Dr. Asis Mistry
As part of an astonishing
political recovery, Donald Trump won the United States presidency for a second
term, ending the battle with Kamala Harris. This is the ultimate course reversal
for the most divisive figure in this land one whose appeal fluctuated from one
extreme of ecstasy to the other-from heaven to hell. The outcome also raises
profound questions on what role gender and race played in America on the
decisive day. The results hint at a grim truth: sexism is more stubbornly
ingrained in America’s psyche than racism itself. Harris, the woman who would
have become this country’s first woman president and its first woman of colour
in the job, just could not bridge the chasm.
Trump
won it with a landslide that caught everybody off guard. Despite what the polls
indicated for a while, showing the election within striking distance of hers,
buoyed by a good platform and an iconic symbolic appeal. Yet at the end of the
day, she could not mobilize the key constituencies to the level required for a
win. Exit polls showed a huge gap in support from women and a decline in
support from Black and Latino voters, especially compared to Biden’s four years
earlier. Only 54% of female voters supported Harris, while Biden had received
support from 57% of women. Many had expected a vote for Harris as a way to
achieve gender solidarity. But what her numbers reflected, instead, was a
society that hasn’t gotten used to women—particularly women of colour—at the
top.
But
this election wasn’t only about gender; it also threw into sharp relief the
deep complexities of race in America. Harris’s being Black and South Asian
added an extra layer of complexity to her candidacy. Yet her identity seems to
attract resistance from within both the majority and the minority, and
paradoxically, while candidates are assessed for gender and racial background,
that can sometimes go against their advantage. The female colour candidate
threatens deeply instilled norms, an uncomfortable prospect for parts of the
electorate that prefer a candidate like Trump, who embodies more traditional
forms of masculinity and authority.
Trump’s
election also fits into a more general trend: American society may be more
willing to accept some kinds of “difference” over others when it comes to
political candidates. If we compare the reception that Harris received to the
one that former President Barack Obama got, we may see that, although so much
has been and will be made of the barriers that are still race-oriented in
politics, gender-oriented hurdles may prove more daunting to overcome. Obama
confronted staggering racial barriers to penetrate; he still could go on to
appeal to a good part of the voting populace. But Harris had to contend not
only with the dynamics of race but also with those of gender expectations,
often far more rigid, punitive, and less amenable to reconciliation with the
iconography of executive leadership.
Another
telling aspect is the way voters judged Harris’s policies, especially regarding
her abortion rights stance. Harris had been a very vocal proponent of women’s
rights, yet she failed to garner female support in substantial numbers. This
may be a sign of a more complex, sometimes contradictory relationship between
gender and policy in the United States, where even female voters sometimes
exhibit reluctance in supporting a female candidate pushing for progressive
issues traditionally seen as part of women’s rights. Harris’s failure to
perform well with women voters, despite her activism, indicates that American
society is not ready to accept feminism fully when personified by a female
leader.
But
the problem is beyond the policy stance. As Clinton’s campaign noted, powerful
women are often attacked personally and held to a different standard than male
politicians. Harris, like Clinton, had to deal with scrutiny that did not
relate to her qualifications or her positions on the issues. Both women were
forced to grapple with notions of “likability,” a subjective measure that has
rarely, if ever, been a hurdle for male candidates like Trump. At a minimum,
Trump’s conduct has continuously been role-playing being a strong leader,
undiscerning and rude as that will appeal to the voters within eyesight, who
envision him to embody some type of “tough” and “authentic” figure. In
addition, during this campaign cycle, his image was augmented with vows to be a
protector, and defender against political adversaries matched with
incendiary remarks against both immigration and the economy. To most voters,
those qualities trumped any ethics or law problems surrounding him.
Comparing
Harris’s campaign with Clinton’s experience also exposes the depth at which
leadership expectations remain wedded to masculine authority. Trump’s return to
the White House was a victory for traditional masculinity and reflected an
instinctive distrust in female authority, especially of ambitious females such
as Harris or Clinton. Clinton’s loss in 2016 was surprising to many who had
begun to view her as perhaps the most qualified presidential candidate in
modern history, but her defeat nonetheless revealed that those qualifications
would be trumped by the invisible yet powerful force of gender bias. Similarly,
Harris’s achievements and historic presence on the ticket were overpowered by
an electorate that refused to entrust the presidency to a woman.
Of
course, there is a cruel irony to Trump’s victory. His presidency has been
marked by divisive rhetoric, personal scandal, and criminal conviction. And yet
his “tough” persona, standing firm against political opponents, resonates with
a certain subset of voters who find comfort in the worn familiarities of
traditional authority symbols-even though those symbols may carry moral or
ethical ambiguities. The controversies somehow seem to have enhanced the appeal
of Trump to a section of people who are viewing his defiance as being a virtue
rather than a vice in American leadership.
There
is so much more to dig into from this election than just its result. Harris’s
campaign has thrown into view a far deeper unease with women in the highest
office that even some women in America share. For a woman, and especially a
woman of colour, running for president remains an uphill battle; her
qualifications and platform are superseded by societal biases impossible to put
a number to but hard 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 anything, Trump’s victory teaches us
that the way to real equality is long and complicated, demanding honest
reckoning with the biases we all carry and the work that remains to be done.
Author: Dr Asis Mistry,
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calcutta,
Email- asismistry.cu@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment