The Press, The Clinton Foundation, & The Female Mind

For The Love of Good--a follow up to our previous two posts

Was Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, engaged in 'pay to play' as her detractors allege?  Or, can donations received by the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at Foggy Bottom be seen in a different light?

Let's first remind ourselves of the male and female archetypes we've discussed in the past two posts: men, generally, focus on comparative worth, a process that selects for the best; women, generally, tend to organize positive networks that are inclusive.

And what is The Clinton Foundation but an inclusive, positive network?  Over the past two decades it claims to have "improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries".  Randomly accessing the efforts it helps fund, we find crucial projects like educating girls, providing micro-credit, fighting climate change, etc.  Each year the foundation's quarter billion dollar budget leverages billions in public sector spending, relieving those--who probably don't need it--of their money; a modern-day Robin Hood whose victims give willingly.

Contrary to the charge that donations to the Clinton Foundation are another form of political lobbying --where legislative favors are traded for campaign cash, charities do unequivocal good.  The only gain on the part of the Clinton family has been the arguable prestige accrued.  In fact, the Clintons receive no salary; plus, they donated $1 million to the foundation in 2015.  And if no favors were granted--aside from handling queries in a professional manner, what's the harm?

The standard answer is an allusion to public policy perversion: a rich donor can at least make his case, whereas those without a donation can't.  But if it's important charity work rather than personal or political gain, should the media have made such a big fuss?  Unless donors influence decisions, isn't the foundation's mission more important than keeping up appearances?  And one can be sure that if the Clintons completely removed themselves from the foundation its budget would shrivel precipitously.

Here, then, is the alternative, female way of looking at this issue:
   * The Clintons were reaching out to anyone who wanted to join their team.
   * There was friendship, communion, selflessness.
   * Those donors who acted out of line were blown off or ignored.
   * The world is about to get very troubling, so minimizing catastrophes as the entire planet is brought into the fold is more important than dealing with pearl-clutchers.
   * If the world is a family that must be protected, with no time to lose, the Clintons did the feminine, motherly thing, and those who denounce them are simply prejudiced against the female mindset.

And if the media's stumble in this case is indeed prejudice, we can see the first female presidency in yet another light.  Perhaps over the past 25 years the Clintons have been subject to bad press simply because they've represented a more feminine political style--this, by the way, likely due to Hillary, a feminist, being a driving force in the Clinton relationship.  History may well be amazed that it took so long for the media to fully realize this.  For example, Matthew Yglesias writes in Vox today about the way the media ignored former Secretary of State Colin Powell's arguably more questionable use of a charitable foundation.  But of course he was an avuncular, respected... man.

And if that doesn't convince you that charity work--if professionally and transparently run--should be encouraged, no questions asked, well, let's remember that the only alternative to voluntary donations is ...paying taxes.