Breaking the Glass Ceiling as a temporary trend
Too often, people tend to over-emphasize a single characteristic of candidates while successfully repressing all other, much more important factors that should affect their vote.
This was the case in the recent US elections, where too many gave their vote for Obama, only because they wanted a new skin color at the White House, not giving any thought for who the person is, what he has done so far or whether they identify with his agenda. Although I was very happy with the results of the elections, and without underestimating the truly historical moment for this conservative nation, I’m not sure what would have happened if it was Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain.
They say that in one of his visits to Israel, Obama tried to encourage Amir Peretz saying, that Israel would have a Sepharadic-origin [H] Prime Minister before America would have a black President. Apparently, he was wrong. But in fact, besides the symbolic achievement, after the campaign is over, it means nothing.
It’s already a tradition that prominent political leaders in Israel are virtually former military generals. It’s probably a natural phenomenon in a militaristic society like Israel’s. However, it was Peretz who was hailed for being a civilian for heading the Ha’avoda party, and consequently at the time, the Ministry of Defense. He proved that to be wrong, but not necessarily due to any lack of high-ranking military background.
Unlike the recent American case, there are those who claim that Golda Meir has been elected for Prime Minister not because of being a woman, but instead – because of being ostensibly masculine. 40 years later, another woman, Tzipi Livni, is now running for the same position, fortunately, with a lot more attention to her personal record and her party’s agenda, rather than her gender. Moreover, it is these cases that might imply that we’re nearing equality ever more.
But from time to time it does become an issue, and in this way of superficial judgement, the single-quality candidates might indeed prove to be jokers. However, choosing to highlight one relatively insignificant aspect could mean one of two (or both together): it’s either the candidate decrying his/her voters, or he/she has virtually nothing to offer besides that gimmick. Therefore, whenever a single instrumental characteristic of a candidate takes over the whole campaign, I chose to be rather skeptic.
