benefits and opportunities. Doing that job is not realistic because people will always be biased based on race, gender, etc. no matter what the law says. With Clinton heavily emphasizing this issue, this really makes me doubt how serious she is in helping the country. How is she going to remove our debt without having to pause at every second to ensure equal rights? How is she going to prevent murder when she supports aborting children and exploiting what's left over? Hillary Clinton needs to stop being so widespread on her issues and find a practical way to secure our economic and political well being which are in shambles currently
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Zion has said - Clinton seems to be using her support for LGBT rights as a political vehicle to gain popularity and support. Hadn’t Clinton previously been public about her disapproval of gay marriage? Clinton must either have had a genuine epiphany about gay rights or had switched her opinion to garner public support. It’s difficult to really ascertain whether Clinton really believes in gay rights now, but it’s clear she wants her current stance known. The way she has doggedly shut down any doubts (“...I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that's just flat wrong...I have a strong record...") reveals a preoccupation with keeping her reputation, both past and present, ideologically pure and presentable to the public. In analyzing her plans in the future for gay rights (which includes support for the HRC and Obama's policy and rejections of policies, but no actual clear-cut plan), it’s once again difficult to root out where she stands: in refraining from espousing her plans for the future, if any, is she just being politically cautious, as Janice suggested? Or does she not have any plans yet at all? Maybe the ambiguity of her response and the lack of an absolute plan speaks for itself.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I don’t think Clinton’s platform is especially remarkable; support for LGBT rights should come as an expected norm for candidates - especially liberal candidates in this day and age - and not something deserving accolades. It’s honestly disappointing if the American public sees mere verbal support as something to be commended - that’s setting the bar incredibly low. It's nice Clinton sees transgenders as humans, and it's nice she's extended her support intersectionally by mentioning African American transgender women as an especially marginalized group, but what more is she specifically going to do to protect their rights?