You can still celebrate Clinton and Thatcher, even if you don't like them

It doesn't matter whether you like Hillary Clinton, or what she stands for, according to Jen Gerson, you should celebrate Clinton's historic achievement. 

And while you're at it, make sure to give a nod to strong female world leaders who've come before her.

Most notably, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Gerson, a columnist for National Post, says women who gain political power deserve credit for breaking barriers, even if their policies and ideas don't fit into stereotypical progressive notions of what a female leader should stand for. 

Clinton, in Gerson's view, faces the same criticisms that were made of Thatcher. 

I think there's been almost an attempt to eject her from the feminist pantheon. Some will even go so far as to say that because she was individually exceptional, individually unique, she was individually ruthless, and ambitious, she failed to lift up other women. She failed to espouse a sort of progressive notion of collective feminine identity. She didn't act like a women should in office and so therefore, her legacy doesn't count,. And I think this is a huge mistake.- Jen Gerson

The full interview is available in the audio player above. The following portions have been edited for clarity and length.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, she will join a long list of women who have already led countries, including right here Kim Campbell, and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K.. Why is this moment so important?

I think as a woman, it's important to see other women, hold and maintain power. I think that it is important to be able to acknowledge when people look like you, or are like you, manage to achieve the upper echelons of a particular pyramid, whether that's in corporate world, whether or not we're talking about a CEO, whether or not we're talking about a president... But to see a woman actually be able to achieve the presidency or something pretty close to the presidency opens a door for a lot of other politically motivated women. It says, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you're on, if you're a conservative or a progressive, it doesn't matter, this path is open to you.

You've drawn a link to Margaret Thatcher. Where does her legacy fit into all this?

Margaret Thatcher I think is arguably one of the most potent, long lived female leaders in any western democracy. This is a woman who absolutely represented female power at its peak in an extraordinarily important country... It is wrong to say, that just because a woman gets into power and you disagree with that woman, therefore you can't celebrate that achievement while criticising her particular policies or her actions in office. A lot of progressive women have done that and I think that conservative women and progressive women risk doing the same to Hillary Clinton.

Could it also be argued that it's patronizing to celebrate figures like Thatcher and Clinton, just because they're women?

No no at all. I don't think that that's wrong at all. I think it would be patronizing to suggest we vote for women solely because they're women. I think it would be patronizing to suggest that the only reason why they're there is because they're women. I don't think it's patronizing at all to celebrate the achievement of a traditionally marginalized group actually managing to break through a barrier.

There is sometimes an expectation that a woman would be a certain kind of leader. One who is maybe more collaborative, maybe more focused on social issues than a man would be. How do those kinds of expectations affect how we look at the accomplishments of female leaders?

It was once thought that if you gave women the right to vote, they wouldn't operate in their own self interest. They would instead operate in the collective self interest. They would operate for the good of the society. They would be more interested in social issues. They would be more inclined to vote for progressive candidates and I think that's just another form of sexism.

The idea that women are inherently different from men and don't operate in their own self interest or what they perceive to be in their own self interest...politics is a highly competitive, viciously individualistic endeavour.

You can't get ahead in something like American politics unless you have quite a large ego and an absolute willingness to go in there and be, forgive the language, balls out. And any woman who is going to get ahead in American politics is going to have those very tough, almost masculine qualities. And I don't think that that is something that should disqualify them from being considered women or being celebrated as women as well.

Click the play button above to hear Jen Gerson's interview with guest host Stephen Quinn.