Wait, isn't feminism about gender equality? Yes, a woman can be president, as the majority of voters showed in the last election. That shouldn't automatically disqualify any man. You're just replacing one form of sexism for another. This type of thinking is a sure way to get Trump re-elected. Most people's common sense can read through this nonsense.
69
Here we go again.
No primaries yet and already discriminating candidates. The motto should be – “The Next President Should Not Be Trump” – period –
This column is ill-thought-out and contributes nothing at all to dethrone the king of misogynists.
Sorry Farhad – two thumbs down!!
13
Many thanks for your thought provoking op-ed. I can assure you that I will vote for a man no matter what.
2
I can’t help but wonder how men would feel if only women were Presidents since George Washington. Do you think they would wait this long to push for a male president? Thanks for an excellent article, Mr. Manjoo!
53
I'm ready, but probably better to have male VP candidate. I am an older white male and certainly wouldn't balk at a female/female ticket, but I doubt the majority of older white males, or males in general, have a similar view. Early, still deciding, but Harris/Buttigieg looks pretty good right now
4
I voted for Hillary and have come to regret it. The markets are up, most of my kids are employed, finally got to see a doctor a few weeks ago after 6yrs, international issues are being addressed. Obama made me feel good, but I was going broke, nearly lost the house. Bless Trump and his endless battle with the swamp.
3
Although I am currently supporting a female candidate, and intend to continue doing so, all I can say with regard to the statement...
"common sense tells us that electing a woman as president would deal a smashing symbolic blow to the patriarchy"
...is to ask the question: Did electing a black man as president deal a smashing symbolic blow to the entrenched systemic racism in this country?
I think not.
10
We will get a quality government when we mature sufficiently to elect quality candidates without dilution by identity or any other form of tribal politics. Unfortunately, our genetic code is so similar to that of other primates that there is little evidence we are capable of achieving the required maturity.
4
It's very very early for this, we're just beginning the maze of runners and what they have to offer, but yes I agree with Mr. Manjoo. Enough of male presidents and frankly, enough of millionaire presidents and politicians. I believe Trump can and will be defeated and a woman can do it. I lean very eagerly toward voting for a woman. Men have fouled things up so badly it will take a long time to make repairs. We were once innovators, so lets get back to innovating!
7
Putting limitations on one’s decision for who is best to face Trump at this stage in the game is foolhardy. Democrats have successfully broken the glass ceiling already by nominating a woman, it’s not our party that has the problem.
That being said, Warren is easily my favorite. Her resume includes creating the CFPB. It’s an incredibly momentous accomplishment that speaks to not just her ability to listen then act in the wake of the last financial crisis, but also her ability to govern. Sen. Warren creates a whole new agency, just to protect us: the American people from malfeasance and impropriety by the financial sector and beyond.
6
One of the reasons Warren is the best candidate is that 1)she will gain the support of people concerned about identity politics because she is a woman, and has been dismissed because of prejudices against smart women. 2) She never talks about Identity politics herself, focusing almost entirely on the economic issues which are of greatest concern to low income potential Trump voters, and pretty much everyone else .
and she is also by far the most qualified.
8
@Teed Rockwell Are you kidding me? I suppose you think her self identifying as Native American while in her 30's -- not some casual mention at a party that her family tree probably had some Cherokee -- but registering as Native American with the ABA when she was mid 30's. Contributing a recipe to a NA cookbook and identifying herself as Cherokee.
Not coincidentally, her legal career took off after she became NA. Find me other law professors who graduated from a mid tier school, taught at a mid tier school, then suddenly and magically got to become a full Harvard professor.
Not only does she have the NA problem (talk about Trump lying...) she's got the charisma of Hillary Clinton. She comes across as a fake populist progressive.
She will not get the nomination of her party. You can book that.
3
Men and women have equal intelligence. According to Forbes report on the 400 richest Americans, "most of the country’s wealthiest females inherited their fortunes from husbands, fathers and grandfathers. Only 1-2% of wealthy females are self-made."
Perhaps if all the business and government leaders in the world had been females instead of males.....then females would have prevented WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and the little fights in the Arab countries from ever occurring. Correct? Or are females just as angry and warring as males? In terms of human behavior, the more things seem to change....the more they remain the same. Correct? Then some will say, "no hope left for humanity." But actually there is hope if you believe in God. That hope is great for Christians. So what hope is there for atheists and agnostics??? Is this why separation of church and state exists?
You keep getting it wrong. It does not matter if the nominee is a man or a woman or non-binary. If they are for open borders, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, higher taxes for the upper middle class, reparations etc, they will not get my vote.
1
Some rhetorical question: In these days of self-identifying politics, what if a man identifies himself as a woman, is that ok with Mr Manjoo to vote for the IT, as some in the identify politics circle wants to identified as IT (no she, or he);
Secondly, I have heard from many females, they do not like working for female bosses or supervisors or students prefer male teachers. The former and the latter described as being knit-picky and male teachers looking at a broader picture and easy on grades. Finally, I think Hillary lost the elction, because for some she reminded of their mother-in-law, when she talked her voice sounded shrieking. Just my thought.
1
I would and will vote for anyone sane, intelligent, law-abiding, decent and responsible who stands the best chance of defeating Trump. Male, female, white, black, brown, straight, gay, bi, asexual, married, unmarried, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, polytheistic, deist, young, old or in-between. I would even cross party lines and vote for a moderate Republican if that meant getting Trump out of the White House.
2
There is not a female candidate out there that can potentially pull enough votes other than Kamala Harris and she is fading faster than the color blue in bright sunlight.
2
Sorry sir , while i agree with your intentions your method is clear and definite discrimination.
If anyone were to write that all black men, all women, allopenly gay politicians, etc., should not be allowed to be considered for the presidency, then all he*l would beak loose . justifiably the people would claim that it was discrimination and they would be right .Banning all males is equally so.
The answer is not obvious the obvious answer is to elect the "PERSON" who is most qualified for the job and that factors like race, gender ad religion while important should not be defining factors .
"Smashing the patriarchy' is not obvious but a dream. males who felt themselves disenfranchised would mobilize to stop her win, hinder the process if she should win and undo her work once she is out of office.
Change is made when people buy in and work together and not by exclusion.
4
There is not a female candidate out there that can potentially pull enough votes other than Kamala Harris and she is fading faster than the color blue in bright sunlight.
1
I like Bernie.
But I would like the womens line up - maybe more - if they were like: Golda, Indira, Margaret and Angela.
Americans like superstar icons - b/c they like soap dramas - shallow... as long as our savings grow, taxes low, and have more credit.
My wife tells me that the worst enemy of a woman candidate is another (Stepford) woman: too jealous, too shallow, too dominated, etc - just look at the women who speak for Trump... and gladly.
Bernie has pizzaz.
I like Kamala: but maybe she needs teams Oprah + Ellen + Whoopi _and_ Wolf + Anderson + ??? _and_ become more forceful, show leadership, and promise palpable upside.
Otherwise it will be Team B: Bernie, Biden, Beto, Buttigieg
Interesting to note is that workers just can't afford to work some jobs at the low wages they were paying. It is cheaper to stay at home and work garage sales for ebay, or walk dogs. This is certainly a problem here in Southern California. It is finally becoming apparent that wealth inequality is so extreme that $10.00 an hour jobs are now $12.00 an hour, but that still doesn't pay the rent. This includes school systems that can't find qualified aides because people aren't able to take those jobs and live even 15 miles with in the area. I am sure that is reflected in service jobs dominated by women. So again, women may have a natural inclination from observing their sisters or themselves as they move through academia or business. I think we can look at gendar as a political asset. For women this time.
1
All these conversations about "electability" give me a headache. Can we implement ranked-choice voting and call it a day?
With ranked-choice voting, we can toss the whole "electability" issue out and let voters focus on choosing candidates who voters believe best represent them and will best perform the duties of the office.
In my opinion, asking voters to vote "strategically" based on candidates "electability" just further alienates people from participating/voting in elections. More people will feel empowered and compelled to vote if they can actually vote for who they want, instead of feeling they have to vote for who the GOP, DNC, media, etc. have shown favor to and stacked the deck for.
8
I am just not convinced that non-white, non-straight, non-males are ready. LOL. Obama was good. Anybody but Trump.
In 1960, it was a big deal when we elected the first Roman Catholic president but religion did not become a "litmus test".
In 2008, it was a big deal when we elected the first black president, but race has not become a "litmus test".
In 2020, it would be a big deal if we elect the first female president –for many of the reasons Manjoo has cited– but it won't limit any future candidacy to one particular identity category. Instead, it would open doors and opportunities to people who have not been getting the credit or the appreciation they deserve. Women got the vote in 1920 but have been slow to get equal political power. Nevertheless, she persisted...
