Former Mentor: Hillary Clinton Failed to Master 'Feminine Approach'

Scholar and philosopher Jean Houston reflects on where the first viable woman presidential candidate may have gone wrong.
By Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 12, 2008
ASHLAND, ORE. -- Recently, as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigned in Eugene, her onetime friend and mentor Jean Houston was at home.

"I could have probably gone down to see her, and she would have hugged me and it would have been nice," said Houston, as she sat on a sofa surrounded by art from Bali and Greece in her circular living room. "I could have been very useful to her. But there would have been cameras, and they would have said, 'Oh, now, Hillary's so desperate, she's gone to a spiritualist.' "


Houston was not Clinton's spiritualist, but when Clinton was at her lowest -- after the 1994 defeat of her healthcare initiative, the Republican takeover of Congress, seemingly interminable investigations and intense vilification -- Houston, a pioneer of the human potential movement, was something of a secret emotional life raft for the first lady.

The friendship ended after Bob Woodward revealed in a 1996 book that Houston had helped guide a devastated Hillary Clinton in imaginary conversations with her hero Eleanor Roosevelt.

Houston rarely speaks about her relationship with Clinton. As Clinton's nomination seemed on the verge of hitting the skids, Houston reflected on Clinton's style of politics and where the country's first viable female presidential candidate may have gone wrong.

Houston is a scholar and philosopher who travels the world giving seminars on human potential and what she calls "social artistry," applying myth, history and spirituality to help effect social, political or personal change.

During President Bill Clinton's first term, Houston and cultural anthropologist Mary Catherine Bateson, a friend of Houston, helped Hillary Clinton arrive at a new understanding of the symbolic power of her office and tutored her in what would become her most successful ventures as first lady -- a trip to South Asia, her first book, and a speech in Beijing about human rights that many would consider her finest moment.

Houston is a prolific author whose associates have included Margaret Mead (Bateson's mother) and mythology professor Joseph Campbell. She got to know Eleanor Roosevelt as a high school student in New York.

Houston sees the presidential race through a mythic lens.

"The current election is a look at archetypal structures," said Houston, a handsome 71-year-old with a broad smile. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has "a shamanic personality, of course," she said. Clinton is "the classical wise woman, if you will." The presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, she added, is "the warrior."

The 'rising feminine'

Houston believes Obama is on the verge of winning the nomination partly because he has promoted himself as the embodiment of a new kind of politics, and partly because Clinton has had trouble portraying her authentic self.

"She is funny, hilarious, generous, warm, given to acts of kindness that are extraordinary," Houston said. "She is a deep woman, not just a very bright woman. But she is part of a dying breed, an archaic sensibility."

The biggest change in human history over the last 5,000 years, Houston said, "is the rise of the feminine . . . slowly, but surely, to full partnership with men over the whole domain of human affairs. This is shifting everything." This was what Houston and Bateson tried to convey to Clinton in 1995 when they helped her understand why, quite apart from political strife, she was the object of so much loathing.

"It's the fear of the 'rising feminine,' " Houston said.

Ironically, Clinton's problem today, Houston said, may be that Obama has given better voice to that new pattern of possibility -- that he embodies a more inclusive approach to problem-solving, while Clinton has become mired in proving herself capable of emulating the male model, which requires combat and the demonization of enemies.

Houston got to know the Clintons at the end of 1994, when they invited a small group of bestselling self-help authors -- Marianne Williamson, Anthony Robbins and Stephen R. Covey -- to Camp David over New Year's Eve. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton were reeling from their defeats and searching for a way to get back on track.

It was a time, as Woodward noted in "The Choice," when Hillary Clinton seemed "jerked around by the muddled role of first lady, as she swung between New Age feminist and national housewife."

In her 2003 memoir, "Living History," Clinton seemed to agree: "As much as I loved my husband and my country, adjusting to being a full-time surrogate was difficult for me. Mary Catherine and Jean helped me better understand that the role of first lady is deeply symbolic and that I had better figure out how to make the best of it."

Woodward wrote that Houston tried to steer Clinton away from her "warrior mode" and "the need to have enemies who could symbolically be singled out to embody the opposition." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-newage12-2008may12,0,1061357.story

It pretty clearly expresses what has been difficult for me regarding Hillary - her millitancy & need to create enemies to "fight against".

I enjoyed reading Jean Houston's comments - she's been a "person of interest" to me for a long time.



PS. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Good to hear (from an Obama supporter) that Hillary is deep and brilliant. Thanks for sharing this article and welcome to DU. :hi:

and smart too

How to gain the highest office in a country mired in a grotesque war of occupation. I think she could easily have been elected president of Norway.

A significant part of Hillary's appeal in this race is that she's a woman. This is clear in this campaign. She has proven that America DOES want to see women leaders at the top. But what is it about "the feminine" that people want? What qualities? Is it merely the symbolism of a woman being elected, or does it go deeper than that? Do people really want a society that allows for a female approach, or its it enough to get ahead by acting just like a man still? I would like to think that is changing, but not sure. Is her lifelong strategy failing for Hillary, or is it just failing in general?

Some like Hillary because she's tough as a man, capable of kicking asses in Washington. But others like her because they think she may be more likely to use team approaches rather than typical male autocratic tendencies. So what is her true appeal to her supporters, male or female? How about this "rise of the feminine" that Houston talks about? Is Obama embodying those principles of teamwork more effectively than Hillary at this point, as Houston theorizes? Exactly what is "the female approach" or the part of it that Hillary has "failed to master?"

Thanks for the post. Raises some good questions.

Thanks! :kick:

Which is a pretty good read, btw.

She's done more to harm the woman's movement than any misogynistic man could have ever hoped to accomplish.

Clinton the person is probably someone I would truly enjoy. Clinton the politician is an absolute POS.

and won. In this campaign she is not listening, listening to the wrong people, or just sticking her fingers in her ears and saying lalalalalalala...especially now that she is out of the running. I feel badly for her. I truly do.

"the woman to get closest to the Oval Office has promised to "obliterate" the toddlers of Tehran -- along, of course, with the bomb-builders and Hezbollah supporters. Earlier on, Clinton foreswore even talking to presumptive bad guys, although women are supposed to be the talk addicts of the species"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-gift-to-women_b_101310.html

If she was genuine maybe I could admire her but from what I have seen she is not

Thanks for posting it! :hi: