It was the night of 5th November 2024. Millions of women and girls across the world were glued to their television screens as election results came in. Their fears probably turned into reality later that night when Pennsylvania was called by almost all media houses for Donald Trump. The blue wall fell once again and Kamala Harris could not break the “glass ceiling”. This episode was a repeat telecast of 2016 when Hillary Clinton suffered a shocking defeat. It was not the first time that a misogynistic and white supremacist businessman was chosen over a qualified and highly experienced woman. However, this poses a critical question which has not been asked. Is the 2024 electoral verdict a loss for Kamala Harris or the American people? Did the citizens of the world’s torchbearer of democracy put a final nail in the coffin of America’s future?
The United States of America has been plagued by several domestic and international issues. The solution to such issues however do not lie in realist and liberal explanations. Only a feminist approach can prevent the escalation of such issues and thereby put brakes on America’s decline. The American leadership positions since its independence have been predominantly occupied by men. The U.S. has never had a female President and did not have a woman as the Vice President until 2020. Only three women have served as the Secretary of State. It is wise to remember J.N. Tickner who argued how concepts like national security and foreign policy are perceived to be “masculine”. It is evidently visible how conflicts exist in the international arena because states behave like men. Therefore, the male-domination of decision-making in the U.S. has made it vulnerable to critical domestic and international issues due to its parochial and gender exclusive problem-solving approach. From wars to diplomacy, the female perspective is essential as women comprise more than half of the American electorate and there are a variety of issues which disproportionately affect women.
The argument that Hillary Clinton lost because of her emphasis on the “glass ceiling” cannot be accepted. If that was the case, Kamala Harris, who stayed away from invoking her gender and racial identities, should have been in the White House. Emphasis on gender identity is important because from a feminist perspective, only a woman President can heal America’s woes. Either of the women mentioned above would be more capable to handle the Presidency at the moment than any Democrat or Republican man. Let us examine how things would have been different under a Clinton and Harris administration in resolving the current issues.
A Clinton Administration
Emerging from the pandemic, the U.S. working class has been hit the hardest. As promised in 2016, Clinton would have worked to reduce income inequality and increase the minimum wage. Unlike Trump or Biden, she would have also made efforts to address gender parity in income, particularly by ensuring greater transparency from companies. As per Forbes Adviser, in 2024, women earn 16% less than men on average. Using her nearly eight years of experience working in the Senate, she would have most likely mobilized bipartisan support to pass the long pending Paycheck Fairness Act.
Expanding the work of the Biden administration, her agenda would have included reducing the cost of prescription drugs, waiving student debt and increasing the coverage of medicare. As someone who is not hesitant to revisit trade policies when they do not live up to the benefits, Clinton would have put the interests of American workers first and taken the unions into confidence. An example of this is that although as first lady she backed NAFTA (North-American Free Trade Agreement); however, by 2008, when NAFTA kept American agricultural products out of Canadian markets, she openly called for revising the agreement. How often are male politicians open to admitting their mistakes or taking accountability for changing policy positions?
Hypothetically, if we position Clinton as the President in 2016 instead of 2024, Roe v Wade would not have been overturned! This implies that fundamental reproductive rights would not have been taken away from the women of America and abortion would not have been a plaguing issue during elections at all. The irresponsible decision to roll back the protections of Roe v Wade, made by three conservative Supreme Court justices handpicked by Donald Trump, led to some states passing extreme abortion bans, with Texas making no exception even for rape or incest. If Clinton was elected in 2016, Amber Thurman and several other women would be alive today.
As someone who had taken a tough call on the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in the situation room back in 2011, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have been a far more suitable President with vast foreign policy experience and expertise. “Toughness” is a trait usually associated with men. However, compared to her male predecessors, she had to be “tougher” on a series of international issues starting from the Libya intervention to the surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to Operation Neptune Spear.
In the current scenario, Clinton, who is famous for her quote- “Women’s Rights are Human Rights”, would have likely pushed the U.S. to have a much more stern and bold approach against the Taliban’s oppression of women. In all likelihood, the U.S. under her leadership may have joined other allies like Canada, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands to take the Taliban to the ICJ over gender apartheid. It can also be argued that probably Biden’s chaotic and embarrassing withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan would not have happened under a Clinton presidency in the first place. She had in fact warned the Biden administration of huge consequences before the withdrawal, arguing that it could result in a civil war.
Taking another present concern into account, Clinton would have clearly rejected calls to abandon U.S. aid to Ukraine and would have instead amassed bipartisan support both at home and in Europe to further increase the assistance. Compared to Biden, her prior experience in diplomacy would have positioned her better to strengthen America’s global role in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s expansion of military and intelligence capabilities.