5
...said the man, telling us what we should do...
8
"Reticence" is not a synonym for "reluctance." Please use the correct word.
"The Next President Should Not Be A Man" .......who is a liar, grifter, racist, ignoramus, incompetent, unbalanced, traitorous, unwholesome, tasteless slob- i.e., Donald J. Trump. That is the ONLY question Democrats need concern themselves with in connection with their nomination process. The type of divisiveness inherent in Manjoo's recommendation would doom the Party and re-elect Trump. I was happy to vote for Hillary but I suspect that a male candidate (as of now Joe Biden) is the most likely to defeat Trump.
2
I'm gonna boil down the presidential pick to one fairly arbitrary dimension and then attempt to convince everyone to adopt my method. Is this the definition of ideologue?
4
This is the poisonous side of identity politics. Vote for candidates because of who they are, not what they are.
10
If you want to estimate the levels of misogyny in America, you need only look back on your own newspaper's coverage of Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump. The preponderance of NYT coverage of Hillary focused on her emails, all but ignoring her substantive policy plans (confirmed in a statistical analysis by I believe The Daily Beast), whereas DT was spared any such investigative journalism until after his election. Not that there was nothing to find, as Times journalists have uncovered in their deep dive into his finances. And coverage in broadcast media was if anything more skewed, as DT was awarded free air time for interviews and coverage of his pep rallies, while Hillary's policy presentations were relegated to stamp-sized images with no accompanying sound. When she won the popular vote despite this disparity--and the proven intervention of Russia, aided by Trump campaign polling data from the key states that cost her the electoral college--this win was ignored in the rush to call her a flawed candidate. The only new aspect to the outcries against her was that they were now coming from the Democrats as well as the Repubs. The latter had attacked her as a favorite sport since she first appeared on the political horizon, decades ago. Now, two and a half years since the 2016 election, the attacks have not abated. She is as essential to Repubs as air. She is the most powerful woman of her generation. Her own accomplishments and their hatred and that of other men has made it so.
8
@Alexi - "But as Hillary Clinton discovered in 2016, we live in a misogynist country. Still." Do we? Because Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote.
I thnk if women actually opened their eyes and abandoned the addictive and increasingly prevalent victim mentality, they would see that not only are they no longer suffering from oppression, but the more militant, anti-male amongst them are dangerously close to becoming the oppressors.
As a female, I want no part of this. I will vote for the best candidate, the most qualified and the most unifying. I would never do a woman the disservice of voting for her because she's a woman.
11
Men in general and white men specifically invented identity politics. They've lived by it and they've been the most successful group of citizens because of it. It's simply sour grapes on their part to be calling out identity politics now that the identity is not focused on them. Boo hoo.
4
I voted for Obama in the past because he ran as a candidate for all Americans. He didn't run as a black candidate, he didn't run as a male. I won't vote for any candidates with an anti-male, anti-white, anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Mexican, anti-X positions. That is one of many reasons I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump.
4
I think it would be a great advance to elect a woman president, though as the piece points out we already did, were it not for the Electoral College. The thing is, just because lots of good people want something doesn’t mean it is going to happen. The other important thing, is that just because we are poised to perhaps elect a woman doesn’t make misogyny go away. Actually, just as when we elected the first black president, the mere fact of it will enrage those who would perhaps feel that this sort of advance for one group of people would come at the expense of their interests.
Of course that is a wrong and destructive idea, but unfortunately it is not uncommon. As with racism, sexism as an enduring social phenomenon, will not just disappear quietly. It will persist long past its sell-by date, causing turmoil along the way. Social and cultural change is difficult precisely because the beliefs and values that we learn when young are extremely persistent. For many people they turn out to be permanent, not least due to reinforcement from those with whom they intentionally associate, seeking out and finding a shared grievance for what they perceive was lost. This shared remembrance of a paradise stolen creates a powerful, though faulty, sense of loss that denies progress at the same time it foments a sentimental, if unrealistic agenda to return to a reality that never really existed. This is what Trump takes advantage of with his MAGA label, and it is a powerful appeal for some.
I can sum up my feelings here with a tangential observation:
On 8/12/17, Frank Bruni wrote: "Across a range of American institutions, we need more diversity. We need it to expunge and guard against the injustice that Bovy mentioned, and we need it because it’s indeed a portal to broader knowledge and greater enlightenment. That means that white people — men in particular, even Google engineers — must make room in that narrative and space on that stage.
But I question the wisdom of turning categories into credentials when it comes to politics and public debate. I reject the assumptions — otherwise known as prejudices — that certain life circumstances prohibit sensitivity and sound judgment while other conditions guarantee them. That appraises the packaging more than it does the content. ... It’s reductive."
I understood Bruni as calling for us to understand identity as informing perspective but not itself being perspective. Despite Bruni EXPRESSLY calling for men to make space, however, others, including the 29th most popular comment, scolded the insufficient solidarity:
"Others who want a voice ... aren't coming after white men with pitchforks. They're merely asking them to step back for a moment, listen (REALLY listen) to others' experiences, wait till people with less power have had their say before speaking. That's how to be a good ally and resistance member, that's how to fight white supremacy. That's solidarity."
I side with Bruni over knee-jerk tokenism.
1
Nonsense. The next president of The United States should not be Donald Trump. That's the bottom line. Limiting the pool to women is a lousy strategy if the goal is to replace the present occupant in The White House with a rational leader. At the moment, I am underwhelmed by many of the potential Democratic candidates, male and female. Let's wait and see who rises to the top. We tried the female for president thing in 2016 and see how well that turned out. Remember, it's all about getting 270 Electoral Votes, not on who gets the most votes of the people.
5
I don’t understand this great outcry against what Manjoo has written. It is indeed time we elect a female candidate like Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren. Just as it was a dramatic, vitally important day in history when we elected a Black man to the presidency, it would be a great triumph for all women and all enlightened men if we elected a woman in 2020. A woman is indeed uniquely qualified to be attuned to women’s rights, which have always trailed behind men’s. As Manjoo has written, “Studies show that men significantly underestimate the frequency of sexual harassment of women. Research also shows that electing women to office improves what governments do: Women tend to get more work done for their constituents than men, and in particular, they tend to deliver on policy goals that directly benefit women and families in society.”
67
@Alison It will be a great triumph for an enlightened Democracy (rather than a symbol) when we elect the best-qualified candidate from a field of well-qualified candidates who wish to serve the public good - regardless of gender race or national origin.
12
@Alison, that other candidate you mentioned never exploited his race as a reason he should be elected.
7
Ok but I voted for Obama twice because he was the best candidate.
6
" Women tend to get more work done for their constituents than men, and in particular, they tend to deliver on policy goals that directly benefit women and families in society. "
I think the author left out the "particular" adjective "Democratic."
Or else he hasn't been paying attention to Republican women who echo Phyllis Schaffly or Ann Coulter far too much. The ones who consistently vote against abortion, against maternal leave after child birth, the same types who voted against the ERA amendment. Who vote against an increase in the federal minimum wage, who want to "reform" Social Security and Medicare, who always vote against the environment.
Basically women who might as well be called ALEC, or to put it another way, they might as well be Republican men.
4
Trump will lose the election. Therefore, what should the republicans do? Choose a new candidate. William Weld is a fine choice. Now, pair him up with Harris or Klobuchar for VP. Imagine the healing and progress that would take place... for feminist minded women, political division, and even the Republican Party.
Here's an interesting idea: how about we elect the most qualified candidate rather than a "group".
11
@Jay Corcoran And the "most qualified" candidate is . . . who? Is that what happened in 2016, when a former First Lady, US Senator, and Se'cy of State was defeated by an apolitical moron?
Manjoo's column assumes that most if not all of the announced candidates are qualified (MOST qualified is in the eye of the beholder) and that being female is an additional, important qualification. This to me is a telling argument, as I waver between Sanders and one or two of the women, but have wondered if Biden is truly the "most electable." Who was more electable in 2016: Hilary or Bernie? I'm still not sure.
1
Identity politics. The death knell of the Democratic Party.
If we really believe in equality why not just the most qualified PERSON.
I dont care what color or gender they are. I just want to feel confident in them as a qualified candidate.
10
This question is not a dilemma this year, because it happens to be the case that a woman – Elizabeth Warren – is by far the best candidate. She is by far the most qualified, and when people get to know her, she will be the most popular.
2
Maybe in the People's Republic of Berkeley, but not in many other places.
1
@Teed Rockwell It seems that a lot of folks already know more about her than they care to, which is why she'll never be close to "most popular".
