The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin downplayed the historic relevance of Hillary Clinton becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major political party, claiming that “the lack of suspense” over Clinton’s victory and that there have been “women in high places for decades” somehow made her nomination less historic.
In her column, Rubin describes Clinton’s nomination as a “significant” rebuke of “the far-right media” and Donald Trump’s “nonchalant misogyny,” but claimed “gender simply is not as big a deal in 21st-century America as race still is”:
Some of the “wow” factor is diminished by the lack of suspense. Clinton has been running for president forever (well, about 10 years), and despite a mild scare from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was always going to be the nominee. A surprise, this was not.
Moreover, gender simply is not as big a deal in 21st-century America as race still is. We’ve had women in high places for decades, and we do not have a divide between the sexes (thank goodness) to the degree that we still have along racial lines. We fought a civil war and a brutal battle to do away with Jim Crow. I could go on, but most would agree that this is not as big a deal as nominating or electing the first African American. Frankly, seeing civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who was repeatedly beaten and jailed in the 1960s, put Clinton’s name into nomination only underscored the lack of equivalence.
Clinton’s nomination is nevertheless significant and a testament to Americans’ devotion to equality, which to a large degree defines the United States. It is a rebuke to the sophomoric and nonchalant misogyny of Donald Trump and some of the far-right media.
We can hope this lowers the heat on the “war against women” rhetoric, but do not count on it. Americans, after nearly eight years of President Obama, are signaling record levels of pessimism about race relations. Let’s hope that if she wins, Clinton does not do for gender relations what Obama did for race relations.