The Party of Women and for Women?: How We Ended Up With an All-Male Democratic Field

The Party of Women and for Women?: How We Ended Up With an All-Male Democratic Field

            It is commonly believed in today’s political system that the Democratic party is the party more sympathetic to women.  The Democrats are often championed with pushing more feminist-centric policies and almost always nominate more female candidates than the Republicans.  Therefore it was no surprise that six of the potential Democratic nominees in the primary election over the past year were women.  One of these women, Elizabeth Warren, was even the popular frontrunner for several months.  However, as of March 2020 there is only one woman still in the arena and that woman is not closely tied with the party. 

            Of all the female candidates pushed out of the election the most interesting case study is Elizabeth Warren.  Until the end of 2019, Warren was widely considered the Democratic front runner.  However, as 2020 began and the campaign season wore on, Warren quickly lost steam and by March she had exited the race.  While Warren had wide support from liberal women it was difficult for her to gain support from the elites within the party.  Early in her campaign people within the Democratic party voiced concerns over Warren’s electability.  Some complained she was too liberal, others complained she was too much like Bernie Sanders, others complained she was too elitist to appeal to voters in the Midwest.  Regardless of individual concerns, it is clear those within the Democratic party were hesitant to throw their weight behind the Warren campaign. 

            However, Warren was only one of six women completing for the nomination.  So how did the party that started the campaign season with six female candidates, at least one of which with a fair chance of clinching the nomination, end up with only male options?  There is some speculation that the party sees female candidates as less electable than male candidates.  This is a sentiment held by both major parties in America as well as political parties around the world.  The idea of men being more electable is only heightened considering the Democrat’s opponent in 2020 is Donald Trump.  Women are often seen as softer and weaker whereas men are seen as louder and stronger.  Since Donald Trump is a boisterous and often aggressive debater, those within the Democratic party may believe they need to nominate a man if they want to beat out Trump. 

            There are several ways a party can influence the outcome of an election to exclude female participation.  While many of these party methods apply better to European and Latin American electoral systems, there are measures parties can take even in the U.S. to give male candidates the upper hand.  For one, the party can simply give more money to men.  Money and American politics are inextricably linked so candidates with more money at their disposal are often given an advantage.  Party leaders can also influence candidate selection simply through word of mouth.  By throwing verbal support behind male candidates over female candidates and encouraging others to follow suit they can help swing support towards men. 

            While American women have made great strides in politics over the past century- from gaining the right to vote to holding offices previously held exclusively by men- there is still a gap between male and female politicians.  The U.S. has now had forty-five male presidents and zero female presidents.  And now it seems the 2020 election will be between two male candidates as well.  Although U.S. politics is closer to gender-parity than it has been in the past, parties still take measures to exclude women from some forms of political participation. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-drops-out.html

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=337d996a-WtWg-hDqs-oISj-sz95f0b8ac68