1
Thank you so much for this article. I agree completely on all the points you have made. If the rest of the media world and all the pundits would take your points seriously we might make progress. Shame on Frank Bruni as an example. In his recent article he used the continual sexist dog whistle of writing about Elizabeth Warren being considered too “strident” , a perjorative sexist term that never is applied to men. He wasn’t calling her strident, but was repeating the phrase from others. We all know what constant repetition does when the media constantly uses terms like “electability”, “like ability”, and “strident”. The media and pundits don’t seem to have learned from their culpability in the 2016 disastrous election.
5
I just hope the next president is humane.
1
Hillary won popular vote by 3 million vote.
Hillary’s popular vote victory was despite PERNICIOUS efforts by greedy, mercenary Trump + his buddy Putin to SABOTAGE the electoral system, suppress votes, illegally indoctrinate hundreds of millions of voters with DECEITFUL information, bribe secretary of states who suppressed and did NOT count all votes,
gerrymandered districts to favor republicans despite overwhelming majority of democratic voters and may be sabotaging voting machines created by Republican owned companies.
Women were VICTORIOUS during 2018 election with unprecedented gains by brilliant women who are spearheading a revitalized House of Representatives, finally serving ALL American interests and liberated from the vice like control of older, biased, mercenary, misogynistic narrow minded men, who were and ARE clearly beholden to corrupt, “right to kill” NRA, polluting fossil fuel industries, the Federalist + Heritage Funds, Koch Bros. and anti-democratic rigid anti-American doctrination.
5
@Hopeful Gaining more popular votes in a Presidential campaign is the political equivalent to gaining the most yardage in a football game. It is an interesting statistic which is often, but not always, correlated with victory.
The existence and makeup of the Electoral College is not some arcane bit of wisdom; All parties concerned were well aware of it. Mr. Trump's team concentrated of states where the election was close enough to make a difference while Ms. Clinton's spent way too much time basking in the adulation of places like New York, which she could not have lost if she tried.
3
Nonetheless, Secretary Clinton won the popular vote.
2
The next president should not be Donald Trump.
1
The next President needs to be a Scorpio! They're the only ones who understand!
6
What a profoundly silly column.
"After everything we’ve just learned about how gender bias has systematically decimated female leadership in America, can you give us one good reason for the next president to be yet another man?"
Because the American electorate might wish for a person who happens to be a man to be their President? Is that not reason enough in a democracy, especially where women form 51% of the electorate.
There are many talented and accomplished women running in the Democratic primary and they should each be given a fair look, and without any penalty for Hillary's loss in 2016. That does not bind the electorate to choosing one sort of person to be their President.
9
Why do you assume you know WHY Democratic voters are taken by Joe Biden? I don't pretend to know, myself. The last two Democratic election cycles have seen an African American and woman nominated. That's a good thing. Gender profiling is just not the way to go here.
7
This is just ridiculous. I'm female; I don't have any doubt a woman could be a great president. But I'm not going to cast a vote based on someone's chromosomal structure. I'm going to choose who I think the best candidate is based on the totality of the issues that confront us, without regard to whether the candidate is male or female and without worrying about which part of the globe was home to his or her ancestors.
13
Men have done such a great job of running everything forever. They've left us with a world that operates on competition and a cave man mentality of combat and conquest. Add nonstop wars and religions that worship invisible male gods who also specialize in eternal punishment and torture of their children in order to claim "redemption".
Women are belittled and kept in "our place" because we aren't "tough enough" to engage in battle, seen as the ultimate tactic. This distracts from the fact that nothing of any lasting value was ever achieved without cooperation and a bit of compromise -- womens' main operating method.
Yes, it's time for society to EVOLVE and unleash the potential for creativity that is the female force. And please, don't shoot or bomb us all, guys, when we try to step forward.
3
@Entera Looking at major female leaders through out history, they have not done much better than male ones. Why, then, should the gender of a ruler; monarch, prime minister, or president, be of any concern during the selection process.
2
This is the Dems election to win or lose. But this type of rhetoric increases the odds of a loss.
Put forward a solid candidate, male orfemale, Mixed or African or South American or Asian or First Nation or European heritage, with solid ideas that are not too radical and you will win in a landslide. Offer a radical, unethical person, and the need change in the presidency will not occur. And we will all lose.
1
All people should be given a fair and equal chance to have the honor of serving as this great country's leader. If the most qualified person is a woman, by all means, she should be elected. But, if it is a man, we should not disqualify him simply because of his chromosomes. Who should lead this country should be decided on skill and skill alone, not on the persons race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, or gender.
5
The first female president will be a Republican such as Nikki Haley. Having a liberal woman heading up the increasingly radical left Democrat party will be too extreme for middle America.
5
This sort of "identity politics" is exactly why the Democrats can't win the White House. And it's even more patronizing coming from a man.
7
Whoever the Dems nominate, he or she faces an uphill battle against a rigged electoral college, systemic voter disenfranchisement, and a corrupt news media that has a double standard. As a child of the sixties, it’s the system, man, and it needs to go, as in, away. Until then, we’ll get Trumps and Bushes, McConnells and Cheney.
" And so I’ve come to harbor the opposite bias." Bias, indeed. There is no sensible reasoning in this post. It's one of the most vacuous op-ed pieces I've read recently in the Times.
I hope Mr. Manjoo can do better in the future.
5
I've been fantasizing about this: 2020 is the 100th anniversary of women being granted (!) the right to vote in the U.S.
Perhaps we let men sit out this presidential election. You know, let only women run and vote to make up for the millennia women were denied their rights.
Sounds pretty reasonable from that perspective, doesn't it?
2
Here's the problem: "A woman... smashing blow to the patriarchy...A male Democrat...two old men...the first woman...percentage of women, men voters in 2016. That is what it is about for you? You are so steeped in sniffing out misogyny, you have blundered into obvious misandry (just as mindless as ingrained prejudice against women, only targeting men). And then, there is your (somehow unexamined) rampant ageism.
Two things are just wrong here: The first is that you have fabricated a "political-ish" argument that is so contorted it resembles a Republican-gerrymandered congressional district (carefully ignoring the high percentage of women who voted for Trump, for instance). The second is that the NYT has been bowing to trend and giving page space to stretched opinions that would make real feminists blush.
Here's the most egregious distortion: "...gender politics are at the core of all politics." Uh, not for most regular people! "Who can do me the most good/least harm?" That, not concern for generalized feminist stats, is the calculus for the voting majority.
I was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2008. Where were you? I'll bet you were making similar arguments back then: "...the first black president...a smashing blow to racism."
I was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Where were you? I'll bet you were chanting. "Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!", and then voted for Jill Stein.
2
Indeed, there is no valid reason to put another man in the White House. Except that the American Public is pathologically terrified of a uterus in the White House, regardless of her state of fecundity.
If she is, they'll complain that she's moody and on the rag. If she's in menopause, they'll complain that she's dried up.
This nation has a lot to learn, and getting a woman to the White House is only a small part of it.
They're characterizing the women as "nice," "electable," "shrill," "aggressive," -- the list goes on and on and on, ad nauseum.
I'd love to see it. But we were robbed in the last erection. I don't think this time will change anything.
2
@ellen Why do you go on repeating stereotypes as if all men/ most men (or even women) repeat them or believe them? No one I know does.
1
Identity politics in general are a losing proposition. Had Barack Obama said, "As a black man, you owe me." or "It's my turn." or anything else indicating you should vote for him because of his skin color.....he would have lost. The public appreciated his grace, tact, diplomacy, sensitivity.....and the wisdom not to play the race card. Same applies to gender. Would that the Hillary campaign had taken note. Don't make the same mistake two elections in a row. Lay off the identity politics.
6
"Given ... irrefutable recent evidence that American society is wracked at every level by a pervasive and enduring misogyny..."
Let's take a case that Manjoo reported on back in 2014. I mean Google (as in Goolag). He interviewed Google's HR manager who told him that Google had very few cases of overt discrimination against women. “This is a pretty genteel environment, and you don’t usually see outright manifestations of bias. Occasionally you’ll have some idiot do something stupid and hurtful, and I like to fire those people.”
But of course Google was under intense pressure to hire more women, even if only 17% of computer science graduates are women. So Google adopted the crackpot theory that even though it was invisible to the naked eye or any other senses, Google was wracked by implicit bias against women. Despite Google’s proud boast to be data-driven, it launched "implicit bias training" that bullied employees and at which questioning whether there was really any bias was forbidden.
No surprise, then, that Manjoo reports that Google had "no solid evidence that the workshops, or many of its other efforts to improve diversity, are actually working.” That is precisely what happens if a theory is wrong.
A few years later, and Manjoo has crossed his fingers and taken the NYT's solemn oath that there is "irrefutable recent evidence that American society is wracked at every level by a pervasive and enduring misogyny." Is there anything he won't say to get ahead?
3
How is this in any way different than saying: "The next President should not be black or a woman or a Middle Eastener or anyone named Manjoo". How about the person chosen by the electorate, which included women the last time I checked, should be president.
