The real reason Trump won: Misogyny

In an attempt to make sense of the current state of the democracy, Former President Barak Obama returned to the political spotlight in full force last month and made this comment about the current administration:

It’s not conservative. It sure isn’t normal. It’s radical.

(Watch the full speech here). It has been 648 days, 6 hours, and 28 minutes (but who’s counting?) of this circus that is the current political climate and, unfortunately, things are only getting stranger. Take, for example, Trump’s outlandish suggestion that he can abolish the existing right to citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Clearly, our current president has not read the Constitution. This truly bothersome when recalling that Trump’s predecessor was a Harvard educated professor of constitutional law. So, where did our country go wrong?

The media likes to blame the outcome of the recent election on the Democrats’ loss of the white-working-class ("WWC"). The former President, however, disagrees:

You know, this whole notion that has sprung up recently about Democrats need to choose between trying to appeal to the white working class voters, or voters of color, and women and LGBT Americans, that’s nonsense. I don’t buy that. I got votes from every demographic. We won by reaching out to everybody and competing everywhere and by fighting for every vote.

If Obama is right, where does that put commenters like Esdall and Teixeira who fervently claim the lack of appeal to working-class whites is where Democrats went wrong? Maybe our former President is too optimistic or simply denounces identity politics, or even wants to build coalitions so this has to be part of his "party line." Whatever his angle, however, he is technically correct—the last administration’s strategy of appealing to all voters was successful for two terms. So, where did the Democrats go wrong?

Ruy Teixeira, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, suggests that the Democrats’ failure to appeal to the forgotten American underclass was the primary issue. The Atlantic opined that fear of societal change and immigration policies motivated the WWC to support Trump. Senator Tom Cotton blames the loss of WWC voters on the media’s criticism of Trump’s WWC-esque characteristics (like eating McDonalds). I don’t buy it. Rather, I think the WWC’s support of Trump (and the Republican Party in general) is revenge based. To them, Hillary represented a liberal, highly educated, New York dwelling, feminist elite. Could the WWC get behind a Black president so long as he goes to church and has a family in the traditional sense? Yes. But a powerful, pantsuit donning woman? Absolutely not. Simply, the white-working-class and America in general was not ready for a female commander in chief.

But don’t take my word for it. From what I have gathered through notable WWC scholars such as Matthew Schmitz and Joan C. Williams, the WWC support traditional family values: e.g., where men are the bread winners and women are the caregivers. Clearly, Hillary is a threat to these values. Although she is married in the biblical sense (i.e., to a man), her marriage has been anything but traditional. And, in my opinion, running for president 8 years after her husband’s term is the most feminist revenge on Bill (for his infidelities) that Hill could procure. Not to mention she was appointed Secretary of State following her tenure as first lady and made a political name for herself separate from her husband.

Yet, Hillary’s successes are often used against her. As feminist legal scholar Joan C. Williams comments:

Hillary Clinton […] epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Just like that we are back to subjectively judging women based on their clothes. Hillary’s affinity for pantsuits, common practice use of a personal server, and criticisms of Trump are powerful moves which would all be justified—if only she were a man. Yet, the fact that she is a woman puts a certain spin on otherwise neutral factors. How is challenging Trump’s fitness for office “condescending” yet calling Hillary a “nasty woman” is not? It is clear that this country’s problems with sex, gender, and male-female relations are worsening, and I believe they played a much larger role in the recent election than many think.