Could it be?

In my last post I raised the possibility that the level of literacy of the adult population may have had an influence on the outcome of the last election. Here's another thought.

The last three presidential elections were unusual in that the Republican nominee was the same - Donald Trump. Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in that order. There has been plenty of analysis of the result of the three elections. I will not rehash all the theories proposed to explain the outcome. Clinton's loss could have been the result of her negative image with a significant number of voters or her failure to campaign in some swing states. Harris' loss has been attributed to the way her nomination bypassed the normal primary process and the short time she had to make her case. And Biden may have benefitted from the pandemic and Trump's (mis)handling of it. But if you look at the policies the candidates ran on, I think it is accurate to say that there was not that much difference between the three Democrats, and Trump ran on the traditional Republican policies with a Trumpian/ MAGA twist. All three elections were close in terms of the popular vote count, and it has been suggested that the result in each case hinged on the distribution of voters in the different states.

And yet Biden was the only Democrat who beat Trump. Could it be that not enough Americans are ready to give the keys to the White House to a woman? I know we have elected many women to the House, Senate and numerous state offices including governors. We even went so far as to vote for Biden when his vice-presidential running mate was Harris. But is it possible that voting for a woman for president was just beyond our capability, even when the alternative was a man like Trump? A lot of people will say that is simply not true. I would suggest a lot of people have thought it but don't want to say it out loud. Given the fact that we have never elected a woman president, it is understandable that just enough people are reluctant to do so and tip the balance in favor of the male candidate, no matter how flawed. As long as we as a nation are unwilling to acknowledge our hidden biases, the glass ceiling for women at the Executive Mansion will remain intact. I am not suggesting that a woman would make a better president just by virtue of being a woman but voting for the male candidate because one can't overcome one's innate bias is a questionable rationale. As things stand, we are eliminating just over half the population from consideration and denying ourselves some excellent candidates.

In addition to the hidden biases of some voters there is the overt misogyny of others. The last century saw advances in women's rights in the form of voting rights, pharmacological birth control and the Roe v Wade decision. The overturning of Roe was not good enough for the Right. Once that goal was achieved, they appear bent on denying exceptions like rape and incest, early term abortion, contraception and abortion to save the life of the mother even in the face of repeated rejection of such measures by voters. Similar to their position on capital punishment this is a contradiction of their claim to being pro-life because it favors one life over another ("Off with their heads!" 10/31/24). Once again, the issue of poor adult literacy and numeracy is front and center. People with limited education cannot be expected to evaluate the complex issues involved and vote accordingly. Remember the literacy tests in the Jim Crow South? The OECD report I wrote about in my last post clearly shows that the number of voters who would fail a literacy test in the US today is much greater than the margin of Trump's victory.

That said, it is easy to take the cynical view and conclude that the situation is hopeless. The optimist in me thinks that we will emerge from this dark chapter in our history into a brighter future. But it will take discipline and determination similar to what the Right has pulled off in the last few decades. Hang in there, middle-of-the-roaders!