6
Another of too many recent breathtakingly stupid identity-politics columns in the NYT. Fortunately, the vast majority of the commenters see it for the stupidity it is. So what's the point--just to provoke eyeballs by publishing incendiary, far-left opiniions? It's stuff like this that will stoke the votes in the middle to stay home, or worse.
10
I'll vote female if the Times will stop whining about the patriarchy...oh wait that will never happen.
4
@MM
I'll vote female if the female is the most qualified candidate. But I'm a radical.
1
Utterly stupid and pointless.
See, in the real world, the world that isn't just a Big Data set of advertising qualities, you support people for what they are likely to DO, not for what they ARE.
I can feel the wind from the mass shaking of heads by the latte-sippers. This should (but won't) stop that: if all you care about are the advertising qualities, then by all means, support Condi Rice in 2020. Draft her. I mean, she's African American, she's a woman. Rumor has it she may well be gay, too.
That literally guarantees that she'll be better than any white man, like, say, Bernie Sanders, on actual policies that actually help actual people, including nonwhite nonmen.
You know, for the same reason Germans should support AfD: it's led by a lesbian (Alice Weidel). That means it's progressive, duh! What, you won't support AfD? What are you, homophobic or just a misogynist?
And, of course, this is yet more stop-Bernie fodder, but that aside, the infestation of identity politics in not only the "left" but everywhere is innately regressive. Sorry, that's a fact. Not popular, but, hey, I'm an old-fashioned universalist, who was "intersectional" back when that was just plain common-moral sense, not A Big Theory.
I know: in other words, a racist, misogynist Bernie Bro drooling for some white-male-dominated, top-down, Stalinist Venezuela for the USA forever.
I really have no pity for educated adults who fall for this stuff. Yes, even when they're on "my side."
2
Terrible article. this Country elected a black man with the middle name of Hussain over a bona fide war hero in John McCain and then re-elected him over a classically handsome phenomenally successful former governor with a beautiful family and sterling character in Mitt Romney and yet somehow it wouldn't elect a Woman. Ridiculous. And it advocates electing a Woman because she's a Woman.....mmm I wonder if he would feel the same way if Sara Palin was running..I doubt it... Pathetic article.
The NYT editorial pages are going off the rails towards the left..
10
Do you have a woman who is not in the stupidity of the socialist ideologies and with experience to put herself the boots of a commander in chief in times of war?
2
Imagine a whole term where the president doesn’t play one round of golf
1
Presumably this really implies “white women!” because this is who one often sees at all those “women’s” blah blah blah, “ladies’ ...” you never see the women from other races, because the so called “women” are either racists themselves or racial hypocrites. Yet you see the white women gloating as if they represent all women!!! This whole “women’s” this and that I think is more often than not sheer hypocrisy glossing over racial disparities. I think it’s hypocrisy!!!
1
All of the women running, with the exception of Tulsi, are far from being presidential material. Not gonna happen. What ever happened to the most qualified, whether that be a dreaded white male or not. These kind of op Ed’s in the Nyt are tired af.
1
The so called journalists have become useless and lazy.
Gender doesn't determine any one's character or behavior. Character does. There are crooks, con-artists, and criminals in both.
I say put a monkey in the white house, put dogs in the Congress and cats in the supreme court because none of the three branches are working for the country.
2
A person would have to be an idiot to assert that the next president must be a man, just as a person would be equally idiotic to assert that the next president shouldn’t be a man. How about we elect an intelligent, empathetic, ethical, politically savvy PERSON in 2020? Eh? Sound good?
3
Thank heavens for this op-ed. Otherwise I might have had the presumption to make up my own mind. fortunately I have the times here to check my privilege for me. Seriously, this essay is amazingly stupid. It's like the Democrats are trying to lose this election.
6
It's not about what gender occupies the White house. What matters most is what is in peoples hearts. I think that most people can accept that a woman can lead this nation. Hillary won a solid majority of the vote in '16 (just in the wrong places, tsk,tsk.)
Let's not elect a woman because of her genitalia. Let's elect a woman because she's the smartest, wisest, toughest and most compassionate leader on the stage.
2
In theory I couldn't agree more. But who besides Hillary Clinton has the experience and ready. I was hoping for maybe a Biden-Harris one term with Harris taking the second term as President. Or XXXX-Klobachar and the same. The best Dems are pretty weak with experience unfortunately. Not the Donald has any good expertise or experience in being successful at anything but a conman.
Agreed. But as Hillary Clinton discovered in 2016, we live in a misogynist country. Still.
1
@Alexi Unfortunately, she failed to discover that a lot of Americans dislike arrogant, condescending, intolerant, self-righteous snobs. Which is why she lost that election.
2
@Carl Yaffe
Yeah, I've heard that, but I didn't find her to be any of those things. And by the way, are you happy with what we have now? Don't answer that. I think I know.
2
A woman of color candidate will energize and excite the voters Democrats need. A woman yes, but a woman of color, more so.
Another thing that will energize and excite the Democratic party's crucial voting block will be impeachment. Failing to do what is necessary about our lawless president may just take the wind out of any momentum we got from the 2018 midterms.
1
The regressive left is laboring under this dangerous illusion that some people are fundamentally immune to corruption, stupidity or ignorance purely by virtue of their gender or skin color. All men and woman are corrupted by power.
I'd like to see Ms Warren go into a debate with Mr. Trump. While he will use childish nicknames and talk about his plans for 'beautiful' non-existent health care. ms. Warren will debunk all of his abhorrent policies, and provide excellent alternatives for them.
You do not want to debate with Trump about the values of the country. You want to explain to the voters how his policies have hurt all of them while he gives himself and his billionaire friends huge tax breaks.
1
You may be correct based on your experiences and observations. However, the will of the people who actually show up at the voting booths on Election Day will always prevail. Rightfully so.
The next president should be good-looking. And smart. And sexy. And have a great sense of humor. And be understanding. And stern at the right moments. And like long walks on the beach. And say all the right things. And be everything to everyone. At all times.
3
The idea that most voters are sitting around wondering which candidate would be the best "advocate for feminist energy" would be funny if it wasn't so scary. I guess we haven't learned our lesson that identity politics is a losing strategy on the national level.
4
One big reason to have a female president is because ... it is high time.
That might seem just a push for gender equality in America but it is high time an advanced nation/civilization had a female leader. A female would bring about feminine attributes and approach to every macro issue a president has to handle, from wars to economic policies. America could use a good dose of that.
So Mr. Manjoo is dropping his bias for men and urges us to, and is adopting a”bias” for women. It’s still a “bias”, pure and simple, for someone with xx chromosomes. He doesn’t explain what qualities make women better for the presidency. He says a male victory in 2020 would be “tragic” but uses the word like an 8 grader. Tragedy implies a great cataclysmic fall of some great person or some society, but he just means “awful”, or “horrible,” like an 8th grader. Why would a male be catastrophic? To make another parting shot, he misused the word “reticence” in the 2nd paragraph when he means “hesitation.” His column is full of swirling metaphors and generalizations that make vague connections between identity matters and presidential competence. Not good writing.
3
Warren, the long time Republican: Not a good starting place for “women’s” issues. Liz Warren needs to acknowledge publicly how anti-women Reagan was, and the apologize for voting for him twice.
Harris, late to the game, but sort of favors single payer medical, which is a massive women’s issue. Of course, Sanders was there long before Harris. Who has the dead albatross of her prosecution records in California.
That Amber Phillips of the Washington Post is delusional to imply that misogyny had anything to do with Hillary working to elect Trump in 2020. She was deeply unpopular because of her policy record, and she took her general election win for granted after having stolen the primary win.
Right, Biden needs to withdraw. But anyway he’s not likely to go far given his record. Sad false equivalence there Manjoo tried between Sanders and Biden. The Iraq war is a women’s issue.
Ironical in his tokenism pushing, and delusions about Hillary pushing, Manjoo ignores Tulsi Gabbard.
And the photo that accompanies this column speaks to clueless upper middle class entitlement. Good job. Those people pictured largely have decent medical insurance, paid leave, and college educational debt hasn’t ever been a big factor in their finances.
Submitted May 8th 6:36 PM Eastern
Do you realize you are driving away many voters with this identity-based nonsense? This is exactly why some flocked to Trump. I can't stand the man, and will vote for whichever Democrat runs. Male or female. And btw, Hilary won by millions of votes --- and she came after a Black man, who also won by many, many millions of votes, even though the media did not start demanding a Black president nearly two years before the election.
3
A woman won in 2016, yes.
And then the government was illegitimately taken over by a right-wing, neo-Fascist coup.
