Here’s an interesting thought: America might find the much needed remedy for its painfully evident and dangerously prevalent political apathy in… Hillary Clinton. In her Reuters article, Chloe Angyal cites a study that shows how women’s involvement in the electoral process impacts the level of political awareness on part of the voting public (especially women). A Clinton presidential bid would, therefore, help raise political awareness and perhaps reverse the US trend of caring less and less about politics and politicians. According to Angyal, the more prominent a female candidate is, the more people are expected to care. Seems fair enough, but it is my intuition that – when entertaining Clinton ’16 – Angyal is overlooking something.
In periods where developments in international affairs are as dynamic as now, history screams. The public dreads the prospect of global leaders repeating historical mistakes and the old rule that “as a political debate goes on, chances of referencing Adolf Hitler approach 100%” gets confirmed. With the outcome of the war in Ukraine still uncertain, more people are asking about the nature of Putin’s regime in Russia – what are its essential characteristics? Does it have a foreign policy “master plan” and, if so, how serious is it about pursuing these goals? Can we predict its behavior and what sort of comparative examples ought we to use? The fact that these questions are being raised in Europe is indicative – for these are usually first steps in dealing with an opponent.