I don’t know how many readers will remember Harry Truman (who left office before I was born), but one of the things I liked about him was a slogan he popularized about taking responsibility for things that went on.
“The buck stops here.”
There is something refreshing about that point of view. By today’s standards, such thinking is outmoded. Old fashioned. Even, uh, manly. But maybe manly isn’t the right word. Because even though Harry Truman was a man, and that personal gender characteristic happens to be shared by the current occupant of the White House, they don’t appear to share the same philosophy about taking personal responsibility. Far from it. Barack Obama has been dodging responsibility for anything he can blame on his underlings ever since he took office.
Fortunately for him, though, he has one underling possessed of what used to be called balls.
Lima, Peru (CNN) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she’s responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
“I take responsibility,” Clinton said during a visit to Peru. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”
Very Truman-like, and while I’m not a fan of the woman’s politics, I find it refreshing. Still, I would hesitate to call it manly, for the simple reason that Hillary is a woman. And again, Barack Obama is a man, right?
I mean, if Hillary Clinton is more manly than Barack Obama, people might start worrying about the meaning of such terms.
Whatever it is to be called, I find Hillary’s acceptance of responsibility refreshing.
(I’d just hate to see her boss trying to take credit for her balls…)
Comments
7 responses to “What was once called “manliness” still has to come from somewhere”
“Hillary’s acceptance of responsibility”?
I don’t know. It reads more like a promise to find and crush one of her “security professionals”; after the election of course.
I read on Ace of Spades the theory that this is actually Hillary slipping the dagger between Obama’s ribs… DrewM. thinks that Axelrod tried to throw Hillary under the bus, and she threw it right back at him.
“What Hillary has done is basically say, ‘the damn phone is ringing and President Creased Trousers isn’t answering it so give it to me. She comes off as the grown up who said, look I’m in charge here and for good or ill that makes me responsible’.”
I think it’s quite plausible. (And quite well-played.)
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/333870.php
The trait in question is only “manly” to the extent that “man” is presumed to be a subset of “grownup”. It’s just as present among emotionally-mature women. If one finds it less among women nowadays than among men, that’s simply because women nowadays are disproportionately likely to remain emotionally immature well into legal adulthood.
She’s doing exactly what Janet Reno did after the Waco debacle. She’s claiming responsibility while rejecting blame. If she actually meant to accept responsibility, she’d tender her resignation and apology. But of course she’s not going to do that, because her bullshit statement is seen by her target audience as a sufficient response.
The trait in question is only “manly” to the extent that “man” is presumed to be a subset of “grownup”. It’s just as present among emotionally-mature women. If one finds it less among women nowadays than among men, that’s simply because women nowadays are disproportionately likely to remain emotionally immature well into legal adulthood.
If by “emotionally immature” you mean more likely to have a job 50bps lower unemployment rate and 30% more likely to be enrolled in higher education, than you’d be correct. But if you think they are emotionally immature because they are more likely to say “no” to a man’s orders and may prefer to listen to Lady Gaga, I can understand why you’d have a problem with that too.
She’s doing exactly what Janet Reno did after the Waco debacle. She’s claiming responsibility while rejecting blame. If she actually meant to accept responsibility, she’d tender her resignation and apology. But of course she’s not going to do that, because her bullshit statement is seen by her target audience as a sufficient response.
There were half a dozen embassy attacks under Bush. I don’t remember any resignations being tendered, or any offers of taking responsibility. Hell, did anyone accept responsibility for the 9/11 attacks occurring, on AMERICAN soil? I don’t remember any resignations following Beirut either. I mean, seriously.
Its amazing how wingnuts will find one thing to hold on to and clutch on to it to perpetuity.
Here was a Man.
Is Hillary one? I don’t know, but I’d prefer her to the present man in the White House.