That illegitimate power — less legitimate in its origins, and less popular than the Madura government of Venezuela, btw — is still present, and it seems there’s little short of a serious revolution that will change that.
Every time the NYT headlines its front page with yet another story about Trump - burying the fact he is merely a representative of his whole, misogynist, misanthropic party, the GOP — it collaborates with male, neo-Fascist tyranny.
America is such a backward country, in so many ways: racist, sexist, economically divided, illiterate, ecologically blind....the list is endless. We’re competing for a race to the bottom, and winning!
I don’t expect much from this illegitimate police state for the rest of my life. It is up to women to destroy the plague we clearly cannot currently escape from.
Meanwhile we die of measles, and maybe soon polio, along with the whole host of medieval plagues making a comeback in the US.
And maybe that’s a good thing.
A column by NyT’s tech columnist reinforcing gender stereotypes. Not good!
3
"There is no good reason to put yet another man in the White House."
Unless one is legally elected, or the Constitution is changed.
Because all white men (all men) are the same? What a ridiculous article.
4
Thank you, Mr. Manjoo. It is that simple.
@usbees "Simple" is an excellent description of Farhad's idea.
This column makes it less likely a woman will be elected president. There are lots of reasons to criticize every Democratic contender at the moment, though far more to dislike the incumbent. Biden's too old, dim and insulated, Harris is too shallow and self-involved, Buttigieg is too inexperienced, and so on...
Women aren't exempt from faults, nor criticism of them, and any suggestion that their gender should somehow obviate this is a powerful reason to scrutinize female candidates more, not less, because there may be misguided voters like Mr. Manjoo who will push them into office the way Sheldon Alderson pushes Israel “unequivocally always without question and irreversibly.” We don't need that kind of right-or-wrong advocacy, and we don't need to be told to support a particular immutable feature in our candidates. Biology should not be destiny, despite Mr. Manjoo's exhortation that, when it comes to electing the US President, it ought.
The author's next column might as well be titled "The Next President Must Be Named Farhad Manjoo." Gee, where will we find a candidate meeting those requirements?
1
A bad woman, like a bad man, will make a bad president.
2
This is a silly article. Why did the NYT give this any space and who would buy his book? We need to elect the best person for the job regardless of gender, race, age, and the rest of it. And yes, they need to be able to beat Trump - we don't want to wake up 11/4/20 and say "we were right to nominate a woman who was purple, had 14 toes, spoke 15 languages even though we lost". Knock it off with the round firing squad and stop feeling all the feelings you snowflakes!! We have to elect a sane person as president.
2
Thank you. Yes. Yes. Yes.
The next president should not be someone you vote for just because they are a woman. Painfully naive and shortsighted.
3
Surely Mr. Manjoo’s heart is in the right place, but in the next election we have the opportunity to expiate a far larger number of our culture’s mortal sins. Electing merely a woman is a pathetic half-measure. We must elect not just a woman but a transgender Hispanic lesbian of color, preferably with a gay Native American Muslim as a running mate. Down with the entire white, male, heteronormative,
Eurocentric, anglophone power structure I say!
Now, no carping about qualifications – we mustn’t succumb to meritocratic elitism.
2
If columnists like Farhad Manjoo did not exist, billionaire conservative donors like the Koch Brothers would spend millions in a lab to invent them.
I'm a liberal and my first choice for the Democratic nominee is a woman, but do liberal columnists need to make it so easy for the GOP to paint the Left as addicted to nothing but identity politics?
I often enjoy Mr. Manjoo's perspective but please save the purposefully provocative, bordering on inane, click-bait columns for an election when our democracy and climate are not facing existential danger.
3
This is a good way to move white men out of the Democratic party. Ever week I read this column in the NYT.
2
I think it is time for an overdue reckoning of values at the NYT. I can't even image the editors allowing a opinion piece to be published called "The Next President Should Be Not Be a Woman" . Inclusivity includes men.
1
Articles like this are the reason why I am very concerned about the declining quality and the journalistic focus of the New York Times. The dilution of quality in the Op-Ed section has been happening for the past few years and in reader survey after survey, I have given feedback asking that the Times stick to its own very high standards of journalism and not descend into a tabloid rag. An author like this is probably more suited to a neighbourhood newsletter, not the darling paper of the country.
Lift your game.
4
The NYT is branching out, most of its articles along these lines are written by the usual corp of women. How misguided to imagine that we must vote for a woman instead of voting for who moves us and who we most want to see in the WH.
2
No one I talk to cares about this... and they're all democrat leaning. Meritocracy rules in my circles... I have to imagine it rules most liberal circles.
"It must be a woman..." is a media driven topic. Because this type of article gets clicks.
2
The next President of the United States should be Pete Buttigieg.
2
Trump 2020. Nikki Haley 2024.
"...pervasive and enduring misogyny.."? I could of sworn Hillary got three million more votes than Trump in 2016. But I guess on planet Manjoo reality is whatever he thinks it is.
1
The Next NY Times Article Should Not Be About the Preferred Gender/Racial Identity of the 2020 Democratic Nominee.
1
Totally ridiculous premise. I want the best candidate. I don't care the gender or color. That you do shows bigotry and stereotyping.
I would imagine you would say you are against racism and sexism, right? This column suggest otherwise.
1
“Electability” is an idiotic concept. While it may be naive, I am going to vote for the candidate who best represents my values.
Every time the NYT writes a lamely-reasoned identity politics infused column such as this, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump get a boost in the polls.
1
Muslim countries have had women as their leaders - Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.... America surely should not be far behind .... let’s hope.....
I agree.
I nominate my dog....a border collie, smarter than most people. She’s black AND white AND female...so she passes the ‘color and gender’ screening test. And if you want to get real about diversity, then it’s time to invite other species into the game. Stop being so anthropocentric for cryin’ our loud!
2
"The Next President Should Not Be a Man"
Really?
I am so very tired of self-styled pundits "shoulding" on us.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
Really? When did the NYT decide it was good to hire blatantly sexists columnists?
When I listen to Trump, I think we have lost our way. And then when I read the NYT, I know it.
We used to know right from wrong. Now all of sudden, we don't. It's not that hard.
2
How ridiculous, and kneejerk. Not all women are good, just as not all men are bad. By your mentality, maybe the next president should be neither male, nor white, nor straight?
2
The next person in the White House should be the most qualified person to be there. I don't care what the package is; the contents are what's important, and I will happily vote for the woman or man who embodies the best qualifications. I wish the media would treat the election similarly. In the interest of equality of the sexes, Mr. Manjoo sadly further divides us. The best strategy is to nominate and then elect the best candidate.
2
Mankind is headed for the exit and politics is the reason. There should not be any presidents at all. The human species should have everything all set up by now like every single other animal in the world. Population is out of control in the human species with half of offspring only having a female parent. The oceans and the air and the land is so polluted with no respite that life quality is deteriorating for all of the species, the animals and plant life as well. I vote no on either sex for presidents. It is time for scientists to figure out a permanent way for a workable population of mankind to have healthy births, good families, good schooling, tasks and work, sports and other play and other good options. It is time for mankind to establish a permanent way for everything.
Thank you for this insightful op-ed, I sincerely believe it would
help repair the current fractures in our social interactions between males and females if a woman were to be elected to lead this country in 2020.
Why not have a woman president, look at all of the other country's around the globe that have elected women in the past 50 years.
However, I have not seen any of the current women running
for president on the front covers of any of the current influential magazines nor have I read very much about the women candidates in the Washington Post, and the New York Times , its all MOSTLY about Biden, Bernie, Mayor Pete and, Beto to a great extinct in the past 6 months, why is that ?
Is it because the mainstream media is afraid to cover the women candidates or is it just that the media doesn't want to risk losing the fanatical readership of the Trump Game Shows, I bet they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Enough about identity politics. Women are not the only people with identities. And identity is not irrelevant to the qualifications of any candidate.
As Farhad Manjoo points out, women who are elected tend to emphasize different issues and to achieve different results than men. And women generally are in a position to speak to women's issues more effectively than men. Maybe that shouldn't be true in the abstract, but look at the field of the actual Democratic candidates and tell me which of them are going to make the most effective advocates for women in a contest against Donald Trump.
If the next president isn't a woman then it may well be more likely to be Donald Trump than any of the Democratic men.
3
It really has nothing to do with gender as much as it is about a person's value system. Both genders have individuals who only seek power which we know corrupts and extreme wealth which distorts the ability to make equitable decisions. Perhaps it is time to realize that man nor woman was never meant to govern. Lets be honest and say it's a sad state of affairs no matter which gender is in "POWER" they are always going to be corrupted and seek to justify their own interest. Take time to sit down with Jesus Christ and learn the true purpose of your life. Of course how more irrelevant could this suggestion be for one who seeks and craves the values of the secular world. Lets just keep playing the same game and joy- fully accept the perceived notions of the wisdom of mankind and continue to condemn each other while we are at it. This will be the worldly state of affairs all genders are doomed to experience until the parousia of Jesus Christ.
