I love campaign season, y’all.
As a political junkie and an overall fan of public shit talking, campaign season is a fun and dramatic time for everyone in America to really voice their opinions on the most important issues our nation is facing — the fashion choices of Hillary Clinton, the increasing age of Hillary Clinton and the apparent lack of time that Hillary Clinton will be able to spend with her grandchildren. Forget the rise of the domestic police state and the always evolving crisis that is international relations; let’s talk about tan suits.
Political entertainment has been around for a while, and I absolutely, unironically love the intersection of the two — I’m a political science major and the Arts & Culture Editor, of course I do.
That’s one of the reasons that I love “House of Cards” so much.
The main character Frank Underwood is a Machiavellian leader who is ruthless in order to get his way, cunning and manipulative and always on top of his game. A born and bred southerner, he knows how to play up his blue-collar past with the voters while maintaining his status as one of the most elite politicians in the country. He’s also loyal to his true partner — his wife, Claire Underwood, who largely stays in the background, but is certainly notable in her own way.
I only just started watching “House of Cards” a few months ago, about the same time that presidential campaigns were getting into the swing of things. As such, current campaigns were on my mind while watching Frank’s ascent to the White House, tying up his loose ends with neat bows and vehemently denying any shadiness that wasn’t hidden by rose-tinted glasses.
Let me be clear before going any further: I do not hate Hillary Clinton, and I do not love Hillary Clinton. I don’t know if I’ll vote for her or not and, for full disclosure, I am generally a left-leaning moderate.
But while watching “House of Cards,” one thought was very clear to me: Hillary Clinton is basically Frank Underwood.
This opinion isn’t unique to me: The Daily Beast explored this in nuances earlier in the year, but I think it’s worth exploring the parallels between the show’s protagonist?/antagonist? and the protagonist?/antagonist? of the current political world.
Aside from a few key moments (namely when Frank murders people, which we’ll chalk up to the television dramatics that literally create this show), Clinton has exhibited most of these personality traits. We all know that Hillary is the #HBIC in the Clinton family; Bill is now the head of a notable charity and has been involved in United Nations missions, much like Claire is in the Underwood family (she’s also #HBIC in the Underwood family, too, though, let’s be real).
Clinton, a Chicagoan turned Arkansan turned New Yorker, knows how to put on a down-home persona, despite her elite East Coast image.
But the most notable quality that connected her to Frank Underwood is the way that she handles scandals. In private, Underwood knows that he has a situation to handle, and he does so with great determination, skill and ferocity. In public, however, he is calm and collected in his person-of-the-people vibes, especially when campaigning. The scandal means nothing because the scandal IS nothing, so says Frank.
This seems to me to be Hillary’s demeanor as well. What comes to mind is her answer to Benghazi, dismissing the incident at the congressional hearing with, “What difference does it make?” It certainly didn't help that the scandal's importance was refueled by yet another scandal with the lack of transparency in her emails. Instead of being completely transparent, she denies and gradually admits the truth or a version of the truth when prodded by journalists or the law. Politically, this is a double-edged sword. It fixes the problem in the short term by portraying confidence, but it also creates a long term problem in that the voter no longer trusts the candidate.
It’s that mastery of the cycle — scandalizing, dismissing, gaining back trust — that tends to be Frank Underwood’s biggest strength in “House of Cards.” While “House of Cards” is by no means a true to life representation of the American political system, the mastery of that cycle tends to be a key marker in evidence of a successful politician.
Both are more moderate party members because their true intention is to gain power while maintaining connections. I respect both for their ability to get it done and demolish the red tape that comes with politics. The difference between Frank and Hilary is that Frank is a fictional character; Hillary is not.
She is human and she is not solely a political machine. As the Daily Beast article mentioned, we kind of love that Hillary has that Frank Underwood “charm.” But she’s not Underwood — she’s used that steely exterior and the ability to deal with problems as a necessary shield from the harsh political world, especially as a woman and especially as a woman who’s been publically scorned.
On this Fourth of July, we should take a step back and evaluate why we like our chosen political candidates while they’re still campaigning and before the campaigns start to get nasty. As someone who’s thrilled by the entertainment of politics, it’s clearly evident that the campaigns themselves are a show, as are the personas that the politician provide.
Celebrate the independence of this country by exercising your right to that independence in both your thought and your actions by searching deeper for what candidates actually stand for.
“The road to power is paved with hypocrisy and casualties,” Frank Underwood says at one point. “Never regret.”
To get the day's news and headlines in your inbox each morning, sign up for our email newsletters.
