Resource Analysis 4 - Condi vs. Hillary

         In his comparative political biography Condi vs. Hillary, Dick Morris analyzes and illustrates the contest between Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton in the election of 2008. In his book, Morris contends that Condoleezza Rice is the only Republican on the national scene with the credentials and credibility to lead the Republican Party in 2008. He also outlines how the Democratic Party is likely o return to its one source of political power in the last several decades – the Clinton family. The resulting race would be the perfect political competition as it pits two of America’s most popular and controversial women against each other, opening a new era in American politics.

            As he outlines the upbringing and political background of both Rice and Clinton, Morris contrasts the two Secretaries of State and thus the opposing political groups of which they belong. Describing Rice as, “rejecting group identification and insisting on her ability, as an individual, to rise above the limits her race and sex imposed on her,” Morris identifies Rice as the core belief of the Republican Party: “That it is the individual who matters, regardless of circumstance, geography, race, sex, or even poverty” (79). On the other hand, Morris explains that, “Like Hillary, the Democratic Party and its surrogate bodies deal with groups, seeking to enhance their cohesion and feeling of communality” (77). He continues that the Left’s sense of group and issue identification is so great that feminist groups have largely opposed Republican women candidates who do not follow the feminist line on abortion rights, endorsing Democratic, pro-choice men instead. This firmness on the importance of community both highlights the differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as provides a bit of foreshadowing when it comes to the lack of female support that Condoleezza will have due to her somewhat lackluster approach to women’s rights.

            For the most part, however, Morris’ comparative analysis places Rice in a very favorable light as she is described as one who is constantly “defying the odds” with her life story that “tells us why she could be a great president” (70). In fact, when finally attempting to come to a conclusion as to which Secretary of State would most likely succeed as president, Morris states, “[Rice’s] evolving understanding of the need for a morally grounded foreign policy shows how much this woman can grow to meet new demands and situations” (280). However, “Hillary’s inability to accept criticism makes it harder for her to grow” (280). Thus, Morris concludes that the election of 2008 will be the nest great presidential race. With the possibility of two popular women as candidates, the voters will make history no matter which female powerhouse wins in the end.

Resource Analysis 3 - Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice

       In her written analysis Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Lusane examines race and foreign policy in the New American Century as well as the legacies and global perspectives of Powell and Rice, two African-American political powerhouses that greatly contributed to US foreign policy under Bush’s presidency. According to Lusane, there has been a vast transformation in the perception of the global community of the foreign policy politics of black America. While there are a number of variables contributing to this development, “it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a central factor shaping much of the world’s view of black America is the ubiquitous images of former Secretaris of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice” (13). In fact, “large majority sectors of the black community have expressed intense disagreement with central and peripheral elements of President George W.H. Bush’s foreign policies and, for many, this is linked to a feeling of a sense of betrayal by Powell and Rice” (14). Due to their firm focus on remaining loyal to Bush, Lusane argues that both Powell and Rice have ignored the global black community of which they are a part.

            Regarding women’s rights, not much is different as Lusane describes Rice’s drive for gender equality as somewhat inferior than her loyalties to Bush and his push for peace in the Middle East. Under Bush, “the strategy of wooing women away from the Democratic Party includes the projection of its high-profile female appointees to foster an image of gender inclusion” (9). This political use of gender included Rice who repeatedly contends that, like race, gender was not and is not a factor in how she is treated and engaged. In fact, she argues that she not only has been accepted on relatively equal terms with her white male counterparts, but that “the discussion of gender bias degrades her achievements” (9). In retrospect, this denial of gender bias also coincides with Rice’s view on gender equality as she has raised many disputes over affirmative action, a movement that she does not agree with or support much to the astonishment and fury of many women across the nation. She states, “I am the chief academic officer now, and I am telling you that, in principle, I do not believe in, and in fact will not apply, affirmative action at the time of tenure” (77). Despite the potential influence Rice could have had on the push for women’s rights due to her high-ranking political position, Rice rejects “degrading” gender biases, refuses to support affirmative action, and chooses to follow President Bush’s lead in whatever circumstance arises, making it clear where her true loyalties lie.

Resource Analysis 2 - Condoleezza Rice: An American Life

       In her biography Condoleezza Rice: An American Life, Elisabeth Bumiller illustrates and analyzes Rice's life growing up, her introduction into politics, and later her position as a leading lady in US politics as Secretary of State. Beginning with her ancestry and childhood, Bumiller emphasizes the influence Rice's upbringing had on her development into the powerful black patrician that she is today. Descending from both white slaveowners as well as black household servants, Rice grew up seeing herself as a part of the nation's founding culture. At the least, "her ancestry was a crucial part of the self-confidence that fueled her rise" (4).

