AS a feminist and decades-long campaigner for women’s rights, I would love to be supporting the only woman in the US presidential race.

Almost 220 years after George Washington’s inauguration, we’ve had a further 43 presidents. We’ve had six Jameses, four Johns and four Williams installed in the White House. We’ve even had Tom, Dick and Harry. A black man is President. But we’ve never had a woman. Not one.

It blows away the argument that men are there by merit alone. I can think of a couple of presidents in my lifetime who I wouldn’t leave in charge of a stall up the barras, never mind the most powerful state on the planet. I’ve no doubt that Hilary Clinton is at least as capable as any man who’s ever sat behind that great big desk in the Oval Office. She certainly looks a lot more impressive than her husband Bill, who was effortlessly elected twice over.

But if I had a vote in the Democratic primaries, I’m afraid I’d be casting it for the elderly white male, Bernie Sanders. That also happens to be the attitude of a lot of young American feminists. In Iowa, according to polling evidence, women under the age of 30 voted for the veteran self-proclaimed socialist by a margin of six to one.

By contrast, the banking establishment – overwhelmingly male-dominated – desperately want Clinton to be the next president.

“I think people are very excited about Hillary,” one Wall Street insider told Politico. “Most people in New York view her as being very pragmatic.”

Big business loves pragmatism, because it allows firms to keep piling up mega-profits without any irritating interference from elected politicians. And when a politician proclaims themself a pragmatist, that’s usually a signal they have no intention of upsetting the status quo.

Being fair to Hillary, to take on big business in addition to the other obstacles that already stand in the path of women might have been a step too far: I doubt a female radical socialist would even get through the nominations procedures.

She was in full pragmatic flow during her debate this week with Sanders. “We are not England, we are not France” she declared in response to his talk of a free, universal healthcare system in the United States.

Her left rival, who only recently joined the Democratic Party, is calling for a sweeping overhaul of the United States. He wants a national health service. He wants to close the gap between rich and poor. He pledges to take on what he calls the “enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class".

He calls for free higher education, which puts him well to the left of even Jeremy Corbyn’s version of the Labour Party.

But Hillary says that while she would like to see these reforms, she is realistic. They just can’t be done, she says, presumably because the United States of America is too small, too weak, too poor.

The incredible rise of Bernie Sanders is part of a global shift towards a more visionary view of politics. The phenomenal rise in support Scottish independence during the referendum campaign was part of that shift.

So too was the rise of radical leftist parties in Greece and Spain, the wipe-out of Jim Murphy’s Scottish version of Blairism, and the shock victory of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour leadership election.

And that’s great, because without vision humans would still be living in caves and cooking over open fires.

When Hillary says the US is not England or France, she’s right. It’s substantially more wealthy. Its GDP is £10,000 higher per person than either the UK or France.

Inconveniently for Hillary, the UK and France introduced universal free healthcare in the immediate post-war years, when European economies were on their knees as a result of the devastation and colossal loss of life of a six-year-long world war.

Back then, politicians such Nye Bevan and Clement Attlee had vision. So too did Tom Johnston, the Scottish Labour politician, who literally turned on the lights across the Highlands with his ambitious scheme to harness Scotland’s hydro power for the benefit of the people.

John Wheatley, one of the original Red Cydesiders who, as housing minister in the 1920s, began clearing slums in Glasgow by building elegant council housing schemes such as Knightswood, Riddrie and Mosspark, which remain among the finest examples of public housing ever built. Except most of them have since been sold off.

Robert Stewart, Lord Provost of Glasgow in the 1850s, also showed how miracles can happen with the aid of a bit of political vision. He brought clean water through 35 miles of tunnels and pipes into the city from Loch Katrine, dramatically improving health and life expectancy in a city blighted by cholera, typhoid and other infectious diseases.

These were all men, you’ll have noticed. That’s because men have historically held a monopoly over power. But the examples show how power can be used in the interests of the poor and disenfranchised to bring about sweeping change. None of these projects would have ever got off the ground had the realists and pragmatists been in charge.

Politics in the 21st century has to be about more than just tinkering around the edges. It has to be about more than seeking power just to hold on to it. We need politicians with far-sighted vision and bold ideas.

I suspect the US isn’t yet ready for the strong brand of radical social democracy represented by Bernie Sanders. Maybe Hillary Clinton will become the first female president. We could do worse, much worse, as a swift glance at the biographies of the Republican candidates nominees will confirm.

But we could also do so much better, which is why I’m hoping the sensational result last week in New Hampshire is a sign of things to come.