1
Considering that over 50% of white women voted for a certified groper over a woman, it's tough to assume that the gender of a candidate running against Trump would change those votes.
3
Exactly. Electable is a ridiculous and meaningless word. But I wonder if it’s also a proxy for something else. “It’s not me, it’s others” has always been a convenient way to hide our own prejudices. And mine? I hope not to have to vote for another old white man again.
As a woman, I find the headline alone absolutely ludicrous and sexist. Where have we gotten when expressing bias by gender is now acceptable as a New York
Times headline? Substitute any race, ethnicity, or religion in his headline. Would that be acceptable to the NYT?
Is the writer's assumption that women are more "competent" than men as leaders? There is no evidence for that and examples of both extremes can be found in the UK. Margaret Thatcher was a brilliant leader. Theresa May is downright incompetent and may be leading her country into meltdown. Point made, I hope.
People should be judged for office and positions of responsibility by their background, competence, judgment and values. I am surprised Mr. Manjoo made the cut.
5
I will admit I haven't read the article, but based on the headline, is the author (and all those supporting the headline) claiming that if the choice were between Nikki Haley and Beto O'Rourke for president, the choice must be Haley? I'm quite certain that 90% of those who agree with the sentiment of the article would never vote for Haley over O'Rourke.
3
The poster op-ed why Dems lose elections. So concerned about doing what they perceive to be the right, oh so liberal, thing but the rest of the public doesn't care.
Memo to my fellow - uh, can I say that? - Dems: Millions of women voted for Trump despite being a disgusting sexual predator.
Vote for whoever will most likely defeat Trump. End of selection criteria.
4
How foolish to thus limit the pool of good candidates. Not to mention that is ageist, racist and sexist to disqualify someone because he is an “old white guy.”
My favorite is Klobuchar, who happens to be a woman. She would not ignore the rust belt or insult working people, as happened in 2016 and gave us Trump. She works across the aisle. She would win back the rust belt, the center, and many working people to the Dems. She could beat Trump. I think she would govern wisely.
Those are the reasons to vote for her, not because she is female.
4
Interestingly, in Baltimore, WJZ announcer Mary Bubula was fired for mentioning that the last 3 mayors of Baltimore were black women:
“We’ve had three female, African-American mayors in a row,” Bubala said in setting up her question. “They were all passionate public servants. Two resigned, though. Is this a signal that a different kind of leadership is needed to move Baltimore City forward?”
http://www.unz.com/isteve/becky-fired-for-noticing-last-3-mayors-of-baltimore-were-black-women/
I presume, however, that Mr. Manjoo of course won't be fired for writing "The Next President Should Not Be a Man."
2
There is a 99.9% certain way for Democrats to insure that Donald Trump (or another equally repulsive Neanderthal in the unlikely event that he withdraws) will be re-elected/elected next year. That is to insist that the next president must (or must not)/should (or should not) be a(n) _____ [insert demographic descriptor of your choice]. That's simple, clear reality, folks. Ignore it at your peril.
3
And there's no good reason NOT to put a man in the White House. I want competence and vision. I don't what gender that person is.
2
Yeah, a woman will do everything great.
Before further advocating such strange sexist arguments you might get some confirmation from somewhere else.... Like... The United Kingdom.
Competence has no gender. Neither does incompetence.
4
"There is no good reason to put yet another man in the White House"?
Oh, yes there is. If that's what it takes to put the current occupant out on the streets (and hopefully in jail).
I voted for a woman last time. We're way past time for one to be president. But this country appears to be misogynistic. And I am unwilling to lose in 2020, so whatever it takes. Even if that means an old white man.
3
Let the best candidate win, man or woman, cat or dog, white or black, even yellow? bi or trans... what so ever, some people always try to find sth for fighting just because their lives are far more too easy...
2
This opinion piece is just another example of the Progressives' divorce from reality.
Identity politics and Feminism are at absolute odds with actual Equality, yet the Left fully embraces these new forms of Sexism and Racism.
We have laws against discrimination in hiring, and most would agree that not hiring a man on the sole basis he's black is wrong, and that firing an employee just because she's a woman is wrong as well. Not just morally wrong, but also strategically. A company needs the most competent employees to thrive, and you don't find the best candidates by limiting yourself to a restrictive pool of prospective hires. Mister Manjoo should know this, being a tech guy before he somehow became a specialist in presidential gender qualifiers.
Google, a staunchly "Progressive" company, has been publicly focused on boosting its minority and female workforce these past years, displaying Identity Politics activism on par with the worst on the Far Left. Yet, despite all its politically-correct posturing, it is also beholden to competitivity, and therefore the tiny minority of female hires still go to HR positions, and the vast majority of tech engineers are still overwhelmingly white and Asian males.
What this goes to show is that biology doesn't always accommodate Leftist dreams of diversity. And the author, by exhorting us to settle for a woman instead of the best regardless of gender, is also driving us towards the same politics, therefore outcome, we had in 2016.
3
@Chris I agree. As a lifelong Democrat I am I find that far-lefts embrace of fascism solely because it runs contrary to traditional forms of fascism abhorrent.
From this article we learn more about you Farhad than who should be or not be president. The truth is that you are incredibly incorrect. You only wrote this article to get noticed. Its unclear by who- but probably not some guy. Theoretically we select the person who is best suited for the job. Having said that we do understand that the identity politics is all the rage, at least in your progressive group. We don't want someone because they are male or female, black or white, straight or gay, Christian or Muslim. Its good lesson for you to learn and I wish you well on your education.
5
This is such a specious, of the moment argument. What we need is a good person—man or woman. And why so many believe that women are immune to greed, egotism, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance, lust for power or any other human attribute or emotion that may accompany the drive for political power is beyond me.
3
I know it's powerful symbolism to elect a woman, but insisting on it is a bad idea. Saying "we must elect a woman" sounds to many people like "we must NOT elect a man"--in other words, like a negative. If you like Warren, then don't vote for her because "we have to have a woman". Vote for her because she's the best candidate. And don't belittle someone who has the best agenda but lacks the right chromosomes.
4
The central premise of the Enlightenment is built on the idea of individual liberty/responsibility and that one is to be judged by their own actions. We don't believe in collective assignment of guilt! By simply saying no man is worthy of being the next president you're betraying these founding values of Western Civilization.
Do you completely lack self awareness? It may sound cool in Manhattan to espouse such values - but the voters in the swing states that will decide the next election don't agree.
The next president should be the most worthy person (man/woman)! It is tough for liberals that accept that Trump and his team better played the game better (i.e., the electoral college contest - unlike Hillary's campaign that wasted resources to win states like Arizona and Georgia).
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross (a woman) mostly aptly had come up with 5 stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance) - framework for dealing with trauma. I am sincerely rooting for Farhad and all liberals to get to the last stage - it's the only way they'll have a shot at being competitive with Donald Trump in 2020.
Lastly, this column is worthy of the Times to publish - clearly columnist seems to be a diversity hire, clearly lacking the in depth and intellectual gravitas of his peers such as Gail Collins, Tom Friedman, David Brooks or Bret Stephens.
Irrational & emotional posts are better suited to be published on Reddit or HuffPo (i.e., wanna be news sites)- not the NYT!
6
This article demonstrates why it is not worth 10 cents a year to subscribe to this newspaper. I could never pay to support these propaganda driven narratives being pushed out more and more by the Times. You'll publish 1000 of these identity charged articles before you'll entertain even half of a rebuttal. One of the most well known newspapers in the world shouldn't stoop to this level, and should be more fair and balanced when it "reports" on to these types of issues. This is patently absurd.
7
@Neil its just an opinion piece and you have the opportunity to comment. I don't agree with identity politics but I don't oppose the ability to use the media to speak about them. This is much better than CNN, where you get a piece crammed down your throat and you don't even get a chance to comment on it.
Farhad Manjoo is dead wrong. Gender is not "the" issue that we as a nation should focus on.
What's important is that the next president: Should NOT conspire with foreign governments at the expense of America; Should NOT praise dictators; Should NOT surround him/her self with corrupt a moral people. Should NOT tell 10,000 lies in the first two years of office: Should NOT be a racist and wink at Neo Nazis; Importantly, Should NOT put themselves above the law.
The next president of the United States needs to be committed to Democracy as a form of government; Should want all people to be treated with dignity. Should help to pass a group of "Trump laws" so that what has just happened to America these past two years, can NEVER happen again.
We must never forget that the one "GREAT" gift that Donald Trump has given the world, is show how a deeply evil person behaves as he inflicts his will on other people and the planet.