       Rice's political career sparked in the years 1989-1991 as she served in President George Bush's administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In this position, Rice impressed Bush who later nominated her to be Secretary of State in 2004, the first African-American female to acquire such a title. As Secretary of State, Rice championed the expansion of democratic governments as she reformed and restructured US diplomacy as a whole. "Transformational Diplomacy" is the goal that Rice describes as "working with our many partners around the world... and building and sustaining democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system" (63). Though Rice did implement this diplomacy, there is great debate over what benefits really resulted, especially in the Middle East where the US push for peace was becoming more and more complicated and frustrating. Despite being a strong woman with a vast amount of opportunity to implement her political rank in foreign nations, inside the White House Rice "did not so much as prod the process as get drawn along in its wake" (183). When asked about the purpose of the war in Iraq, Rice refused to comment on the situation, stating that "the president has made up his mind, this is not a productive use of our time" (185). As seen through her firm loyalty to President Bush as well as her inability to take her own positions, Bumiller's biography highlights the critical views of those who see Rice as ignorant in her approach to foreign diplomacy.

Resource Analysis - "Rice's Way: Restraint in Quest for Peace"

            In her news analysis “Rice’s Way: Restraint in Quest for Peace,” Helene Cooper focuses on Condoleezza Rice’s differing approach to the Middle East peace process than that of her predecessors. Cooper argues that as opposed to the former Secretaries of State, Rice’s approach to Middle East diplomacy is far more restrained as it consists of pushing Israel as well as President Bush only so far, while “putting off the big, hard fights until the end.” This strategy has won her considerable respect, as even some of her strongest critics believe she is moving in the right direction in the quest for peace. This article also comments on President Bush’s actions towards the debate over the formation of a Palestinian state as besides offering to aid for the Palestinian refugees, he mostly sided with Israel and does not give much to the Palestinians in return. Foreign policy specialists say that if Rice wants to be successful in the peace process she will have to get President Bush to weigh less on Israel’s side.

            All in all, this article judges Rice as “quite tough” when pushing for foreign policy in her own way. Though it is less forceful than that of her predecessors, all sides agree that “there would have been no decision for the United States to re-engage in peacemaking were it not for Ms. Rice who made eight trips to Israel in the past year.” As compared to the other Secretaries of State before her, David Welch, the assistant Secretary of State for Near East affairs comments that “each one has a different style” as they each have their own way of doing things. By approaching the peacemaking process within the Middle East with an “encouraging” instead of “directive” mindset, Rice has achieved a lot compared to the leaders before her.

Resource Summary: Madam Secretary

In her memoir, Madam Secretary, Madeleine Albright shares her remarkable story as the highest-ranking woman in American history as she reflects upon her insider’s view of world affairs, including the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. As the first female US Secretary of State, though Albright had many fascinating political and cultural experiences, she also confronted immense difficulties when faced with issuing diplomacy in the patriarchal society of the Middle East. In attempting to drive for global gender equality, Albright reflects on being torn between issuing diplomacy based on female rights or an overall peace agreement between the Middle East and the United States. However, though she was unsure of which goal to ultimately pursue, as she recounts the disheartening state of the oppressed women of the Middle East, Albright conveys her vital decision to primarily promote gender equality.

            As the first female to be inducted into the “fraternity” of US Secretaries of State, Albright was confronted with the choice between pushing for gender equality or general global prosperity straight from the beginning (340). In having to deal with “the problem of operating in a predominantly man’s world,” Albright was weighed down by not only the demanding duties of being Secretary of State, but also the societal demands of that era as she was part of a generation of women who were “uncertain” about whether they could be good wives and mothers and also achieve success in the workplace (12). Because of this wavering idea about the identity of women, Albright was even more determined to prove society wrong by stepping up and leading by example as she boldly and firmly faced the patriarchal society of the Middle East head-on. Visiting various countries within the Middle East and witnessing the restricting societal expectations placed upon the women by the Taliban, Albright recognized these experiences as a chance to implement her gender equality diplomacy. Thus, through witnessing the harsh regulations of the Taliban firsthand, Albright’s determination and interest to bring an end to the tense relations between the Mideast and the United States as well as the lack of rights granted to the women who were forced to live under the dominance of the patriarchal society was ignited.