Hillary & Elizabeth & “Too Many Women”
Image courtesy of i.ytimg.com
June 14,2016
Originally published on Medium
The day after Hillary Clinton’s historic primary victory, the Berkeley Hills were alive with speculation about her VP pick. I was surprised when my suggestion of Elizabeth Warren was met with “nah, that’s too many women,” or “it’s too risky to have two women on the ticket,” or “no one will vote for a two-woman team.”
All this from liberals who’d put their faith in a 74-year old, Jewish, self-described socialist with a thick Brooklyn accent, who represents a state so thinly populated that its entire population could fit into San Francisco — twice. Not a go-to choice for Democrats concerned about electability.
Bernie got as far as he did because his supporters didn’t worry about the optics. But while Warren shares most of his policy platform, the optics of her gender are suddenly insurmountable to people who have yet to take down their Sanders laws signs!
Warren has devoted her political career to reforming the banking industry; she fights economic inequality; she’s smart and unafraid to speak her mind. Her natural and feisty delivery is a great contrast with Clinton’s more buttoned-up persona. She is a great VP choice — one that should please my neighbors.
They explain to me that of course, they wouldn’t have a problem with two women on the ticket — it’s other people who’d find it a step too far. Too much change too fast, they argue, and the stakes are too high this time; any miscalculation would lead to the election of Donald Trump. This is the very model of a self-fulfilling prophesy: had all of us allowed our doubts about the electability of Barak Obama to sway us, imagine where the country would be today.
Believe me, I get the Trump anxiety. The ascent of a racist, misogynist authoritarian is a very scary, and very real, possibility. Still, it’s hard to accept that despite women’s rising power across sectors, despite this most recent blow to the glass ceiling, Elizabeth Warren is seen first as “another woman.”
I’m not hearing that she’s too liberal, too scandal-ridden, or that Hillary’s running mate should come from outside the Northeast corridor. Instead, Warren is viewed exclusively through the lens of gender. Instead of seeing a widely popular and courageous US Senator, all my neighbors see is a second woman.
Is the absence of a white man on the ticket simply beyond belief? Are we structurally so accustomed to seeing the President as one kind of person that we can’t even ask ourselves who would best serve in the office?
LGBT rights experienced a head-spinning leap ahead when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality. The decision upheld a simple truth: two people who love each other ought to be able to legally marry one another. As opponents to gay marriage were forced to explain, in detail, what exactly they were afraid of, their reasoning began to look cruel, hateful, and narrow minded. Suddenly marriage between two women or two men didn’t seem frightening or strange to many Americans, and the public’s understanding of the gay rights movement was transformed.
What if by choosing Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, Hillary Clinton could accelerate women’s rights the same way? What if by choosing the best person for the job, the best candidate to compliment her ticket, Hillary also offers the country the image of a female dream team?
Will America see the two best candidates for the job? Will they see the years of experience, fierce intelligence, grit and determination that I need to see in the candidates facing off against Trump? Or will they simply see “too many women?”
Electing an all-female ticket wouldn’t end sexism in America any more than President Obama’s election ended racism. It would, however, forever alter those thought patterns that reduce Warren to only a woman, instead of a highly promising candidate. Every single day, we would see a pair of women at the helm, reflecting the true impact that women in all walks of life have on our country.
We would see that two women had the courage to step up to power and that America didn’t see them as inadequate. Instead, we saw them as leaders.