2
The problem I have with all of the women running for president is that they are are all Liberal Progressives (Quasi fascist),but I have the same problem with the Democrat men running for President. No Margret Thacher in this group.
1
Wow.
“There is no good reason to”.... make it easy for Trump in 2020....by publishing “yet another”....opinion piece fomenting deep and lasting resentments among Democrats.
1
New York Times, why would you publish this ugly, sexist bile? The beginning of this column makes perfect sense; of course we shouldn't dismiss candidates just because they're female. After that, Manjoo contradicts his own thesis by engaging in exactly the same kind of irrational bias against an entire gender. "A man, even your favorite man, would be a lesser advocate than many of the women for some of the most important social and political issues of the day. A male candidate’s very maleness would damage a central pillar of the best political arguments against Trump. And if he wins, his gender’s enduring blindness to issues involving women in society might stunt urgent and necessary political action."
This is outrageous stereotyping, and it's absolutely unacceptable. How can you seriously say that ALL men are no good when it comes to women's issues. Should we not have a Jewish president, because they won't understand Catholic or Muslim issues? People are individuals, and should never be judged by their gender, and frankly this kind of hatred needs to stop. The way to defeat sexism is not to promote more sexism in the other direction, it's to stand up for the principle of equal consideration of everyone. Isn't this obvoius? Manjoo asks: "can you give us one good reason for the next president to be yet another man?" Yes - if a man gets the most votes, because the people see him as the best candidate. There's a good reason.
3
16:23
"The picture of two old men "
The author has a problem with old people? That's pretty discriminatory.
"And common sense tells us that electing a woman as president would deal a smashing symbolic blow to the patriarchy."
Just like Obama's election delivered a smashing symbolic blow to racism! Oh wait -
"How can even the most enlightened male candidate rebut that plain fact?" Because it's wishful thinking and not a fact.
I think Warren is the best candidate, not because she's a woman, but because she seems to me the most competent of those whose ideas align with my own. Apparently, Mr. Manjoo is still back in high school, where who was class President didn't matter, so you could put in a doofus and no one cared.
Ideology and competence matter far more than symbolism.
2
Sorry, bro, the next President should be the best person for the job. Establishing these kind of woke criteria is a slippery slope. There's an argument for diversity, and there certainly should be real and genuine diversity, but it can't be the only criteria and shouldn't exclude other criteria. I work in academia, and in certain fields, it's nearly impossible to be hired as a white man. That shouldn't be the way it is. I doubt I will convince you, as you clearly think that your version of injustice is somehow just—or makes up for other injustices. But it doesn't. If you believe in equality, it has to be equality under the law, not equality sometimes.
3
Love love liz Warren. She has the right policy prescriptions for our times. She is here, present. We ought to listen to her. She is phenomenal. She will be a great leader, an intellectual who can connect with ordinary folks, their kitchen table issues.
1
Being female is not a qualifier for the Presidency or any other elected office, for that matter. Nor is being a man, being black, being Hispanic or being white. I voted for Barack Obama because I thought he was the candidate who could best deal with the economic crisis, not for any other reason.
I don't support Elizabeth Warren because I don't agree with her policies, such as erasing all student debt or, much as I would like a national care system, Medicare for all, or reparations. I don't support any of these positions.
I also think the next President faces a country that is divided into two angry camps and I want none of it. We need a candidate who can reach out and try to bring the country back together. I don't hear that from Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand. We also need someone with foreign policy expertise. So yes, I'm in Joe Biden's camp.
By the way, I'm also not supporting Beto O'Rourke - he disqualified himself on the teeth cleaning video alone.
3
Why is it that at the very point at which the American people broadly support fundamental structural change and several candidates, Sanders and Warren most notably, credibly promise to carry such changes through, the Times finds itself printing column after column "beseech[ing]" us to vote strictly on the basis of gender, as if presidential elections were not very much about the character, qualifications, and interests of the individuals running for president?
4
Everything is secondary to defeating Donald Trump. Biden has a number of upsides for the task, and someone like Kamala Harris as VP and heir apparent would counteract most of Joe's downsides. I would very much welcome a woman president, but if I have to wait another four years, I hope and pray that it not be under Trump.
1
Sorry Manjoo, we should not declare that any one type of person should be President. Yes we need to make sure that every type of person has equal chance to be President. Maybe someone will declare that the next candidate should be: black; gay; from the South, maybe a farmer or perhaps a trucker.
Becoming a President has always been rigged to some degree. Same with Congress. It has never been fair nor can we get it to be fair. Only try better to get qualified candidates. of any type.
49
Can we get the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized without a woman in the White House and more women in Congress? Probably not.
Can we secure Roe v. Wade in federal legislation against concerted efforts, today in Alabama and everyday elsewhere, to nullify it without a woman in the White House and in federal judgeships? I don't think so.
Can we recoup the loss of Title IX protections from the erosion of Trump & Co if we do not have female leadership in the executive? Not likely.
Can we achieve some sane control over gun violence without highly placed leadership by women, the primary anti-gun-violence advocates? Again, not likely.
Can we finally secure voting rights for all, and eliminate discrimination in salaries and wages without a woman in high office who knows the forces that keep inequality in place? No, face facts: that female strength of commitment and prioritization is necessary.
Can the #MeToo movement achieve its goals at the hands of an avuncular male? Won't happen.
Our many problems will not attract the attention, focus, and effort they need until we elect women who understand the problems from experience and are prepared to tackle the obstacles to resolving them.
2
Signal received. But let’s turn off the Millenial reasoning and try it old school and see what happens. Warren is a political klutz, Harris is inexperienced and her left coast bona fides won’t charm the midwest and Kloubachar is two-faced, the smiling staff-beater (but don’t say that, its sexist). The same game can be played with the guys, Biden is a dinosaur, Crazy Bernie, Pete only-a-mayor. Old school says sexism devalues women more for their shortcomings then men and it isn’t fair; reelecting DJT isn’t the remedy.
3
I want America to go in the direction indicated by Bernie and Liz. I can't help it that they are old and white, and that one has the audacity or bad luck to be male.
1
Electing a woman president will deal "a smashing symbolic blow to the patriarchy" in the same way that electing Obama dealt a smashing blow to racism in this country.
If the eventual democratic candidate articulates an inspiring vision of social and economic justice, gender will be beside the point.
1
It was this great feminine wisdom that got us Trumpy in the first place. A majority of white women voted for him over Secretary Clinton.
3
I am sorry, but this column is offensive. We should elect the best candidate, man or woman. It is absolutely true that there has been a history of prejudice in this country, but the answer is not to replace old prejudices with new ones, it is dp away with them and let every qualified individual be judge or his or her merits. Sex, race, sexual orientation all should be irrelevant. If someone wrote an article that the next president should be male, or white, we would be rightfully outraged. This column is just as outrageous.
9
I just want someone that’ll destroy not only Trump and Trumpism but destroy the Republican party for a generation the way FDR did. My money is Bernie can be that guy!
We need a qualified American to be President. Let's start there.
2
Nah.
Neither man, nor woman. I'm hoping for an AI breakthrough by for 202, that's how optimistic I'm NOT about the future. I've seen enough TERMINATOR movies about Skynet but we already have an Orwellian Big Brother coming to the fore in the White House ... things can't possibly get worse. Can they?
1
It's insightful to note that while this article seems to be inspired by anti-Bidenentum, it's really not about not electing a male, the list was Biden, Beto, Buttigieg, Bernie. That isn't a list of the males in the Democratic field, it's a list of the white males. And the reason for "woke" people that Biden tops the list of people to stop isn't because he's the front runner, it's because he's old but the "woke" people can't say that because they will offend the "woke" Bernie voters, because Bernie is older.
Dress it up any way you want to, this and all the other similar articles being pushed by the New York Times are examples of prejudice, and in some cases prejudice to the point of bigotry.
We're expected to believe suddenly that women's innate biology is superior to men's for the leadership we need right now. Only a pebble's throw away from the right-wing argument that women are biologically unsuited for leadership, or that Mayor Pete could be rehabilitated by the church to heterosexuality.
As the society might or might not be moving to a "majority-minority" society, something that is in itself not inevitable for 2045, but dependent on a lot of variables related to immigration and socialization, white people move to one group among many. People in such a world who believe that singling out one group among many for exclusion, like Mr. Manjoo apparently does, are race, age, and gender bigots and tribalists. Apparently such beliefs are considered "woke".
The reason for electing a woman president and adding more women to all corridors of power is simply because we need them!
We need their wisdom, perspective and morality very badly now for the good of the country. Maybe its very survival.
I’m a man, but clearly the patriarchy has run its course. Just as a family is usually stronger, more nurturing and more successful with both male and female influences (no disrespect to same sex parents), so too will our government prosper with greater female influence.
