On Sunday night, Oprah Winfrey gave a stirring speech at the Golden Globes in which she inveighed against ubiquitous sexual abuse, warning abusers that “their time is up.” Many people appreciated the speech for what it was: an important spotlight on the ways sexual assault hurts not only women in Hollywood, but domestic workers, Olympians, soldiers, scientists, factory workers, and others across class strata.
It was difficult to ignore that in addition to a heartfelt message of solidarity, Oprah projected dignity, poise, and an air of hopefulness which felt unfamiliar a year into Trump’s presidency. Perhaps for that reason, it occurred to thousands of viewers that Oprah Winfrey might be the 2020 candidate the Democrats have been looking for.
Celebrities ranging from Sarah Silverman to Aasif Mandvi tweeted their support of #Oprah2020, joining a chorus of pundits like Joy Ann Reid and Shaun King. Even Bill Kristol tweeted #imwithher in support of Oprah’s candidacy, proving she has bipartisan appeal.
Notably, NBC seemingly offered its endorsement, tweeting: “Nothing but respect for OUR future president” – a tweet which received over 20,000 favorites before it was deleted the next day.
Certainly, many of these “endorsements” were offered in jest. And I’m sympathetic to those who, desperate for inspiration, would revel in the fantasy that, instead of Trump, someone as likable and respectable as Oprah could occupy the Oval Office as she’s occupied America’s living rooms.
But the enthusiasm around the mere specter of Oprah’s presidency reveals an uncomfortable truth about the hypocrisy of Democrats: all the talk of competency during the 2016 presidential election, qualifications, be they ideological or political, are mere pretexts for their choice of candidate.
In the build up to and aftershock of the 2016 election, perhaps the loudest and most consistent protest heard from Hillary Clinton supporters was “but she’s the most qualified!” Despite having a longer record of public service, Senator Bernie Sanders was deemed less, and by some, insufficiently qualified to run for president. His relative inexperience with foreign policy was a point of regular critique, and those who supported his candidacy on ideological grounds were dismissed as “purists” who didn’t understand the real “work” of being president.
Comments
Post a Comment