One of the first games we play with each Democrat who jumps into the crowded pool of 2020 presidential candidates is “Gotcha!” with their past. The current environment has finally swung toward the Progressive wing of not just the Democratic Party but of the American Electorate, too. Joe Biden, for instance, is being hoist on the petard of his support for legislation earlier in his career that now looks toxic. The “Gotcha!” supposes that when we throw that question down, the candidate is going to congratulate the journalist for catching the contradiction they hoped no one would find. And then… what? Withdraw? Almost always, the first impulse — when being asked that silly question — is to dodge, to change the subject. Good thing it doesn’t look guilty or anything… Both question and response are tied to a very old — very worn out — notion of what “Leadership” is. They suppose that a leader — being a man — assumes the mantle of “Leader” with great gravity. He looks at the world and “gets it”. He looks inside — at the path that brought HIM to this place of “Leadership” and “Greatness” — and (because HE alone can “fix it”), he utters “A Great Pronouncement”. And that profound belch will be a hill he dies on some day — because the last thing any Male Leader can do is change his mind. FFS — women do that, right? Women “change their minds” and “adapt” because, well, they’ve always had to — because some man was telling them to or forcing them to or simply “fixing it alone” while the woman looked on helplessly. Because men have always been the leaders (a trend changing way, way, WAY too slowly), we associate male qualities with leadership — not because leadership is inherently male, but because we’re creatures of habit. We’re intellectually lazy and easily persuaded of nonsense and (as this sight is so fond of saying) bullshit. Men — being sperm donors — can easily come and go. They can impregnate and move on without any emotional connection to their “output”. This is hard-wired into male biology. Because men have always been the leaders, we’ve come to associate this quality with leadership. If women had (as they probably SHOULD HAVE) been our leaders, THEIR biological imperatives would have been more prominent. Women bear children. It is the foundational fact of their biology. It impacts how they see the world. They know for a fact that you cannot bear a child or rear a child all by yourself. You can but — it won’t be good for you or the child. Women know that their survival, their child’s survival, depends on other people. As Hillary Clinton pointed out, yes — it takes a village. Consequently — if you sit among a group of women making a decision, I think they’ll bear me out — the process is communal. It tries far harder than any man fixing it alone to hear and accommodate every voice in the room — because they’re all part of the village it takes to raise their child. If we redefined “leadership” in female terms (as opposed to “feminine”) — looking at how women lead, most of the qualities would be similar to how men lead. There still needs to be strength, charisma if possible. But all those qualities would be tempered — because they have to be. Because women have learned from millennia of having to work their magic on the sly, that you need to listen first — then act. If Joe Biden has two brain cells, he’ll take a “female approach” next time he gets asked about the less appealing parts of his legislative record. He’ll respond: “That was the ‘old Joe Biden’. This Joe Biden has evolved and is evolving. He wants your help to be the best Joe Biden he can be — while serving your needs.” Men need to learn how to evolve. Like women have. Imagine the leaders they could be someday