In the podcast, Brooke Gladstone talks with Karen Tumulty, a national political correspondent for the Washington Post. This is the social context of the podcast. Tumulty has met Hillary Clinton, and even though she's talking about people's distrust of Clinton, Tumulty presents arguments with minimal bias. She even admits that when Clinton is "off the record" she can be charming and personable, contrary to how she is generally portrayed in the conservative media.
The cultural context that is most prominent, as it relates to this podcast, is that this is an election year. Last week Josh Katz (2016), writing for the New York Times, said that, "Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls". This increases the scrutiny surrounding Hillary Clinton and creates a context in which this kind of podcast is extremely relevant. The psychological context is the automatic attitudinal response that many people experience when they hear the name Hillary Clinton. The word "liar" comes to mind automatically when I hear Clinton's name, and I know that I am not alone in this. In the podcast, that phenomenon is mentioned specifically. This psychological context provides the platform for the concept on which this podcast is based.
Tumulty states that Clinton has an inherent tendency toward secrecy, and that she often offers explanations that are not remotely plausible. These are two aspects of her character and her persona that work against her. Ever since the Whitewater scandal, Clinton has leaned toward secrecy as opposed to transparency. The same behavior can be seen in regards to her email server scandal. Hillary Clinton repeatedly lies, withholds the truth, or tells half-truths to the American people. Those scandals are certainly reasons that people distrust Clinton, but I chose to focus on a different aspect of her identity.
Clinton flips positions on social issues and her political identity is based on whatever group she is currently pandering to. Kelly Riddell (2015), writing for the Washington Post, states that, “last time Mrs. Clinton took the stage for a presidential debate, she was against same sex-marriage, [and] a supporter of the Second Amendment” referring to the 2008 presidential debate. This is contrary to the 2012 presidential debate, about which Riddell writes, “Flash forward to Tuesday in Las Vegas, and Mrs. Clinton enters as a backer of same-sex couples, [and] a supporter of tighter federal gun control measures”.
As a scholar, I have done plenty of research on the topic. I have found information that acknowledges that Clinton did support civil unions (but not official marriages) over a decade ago. Some people are quick to assume that she did a complete 180, so to speak, but that simply isn’t true (Sherman 2015). I think that Clinton may have always supported gay rights, but she did not speak her mind because doing so could mean losing votes. This supports the theory that her political identity, or at least the one she portrays to the public, is based on pandering. Her ideals and values may not have shifted, but her publicly voiced opinions are anything but consistent. This inconsistency creates uncertainty, and it shrouds Hillary Clinton in skepticism that leads people to distrust her.
References
Katz, J. (2016, September 20). 2016 Election Forecast: Who Will Be President? Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0
Riddell, K. (2015, October 12). Hillary Clinton flip-flops from 2008 positions in bid for liberal voters’ support. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/hillary-clinton-flip-flops-from-2008-positions-in-/
Sherman, A. (2015, June 17). Hillary Clinton's changing position on same-sex marriage. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
No comments:
Post a Comment