Alpha female. A sound we can trust

     "Her voice did not, after all, sound like Walter Cronkite’s. Hers was the precise, measured tone of a polite 61-year-old woman."

     Washington Post, on Fiona Hill and her testimony

Fiona Hill

Fiona Hill has the tone and manner of authority. It contrasts with Elizabeth Warren, which may be a problem for Warren.

An ongoing theme of this blog is that the marginal voters--the ones who actually decide elections--attach to personality and character, not to policies. 

On election day voters are choosing a leader they generally trust to protect their interests, doing so by getting a "feel" for the candidate.

(Not everyone, of course. There are strong partisans who vote party, and there are activists, especially in the primary, who, vote based on policy and infer from issue positions who the candidate "really" is.)

Americans got a sampler of some archetype characters among the impeachment witnesses. Most relevant to the presidential campaign of 2020 is that we saw a kind of feminine power in the form of witness Fiona Hill, an archetype alpha female.

Fiona Hill was decisive and unflappable. She had command of the facts and command of the moral high ground. She told the Republican committee members that they were tools of Russian policy and told them to stop it. She didn't shout it or pound her fist. She just said it.

Particularly interesting is the way she dealt with the issue of feminine emotions. The Republican attorney was doing the questioning. He had the prior testimony of Gordon Sondland, who had described her as a bundle of emotions, with Sondland calling himself the big strong shoulder for the little woman to lean on.

The Republican council thought he had her in a trap. Weren't you upset with Gordon Sondland, perhaps in near tears, perhaps mired in feminine emotion, and therefore perhaps a prejudiced, untrustworthy witness?  

It was ugly gender politics as played by Republicans in this Trump era. 

CLICK: 3 minutes. Alpha female. One very sorry attorney.

She leaned in. She didn't deny emotions. She coldly observed that she was indeed, unhappy and for the simple reason that she realized that he had a different assignment from hers. She had not understood that he was assigned a secret and improper political mission by the President, one of undermining American security interests with an ultimatum to assist in a corrupt act, while she had a very different one, that of carrying out American security interests. She owed him an apology, she said. She had not known he was carrying out the President's corrupt intention.

Pow. Watch the video.

The problem for Elizabeth Warren. Fiona Hill presents a different kind of female strength than does Elizabeth Warren, and the difference reveals a dilemma for a candidate attempting to show charisma, crowd appeal, and sincerity. Warren gets her crowds (while Klobuchar, Booker, Bennet,and others do not) through high energy and emotionally engaged presentations. She is excited. She wants to do things, change things and says it with arms waving. 

CLICK: 36 seconds. High intensity.

A great many people, men in particular, tell me they find Warren off-putting. (I do not.) 

There is something about female emotions that people find frightening. Every husband knows a woman's tears can dissolve steel. A sulking wife or a short answer from a girlfriend signals trouble. What is "strong" for a man is read as "excitable" for a woman. What is "resolute" for a man is "shrill" for a woman.

It isn't fair or just. 

I consider it an unfortunate reality in the world of women in the workplace and in the arena of seeking and exercising power. As Amy Klobuchar put it in the most recent Democratic debate, it is harder for women. They have to do more and be better. Who is your favorite woman president, she asked?

The Republican counsel attempted to trap Fiona Hill with the histrionic-female label. Her response was the perfect one. It was to coldly acknowledge she was unhappy, of course. Cold worked.

Warren is not "cold" in her emotional intensity. She is "hot." It makes her interesting--charismatic even--but it may, simultaneously, make her come across as less commanding, less emotionally stable. It is a dilemma. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

We have an emotionally volatile person in the White House already, and it wears poorly. Warren has the disadvantage of gender prejudice. It may wear even more poorly.

Warren is a smart woman, and she is already adjusting her policies in light of evolving information on Medicare For All. She may adjust and negotiate this dilemma, too. It is a problem a man would not have.