For months, Donald Trump has been accusing Hillary Clinton of not looking presidential, a point he reiterated in a recent interview with ABC News:
“Well, I just don’t think she has a presidential look and you need a presidential look.”
Indeed, Clinton doesn’t look like the last 43 Presidents (44 if you count Grover Cleveland twice), but it’s not just because she’s a woman: Hillary Clinton is running for President as a national mom. That is a radical twist on what has previously been a required script for women.
Historically, Americans have struggled to reconcile the idea of women as caregivers with their role in public life. In 1945, when Gallup first asked if voters would choose a qualified female candidate for president more people said “no” than “yes.”
By the end of the 1960s, the public was evenly split on the question, and remained divided about women’s roles more generally. In 1972, only 47% believed that women should be equal to men in the workplace, and 29% said that a woman’s place was in the home.
Whereas social attitudes have significantly improved, female candidates still confront a perceived conflict, requiring them to reassure voters that they’re not neglecting their role as mothers by running for office.
In 2008, critics wondered if Sarah Palin could serve as vice-president and parent a special needs child. While Kelly Ayotte, running for U.S. Senate from New Hampshire in 2010, responded to repeated questions about whether she would have enough time for her children. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand compensates for any concerns about her work with frequent statements about how being a mother is an important job.
Men simply do not face the same expectations for care-work. Case in point: While running for governor of North Dakota in 2000, now-Sen. Heidi Heitkamp would respond to reporters’ questions about how old her kids were by saying they were the same age as her male opponent’s.
Hillary Clinton famously ran headlong into this double standard, when she took umbrage at a question about her policy role in her husband’s campaign by saying, “I suppose I could’ve stayed home, baked cookies and had teas.”
The backlash was brutal because women are supposed to apologize for their work, and Clinton refused to.
What’s radical about Clinton’s campaign today is that she’s framing motherhood as a qualification, not a conflict to overcome.
Speaking in a video at the Democratic National Convention, President Obama drew a straight line between Clinton’s aspirations as a parent and a President: “Her commitment to making people’s lives better, her abiding belief that the same opportunities that Chelsea has had should be extended to every child. That comes through in everything that she does.”
In that same video, Clinton reflected on her own mother’s abandonment by absentee parents. Her maternal instincts were on full display as she recalled being “haunted” by the image of her mother as a little girl walking unattended to the store.
This is not a preemptive defense against a care deficit — Hillary’s daughter is grown. It’s an affirmative declaration of her worldview: raising children helps qualify a person to run a country.
“There’s more than enough of the American dream to go around if we are committed to growing it, nurturing it, passing it on to our children and our grandchildren,” she said at the convention.
Her opponent, who brags about never having changed a diaper, sees it differently. Whereas motherhood can be an obstacle for a younger candidate, Trump wants us to believe that now, Grandma Hillary lacks the stamina to lead.
The President has always been the protector of the nation, a heroic father — never a caregiver who fails to get deserved credit for supporting others. That’s how Clinton is presenting herself: as someone who’s there for us even when we don’t appreciate her.
In other words: mom.
Grenell is a political consultant.