A Harris Administration
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health data reveals that in 2022, 48,2041 people died by firearms in the United States which is an average of one death every 11 minutes. A Harris administration in 2024 would have passed universal background checks, red flag laws and an assault weapons ban to mitigate the epidemic of gun violence. Similarly, if Clinton won in 2016, those steps would have already been taken by now as she ran her campaign highlighting gun reform as a major priority. Gun violence which disproportionately impacts women and children, have been least of the concerns of men occupying the President’s chair.
There is no doubt that the recovery from the pandemic due to Bidenomics was swift and decisive. However, with prices of groceries and housing still high, a Harris envisioned “Opportunity Economy” plan would have been ideal instead of so-called “common sense” economics of a businessman turned politician who has an established closeness with capitalists like Elon Musk. Tax cuts for 100 million Americans, $6000 tax credit for families during first year of their child’s life, first ever federal ban on price gouging and $25,000 dollar down payment assistance for first time home buyers would have been the ideal policies as vetted by several economic experts to build the American working class.
With years of experience serving first as District Attorney of San Francisco, followed by the Attorney General of California and later as a Senator from California, Kamala Harris as President would have been able to muster bipartisan support in the Congress for the restoration of Roe v Wade. Harris was the only candidate in the election to have served in all three branches of the U.S. government. This could have worked to her advantage in gaining consensus. As Vice President, she made the fight for women’s reproductive rights central to her agenda. Biden was too weak on this issue. He neither had the understanding nor the sensitivity to address abortion rights. After the Presidential debate between him and Trump this year, the Guardian aptly commented the following- “By making it sound as though the state and doctors – whom Biden kept referring to using male pronouns – should get to decide whether a woman can have an abortion, Biden abandoned his party’s vigorous and effective attempts to frame abortion as a matter of freedom and rights.” This should not be surprising given the fact that in the U.S., it is ironically the men who have felt entitled for decades to have discussions and take decisions about women’s bodies.
On the issue of immigration reform, Biden failed to completely secure the border. As per the Centre for Migration Studies, the total undocumented population increased to about 11.7 million in July 2023, an increase of about 800,000 compared to the previous July. Trump on the other hand killed a bipartisan border bill in the Congress to run on the immigration problem and has been promising “mass deportations” which may break and separate families. While the latter is inefficient, the former is merciless. This is because neither of the two men, unlike Harris, have first hand experience and exposure to prosecuting transnational criminal organizations who trafficked in guns, drugs and children. If Trump would have been defeated, there would have been no deportations and alternatively Harris would have got the opportunity to address the issue through the legislative process. Recognizing that America is a country of diversity and immigrants, Harris would have created legal pathways for citizenship for millions of immigrants.
When it comes to international concerns, although much of Harris’s foreign policy experience stems from her tenure as Vice President, her credentials to be the Commander-in-Chief are much better than the incumbent President or President-Elect. When Biden went on the path of declaring unconditional support for Israel, Harris stepped in to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. She also rebuked Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu by saying that she “would not remain silent on the suffering of innocents in Gaza”. Sensitivity was unsurprisingly missing in Biden. When it is argued that women are too “emotional” to be leaders, one misses the point that it is emotions which make us human. Male leaders like Biden and Trump turn a blind and insensitive eye to the devastations caused by wars.
Harris would have also continued the unwavering U.S. support and aid to Ukraine which is likely to be under scrutiny now with Trump in the White House and a Republican controlled Congress. America’s global leadership would have been intact under Harris who strongly supports strengthening NATO just like Clinton. Moreover, she would have ensured that the U.S. invested in AI, won the 21st century race against China and had the most lethal weapons to defend itself. If she was not “tough” and “rational” enough to be the Commander-in-Chief, then probably she would not have been endorsed by a bipartisan group of 750 military leaders before the election.
The “glass ceiling” will break one day. American women will sooner or later reclaim democracy and end the male domination of national politics. However, that may not immediately happen in the coming decade. It will take time for systemic sexism to shatter but America does not have that much time. With two missed opportunities at electing a female president, much damage has already been done internally as well as externally. Internally, America may turn into a corporate company run by crony capitalist men at the expense of working classes paying higher taxes. Women of America, tired by men controlling their bodies, may lose faith in the laws and democratic processes. The future and lives of school going children are at stake with constant shooter drills and guns causing havoc as men in positions of power hide behind the 2nd amendment to protect their fantasies. Externally, America is going down a dangerous path of isolationism which will make dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping celebrate. It will endanger European allies as well as Taiwan. With all the stakeholders in the Middle East crisis being male leaders, women and children will become collateral damage to their ego and insensitivity. Time is running out and only a female President can save America.
