AMERICA HAS A PROBLEM: The Cost of a Nation’s Vote

On the morning of the United States (‘US’) federal election, a dark cloud (election live coverage) loomed over me. I was completely unable to focus on any of my fast-approaching end of semester assessments, let alone comprehend the impending outcome of the 2024 US election.

Yet, that was all I could think about. 

The live CNN report played through my car's bluetooth system, as I listened to most of the swing states turn red, the tone of the reporter's voice struggling to remain unbiased. I was thinking about how this could have been a historical election — we could have had the first female, the first Black woman and first person of South Asian descent become the president of the United States (‘US’). Or, we could have Donald Trump, in turn regressing back to 2016 and the blatant racism and misogyny that it was characterised by. 

This election meant so much to women, and its outcomes were polarising. To negligently think that these results won’t affect us in Australia, is to completely undermine the genuine concerns of women globally. The gargantuan influence that the US has over Australia should not be overlooked. From political affairs to social trends, the US certainly has a hold on Australia (and the rest of the world) as a nation. 

Both of the US’ political parties—the Republicans headed by Donald Trump, and the Democrats headed by Kamala Harris—are deeply flawed. Neither have been willing to budge on the country’s ongoing support to the state of Israel and the genocidal endeavours they are currently undertaking in the Middle East. In fact, both Trump and Harris have used this fact as a key selling point in their election campaigns. This is a deal-breaker point of policy for many voters in the US and this has been reflected in polling which revealed that significantly less citizens voted in last week's federal election than the one prior which had the highest voting turnout in US history. 

The fact that many abstained from voting entirely over the party’s stance towards the Middle East, reflects the gravity of this issue in the hearts of US citizens. Regardless of this, neither party seemed to convey any leniency in their commitment to the state of Israel. Arguably, for Harris, this could have contributed to her lack of support. Especially, considering she was targeting more ‘progressive’ voter bases. Regardless of their target audiences, it is important to acknowledge that both parties—especially in a country as influential as the US—hold an immense amount of responsibility to facilitate peace and an understanding of conflict in the Middle East. It is heartbreaking to acknowledge just how drastically both of them failed to do this. 

In addition to their stance on the conflicts in the Middle East, election problems caused by factors such as an arguably defective voting system continues to fracture and minimise the voice of the US’ minority groups. With the choice of optional voting in the US, presidential success ultimately relies upon whether key states (such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Nevada to name just a few) are able to be turned in their favour. This means that election policy often centres around the needs of those specific ‘swing states’ instead of addressing wider structural and social issues across the country. It is important to acknowledge this when critiquing the recent election.

However, ultimately, this election was one concerning gender. Disjunctures in the way that different genders voted exemplifies this—disjunctures which in prior elections, arose between different racial groups. For example, Trump won support from 24% of Black men, versus 9% of Black women. He won 47% of votes from Latino men, versus 38% of Latino women and 59% of white men versus 53% of white women. The difference in voting preference relative to differing genders (and regardless of questions of race) exemplifies just how prolific gender—or Trump or Harris’ stance towards it—impacted the outcomes of the election. PBS News’ interactive polling outcome model offers even further insight into how different factors such as race and gender influenced where citizens cast their vote, and can be found here.

The Dangers of Character Politics

So if this was an election which was so centred around concerns of gender, how did systemic patriarchal values affect not only how both Trump and Harris were portrayed in the media, but in the eyes of voting citizens in the US and around the world? 

This is best answered by acknowledging the existence of ‘character politics’ and the role it played throughout the election’s campaign period. 

I have a question for you: when casually referring to the two presidential candidates, do you say their first name, or their last name? 

Donald and Harris? That doesn’t sound quite right, does it?

What about Donald and Kamala? No, that wasn’t what we were hearing either, was it.

Trump and Kamala? Yes. That's more like it.

Let's look back to the 2020 presidential candidates, Biden and Trump. Weird, why was it not Joe and Trump…?

Have you ever stopped to think about why we referred to Trump’s last name but used Kamala’s first? Is the use of a first or last name even relevant? Does it signal a subtle form of demeaning?

Perhaps, ‘Kamala’ is approachable, welcoming, maternal. She is the ‘Momala’ after all. Perhaps ‘Trump’ signifies a businessman. Worthy of respect; worthy of power.

This is just one example of the subtle mistreatment through verbiage that represents a greater underlying misogyny in the US’ political landscape. It also reinforces the idea of character politics, a concept ever-present in the US’s government. US political outcomes are often based on the characterisation of politicians rather than the policies and procedures they put in place when campaigning. The impact of such subtleties should not be overlooked. Whether consciously or subconsciously, the influence of such tactics positions the two on a hierarchy, not just in the media but also in the minds of voters. 

The double standard of personal behaviour during this election also feeds into this. This is not to say that both sides of the political spectrum aren't flawed (because they are—drastically). However, Donald Trump has been charged with four criminal counts, one of which involved conspiracy to defraud the US and conspire against the rights of citizens. Although Kamala isn’t herself innocent, she has been unnecessarily berated and placed under a microscope throughout the campaign. From mispronouncing her name, to being called “the antichrist” by David Rem at a recent Trump Rally at Madison Square Garden, When placed against a convicted felon, the misogyny of the US media and reporting becomes alarmingly apparent. Not only does this play into gender politics, it disregards true political agendas and allows illicit behaviour to run rampant.

Governing Our Bodies:

The shock overturning of Roe v Wade was felt by women internationally. Roe v Wade, a legal precedent that made access to abortions a federally protected right for all US women, (and which was upheld for nearly half a century) was overturned by the Supreme Court in June of 2022. With this constitutional protection removed, individual states began banning abortion and introducing penalisations for those seeking to terminate pregnancies of any form. This lead to wider and more restrictive conversations regarding women’s bodily autonomy, contraception access, and even same-sex marriage.

In light of this—and the fact that Trump played a part in instating some of the judges who overturned Roe v Wade into the Supreme Court during his last presidency—abortion was a significant point of discourse driving the decisions of voters in this election. Each of the presidential candidates knew this, making their stance on the matter clear throughout the campaigning period. 

During the most recent presidential debate, Trump was viciously vocal on his stance that he is “proud to be the most pro-life president in American history” and that he gives “tremendous credit to those six justices” who overturned Roe v Wade. 

On the other hand, Harris pledged during her keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, to sign legislation that would restore the federal right to abortion, if a bill were to be passed by Congress. At a later campaign event in Savannah, she continued that “[o]urs is a fight for the future and it is a fight for freedom, like the freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do.” 

This issue is a continuous driving force of debate and changing policy in the US. Due to the election outcome, many women are fearing a borderline dystopian future that sees further limitations on a woman’s autonomy over her body, not only within America, but across the globe. 

In light of this, this election brings to light the patriarchal disparities of not just a fight for power, but what will be done with that power once it is gained. 

Why should we question women's bodily autonomy so vastly, without examining why there aren't any laws that give governmental power for decisions to be made about men's bodies…

I hope that in reading this article, not only are you able to better understand the current state of politics, but you're able to join in the collective conversation that must be had, now more than ever. 

We must continue to fight for women's rights, and challenge those who oppose them. Most of all, we must continue to condemn those who hold and misuse the powers vested in them, to dictate how women are treated and what they do with their bodies.