Dr. Asis Mistry
In
a stunning political comeback, Donald Trump has once again captured the U.S.
presidency, defeating Kamala Harris. For Trump, a polarizing figure whose popularity
has fluctuated sharply, this victory signifies a remarkable reversal of
fortune. It is also a moment that raises profound questions about the dynamics
of gender and race in America. The results suggest a hard truth: despite
progress, sexism remains a deeply ingrained bias in American society, often
more potent than racism. Harris, who would have been the first woman
president—and the first woman of colour in the role—was ultimately unable to
bridge this divide.
Trump’s
decisive win was unexpected. Polls suggested that Harris was within striking
distance, buoyed by her platform and powerful symbolic appeal. Yet in the end,
she failed to galvanize key groups to the degree necessary for a victory. Exit
polls revealed a significant gap in support from women and a dip in support
from Black and Latino voters, especially when compared to Biden’s numbers four
years prior. Just 54% of female voters backed Harris, whereas Biden had
received support from 57% of women. Many anticipated a gender solidarity vote
for Harris. Instead, her numbers reflected a society that remains uncomfortable
with women—especially women of colour—in the ultimate leadership role.
But
this election was not only a referendum on gender; it also brought to light the
enduring complexities of race in America. Harris’s identity as a Black and
South Asian woman added layers of meaning to her candidacy. Yet her identity
seemed to face resistance within both majority and minority communities,
highlighting a paradox where candidates are scrutinized for both their gender and
their racial background, sometimes to their detriment. A woman of colour
running for president presented a challenge to deeply embedded norms, an
unsettling prospect for segments of the electorate who preferred a candidate
like Trump, who embodies a more traditional model of masculinity and authority.
Trump’s
victory also underscores a broader trend: when it comes to political
candidates, American society may be more willing to embrace certain kinds of “difference”
over others. If we compare the reception of Harris to that of former President
Barack Obama, it is evident that while racial barriers remain in politics, they
may be easier to overcome than gender-based ones. Obama faced significant
racial obstacles, yet he could appeal to a broad swath of the electorate.
Harris, however, contended not only with racial dynamics but also with gender
expectations—expectations that often remain more rigid, punishing, and less
easily reconciled with images of executive leadership.
Another
revealing point is how voters evaluated Harris’s policies, particularly her
stance on abortion rights. Despite her vocal commitment to women’s rights,
Harris struggled to consolidate female support. This may reflect a more
complex, often contradictory relationship between gender and policy in the
United States, where even women voters sometimes show hesitancy in rallying
behind a female candidate championing progressive issues traditionally
associated with women’s rights. Harris’s underperformance with female voters,
despite her advocacy, suggests that American society has yet to fully embrace
feminist principles when embodied by a female leader.
But
the issue extends beyond policy positions. As Clinton’s campaign also revealed,
women in power are often subjected to personal critiques and double standards
in ways that male politicians are not. Harris, like Clinton, faced a level of
scrutiny that went beyond her qualifications or her stance on issues. Both
women had to contend with perceptions of “likability,” a subjective standard
that has rarely, if ever, hindered male candidates like Trump. Trump, by
contrast, has consistently positioned himself as a strong, unapologetic leader,
and his brashness has enhanced his appeal among voters who see him as embodying
a “tough” and “authentic” persona. In this election, Trump’s image was further
amplified by his promises to be a defender against political enemies and his
controversial statements about immigration and the economy. For many voters,
these qualities seemed to outweigh any ethical or legal controversies
surrounding him.
The
parallels between Harris’s campaign and Clinton’s experience also reveal how
deeply ingrained expectations of leadership continue to favour male authority.
Trump’s return to the White House exemplifies a preference for conventional
masculinity and an underlying scepticism toward female authority, especially
when it is embodied by ambitious women like Harris or Clinton. Clinton’s loss
in 2016 was a shock to those who saw her as one of the most qualified
presidential candidates in recent history, but her defeat nonetheless
demonstrated that these qualifications could be eclipsed by the invisible yet
powerful force of gender bias. Similarly, Harris’s accomplishments and groundbreaking
presence on the ticket were overshadowed by an electorate that seemed unwilling
to entrust the presidency to a woman.
There
is, of course, a distinct irony in Trump’s triumph. His presidency has often
been marred by divisive rhetoric, personal scandal, and criminal convictions.
Yet his image as a “tough” leader who stands firm against political opponents
resonates with a subset of voters who find comfort in traditional symbols of
authority, even if those symbols come with moral or ethical ambiguities. Trump’s
controversies seem to have amplified his appeal among those who view his
defiance as a virtue, rather than a vice, in American leadership.
As
we digest the outcome of this election, it’s essential to understand the deeper
implications. Harris’s candidacy illuminated a profound discomfort with the
idea of female leadership at the highest level—a discomfort that even some
female voters share. For a woman, and particularly a woman of colour, running
for the presidency remains an uphill battle, one where her qualifications and
platform are overshadowed by societal biases that are hard to quantify but
difficult to deny.
This
election has, therefore, confirmed that while America has made strides toward
racial equality, gender equality in leadership roles still has a long road
ahead. It appears that America may be more willing to accept racial diversity
within certain parameters but is still resistant to women in power,
particularly at the highest echelons. If Trump’s victory tells us anything, it
is that the path to true equality is long and complex, demanding an honest
reckoning with the biases we all carry and the work that remains to be done.
Dr
Asis Mistry
Assistant
Professor
Department
of Political Science
University
of Calcutta
Email-
asismistry.cu@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment