Let's Talk About Sexism

Elizabeth Warren, as always, had a plan. During a tense Democratic primary debate, the Massachusetts Senator drew attention to the electoral successes achieved by herself and fellow Senator Amy Klobuchar, the two women sharing the stage with former Vice-President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. Said Warren, "The only people on this stage who have won every single election they have been in are the women", whilst highlighting the ten electoral losses shared amongst her male colleagues. Warren's response was especially pointed, given that the build-up to that debate had been overshadowed by rising tensions between her own campaign and that of Sanders, the two most liberal candidates in the primary. Warren accused her colleague of telling her, in October 2018, that he did not believe a woman could be elected President. Sanders' campaign responded by refuting Warren's accusation, and the unofficial non-aggression pact observed up until now between the two progressives appeared to be broken.

In the debate, Sanders publicly stated "I didn't say it, and I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody who knows me knows its incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be President of the United States." The terse body language of the two in the moments after the debate ended were arguably more telling than any moment over the previous two hours, as Warren appeared to refuse to shake Sanders' hand, before an open microphone picked up a sharp exchange, with Warren saying "I think you called me a liar on national television", before Sanders tried to diffuse any confrontation by pleading "Let's not do this now". Yet it does appear, much to the reluctance of Senator Sanders, that now is the time for Democrats to have a frank and open discussion about gender discrimination in US Presidential politics.

As everyone knows, America has never elected a woman as President. A major factor in this is the near-mythological notion of "electability", which supposes that prospective presidential candidates must be subjected to intense scrutiny, in order to prove their fitness for office. This would be entirely understandable, if the question of whether a candidate could realistically be elected President were not applied by political pundits and the media to anyone who is not a white, heterosexual male. The notion of "electability", therefore, leaves any who do not fit this idealised vision facing an uneven playing field from the moment they announce their candidacy. This imbalance manifests in different standards being applied to male and female candidates, even when they share the same policies. On the subject of universal healthcare, arguably the signature policy idea in the Democratic primary, Warren's refusal to confirm whether her plan would necessitate increased taxes on America's middle-class drew criticism from pundits and the media, whilst Sanders was praised for his admission that, under his plan, taxes would indeed increase. One needn't imagine the reaction had Warren and Sanders switched positions. 

Furthermore, this bias is not only applied to policy, but also other, more obscure areas. Throughout the 2016 primary, the subject of Hilary Clinton's health received almost wall-to-wall coverage, from Republicans touting a coughing fit suffered by Clinton as a sign of a fatal illness, before a diagnosis of pneumonia led to alarmist headlines by outlets such as Fox News ("Is She Contagious?"), and even the BBC, who reported that Clinton kept her diagnosis a secret from most of her staff. This criticism would be justifiable, if it were applied to all candidates equally- take the reaction to a heart-attack suffered by Bernie Sanders late last year, in which the Vermont Senator's polling numbers received their sharpest boost in the entire primary so far, catapulting the democratic socialist into the lead in various polls in the build-up to the Iowa caucuses tomorrow. Sanders also happens to be the oldest Democratic candidate, at 78 years old, yet seems to have eluded the sort of questioning deemed appropriate for the likes of Clinton and Warren, at 68 and 70 respectively, regarding his physical and mental capacity to manage the oval office workload. In another debate, Warren, responding pre-emptively to questions about her age from moderator Tim Alberta, pointed out that although she would be the oldest President, she “would also be the youngest woman”.

Despite this clear disadvantage, throughout the primary Warren has been both impressive and creative in arguing that her gender is precisely what makes her more "electable"than her male counterparts. However, it is unclear whether this strategy will gain traction among voters, particularly in such a critical election for the Democrats. Arguably the most "electable" woman in politics, Hilary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump four years ago has seemed to push voters into a sense that Democrats, at this moment, cannot risk four more years of Trump. To that end, according to this narrative, Americans will inevitably reject the candidacy of a woman like Warren, in favour of a safer, moderate male choice in the Biden mould, who is seen as being able to appeal to all voting demographics, however much actual polling data indicates otherwise. Thus, Trump's victory over Clinton, the first woman to ever win the presidential candidacy of a major party, forces Democrats to lower the bar when it comes to electability, according to Jemele Hill, who wrote in The Atlantic earlier this year: "The Democratic nominee for President won't be somebody with progressive ideas, or the person most capable of healing a fractured country. The nominee just has to beat Trump, even if the cost of that victory is reinforcing the idea that only an older white man is capable of getting this country back on track."

Not only does the "electability argument" therefore result in added scrutiny of female or minority candidates, but any attempt to make an argument which draws upon one's gender or ethnicity can backfire. Take the example of California Senator Kamala Harris, who criticised Biden's voting records on busing, and friendships with Segregationist senators. In the first televised debate of the primary last June, Harris said "It was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two Senators who have built their careers on the segregation of race in this country...you also worked with them to oppose busing", before adding "There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate public schools, and she was bused to school every day. That little girl was me." Though such an emotive, personal performance initially gave Harris a boost in the polls, her momentum soon faded, before the California senator ended her primary campaign in December. A major factor in Harris' decline was the immediate backlash to her attack on Biden, as her team unveiled t-shirts for sale bearing the words "That little girl was me." Many political commentators and pundits used this to accuse Harris of being disingenuous, or using her ethnicity to sell merchandise, ignoring the fact that every candidate comes to every debate armed with various attack lines and sound-bites. Furthermore, as a black woman gunning for the primary’s white, male frontrunner, Harris was labelled "The Angry Black Presidential Candidate" by The Washington Times. Perhaps the lesson to be taken from Harris' campaign is that whilst "The worst offence for a female candidate is to be called a liar", writes Joan Walsh, in The Nation, whilst "the second is to be in danger of bringing down a popular male candidate". This unedifying phenomenon now appears to be repeating itself in the case of Warren, as her polling numbers took a hit in the aftermath of her accusations against Sanders.

In this context, therefore, what are we to make of the substance of those accusations? Clearly, the playing field of a presidential primary is inherently skewed towards the men for all the reasons discussed.  As an experienced player of this semi-rigged game, Warren is better placed than any man to understand and articulate the myriad ways in which the American political system acts to restrict the progress of women. This means that when a man looks to be advising a woman against running for elected office, that “advice” will automatically be interpreted as reinforcing this unfair status quo. That is not to say that Sanders, one of the most popular members of the Democratic party and the heart of its progressive movement, is consciously sexist. This is a man (note) who has dedicated much of his political life to fighting unjust, structural discrimination in American politics. But what cannot be denied, however much the Vermont Senator may try, is that he is still a beneficiary of an unfair system that rewards white men for being both white and male, and continues to impose constraints on any candidates who do not fit this template. With the Iowa Caucuses set to deliver the first result of the primary process tomorrow night, it remains to be seen whether the Democrats, the party of the first African-American president and of the first female presidential nominee, are still willing to make bold electoral decisions as the spectre of Trump looms over a primary that is set to become only more divisive.

Written by Ben Seymour