If you doubt this, look at the dysfunctional dead end our government has come to, run by men. Then look at women, who are constantly solving problems in most of their waking hours. They know how to get things done fairly and efficiently all the time.
Ladies, you have the majority of voters to take any election you want. So get all your sisters together and take control of this presidential election as you would take the checkbook from husbands who buy expensive toys while the household bills go unpaid. It just needs to be done.
And the motivation and rallying call should be easy against a sociopathic misogynist dolt who has insulted women more than any president in history.
Go get it! It’s your for the taking. And forget asking for it.
2
Yet another sexist article claiming that basing our vote on gender is okay as long as that vote is for a woman. Part of the reason given for this is that "a man ... would be a lesser advocate than many of the women for some of the most important social and political issues of the day." In other words, so that women's issues take priority.
I don't know how much of the #MeToo Koolaid someone has to consume to beileve that women are in such desperate straights, so victimized and so oppressed in this day in age, that their particular concerns should eclipse the truly critical issues we are facing as Americans and as humans, but Mr. Manjoo has clearly been imbibing regularly.
Climate change. The ever-increasing gap beween the rich and the rest of us. The point of no return we're facing in terms of loss of privacy. Our mind-boggling refusal to provide affordable health care for all of our citizens. And most critically of all, our escalating inability to look past our exterior differences and instead pursue the common good.
Right now Joe Biden is far and away my first choice. I like Bernie's policies better, but the last thing we need is to bring more divisiveness and anger to the White House. I'm open to switching my support to a woman, if one emerges that is more qualified and more unifying than Joe, but by definition that means it would have to be a woman who runs as an American first, not who sees herself as more entitled because she's a woman.
2
I'll vote for any Democrat who promises to put an end to open border immigration and stop recognizing "asylum seekers" .. There are too many coming over gaming the broken immigration system. First they were "illegal alien", then "undocumented immigrant worker" now everyone is an "asylum seeker" What the next liberal label?
"Human being seeking a better life?"
Heck, that could be anyone including myself!
Identity politics, the bane of the Democratic party.
5
@Keith it really is. Its why we can't have nice things.
Complete and utter nonsense. The next president should be the most qualified person no matter what they are.
Stop with the identity politics.
Pick the right person for the job no matter whether they are purple or transgender.
I am female and would love to see a woman president. I voted for HRC several times. But none of these women are right for the role for this election season. Most of the men are not either. Most are seriously flawed. We don't have a pool of good enough candidates to wash out men...or anyone else.
3
Liberals are constantly telling us that gender is a 'social-construct', so how about a person born a man but who self identifies as a woman?
1
A woman is probably the most likely to strip us of our civil liberties for "the good of all." I might vote for a she if she's a republican, because she would be more likely to still respect men. Not only that, it's completely sexist to think gender or sex (tho there's no real difference) should be THE main, let alone A main, deciding factor for choosing the most competent person for the job.
At this point I think even the NYTimes doesn't care what the articles actually say, I think they just choose controversial headlines for opinion pieces to get the clicks, which is the antithesis to real journalisming and opinioning. But keep up the good work riling up both bases!
3
Hillary Clinton is a women. The following is a paraphrase of her comments after Gadhafi was overthrown” We came, we saw, He died”. With women like her who needs men.
Pelosi’s daughter boasted that her mother could “cut your head off and you won’t even know your bleeding”. Again, with women like her…
Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Not the most earnest and sincere of that fair gender.
It’s not the gender, it’s the politics.
Look what happened last time. The overt sexism, the humiliation, the character assassination, the whispering campaign. All conducted by a master with the basest people as advisors. It worked. And you think it won't work again. You're nuts.
I thought we weren't supposed to consider sex, ethnicity, etc in judging qualifications for a job. Now liberals are telling us we *must*. That's hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt.
Here's what's at stake: trxmp 2020, Pence 2024, Pence 2028, SC 9-0. But you have it your way. You just have to ask yourself one question: do I feel lucky.
1
Interesting. This week, A WJZ television reporter (CBS Baltimore) was fired for asking an analogous question relative to the black female mayors that have been disasters in Baltimore. “We’ve had three female, African-American mayors in a row,” Bubala said in setting up her question. “They were all passionate public servants. Two resigned, though. Is this a signal that a different kind of leadership is needed to move Baltimore City forward?” So why does the author get a free pass in publishing this article? Double journalistic standards? No? Yeah, and there's no gambling going on in Rick's Place.
2
The Democratic Party must reject 'identity politics' and select the best candidate who can beat Trump and the republicans.
3
Got to love the misandry and virtue signaling here! Keep it up.
2
More contemptibly divisive Identity Politics....
Additional Op-ed suggestions:
The Next President Should Not Be White
The Next President Should Not Have Brown Eyes
The Next President Should Not Have Grey Hair
The Next President Should Not Be Straight
The Next President Should Not Be Catholic
Now, can we get back to the issues, please?
3
Might as well say democracy is over with articles like this. Identity politics and democracy do not mix. You can only have one of those. Clear which one this author wants.
3
how about.. . the best candidate
how about Hillary was not a fit candidate
how about Hillary trust factor was zero.
"And common sense tells us that electing a woman as president would deal a smashing symbolic blow to the patriarchy." Yes it does. But that is not the purpose of my vote.
The vote is for the best, competent candidate.
3
Same old false trap. Hillary lost. Not a woman. She was on every magazine cover. The first woman President will win if she connects with most of the electorate and is the best choice to lead the Country. So. It may not be from the party that treats all women as a monolithic voting block.
The next prez should be the best candidate—no matter what gender!
2
I'd vote for an AI to run government.
None of those pesky human problems.
What garbage! May the person best qualified to lead this country win. Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel won elections without all this hysteria (great word) surrounding them. Elizabeth Warren, thank god, will have very little to do with this sentiment. Like Thatcher and Merkel, she is running on her ability and her accomplishments, not what's between her legs.
2
This piece is nauseating. To say that any man would be a lesser advocate for the most important issues of the day just because he is male is divisive and myopic. The next president should be the person who is best qualified for the job, regardless of gender or race. I suspect many American voters are starting to grow weary of the gender bias that writers like Farhad Manjoo proselytize. Most people find bias in any form repulsive, and it would be unfortunate if people start dismissing all female candidates as nothing more than feminists who are on an anti-male crusade. This writer should understand that he may be doing more harm than good.
1
Yes, please let’s elect a woman president in 2020.
Maybe even an all women Senate and House.
Very tired of these old white men.
1
I shudder to think of all the people who made technology purchases based on this man's recommendations. His political columns have been so poorly thought out that one has to wonder if his technology opinions were based on equally shallow, and even inane, thought processes.
1
At this point, the only requirement I have for the next President is that he/she not be a Republican, and certainly not Trump.
Finally! Thank you! Excellent column.
2
The author of "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society" has provided a True Blue recipe for beating the Trumpster. Manjoo is very persuasive that a woman nominee will intrinsically have a higher probability of winning--and that's a fact!
1
Love your argument. Wondering though why the piece isn’t titled “why the next President should be a woman” - isn’t the whole point to reframe our thinking toward women and away from the past?
1
I'd love to see a woman president. I do think women are superior to men (and I am a man saying this), but to say we should pick a woman president over a male president, just by virtue of gender is foolhardy. What if we had great male candidate and a mediocre female candidate? Should we pick the female over the male, because she is a female? Let's just select the best candidate for the job, regardless of gender. If it's a female, I would prefer that, but not if she is an inferior candidate to the best man. Gender politics has been bad for women. Let's not make the same mistake in reverse.
5
Give us an American version of Margaret Thatcher and 90% of Republican would run to the voting booths and vote for her. It would be interesting to speculate on how Democrats would vote if this hypothetical candidate pledged to nominate a conservative justice to the Supreme Court.
There is no gender, race, ethnicity or other demographic characteristic that should be the role criteria judged for selecting the leader of any country.
The problem is that narrow criterion may have been used in the past. But, the solution is to take a broad approach to demographic characteristics (being open to considering all) rather than to take an overly narrow one (such as saying a demographic characteristic is a key qualifier).
3
The average man is so easily distracted by sexual urges, and so easily provoked by threats to their masculinity, I've long wondered why young or even middle aged men are default assumed to be the most stable leaders, at least from a biological perspective... One glance at a young girl in a tight sweater, or casual perceived threat to their ego, and they are predisposed to take stupid risks or let lust, arrogance and bravado compromise themselves completely. We've seen it again and again...It's disturbing to imagine how much of the course of human history has been dictated or inspired by erections and insecure expressions of hegemony...
As a biologist, I say put a postmenopausal female in office. They're tough, wizened, no longer seen as merely a sex object to most (perhaps sadly, but true), and while not asexual, are far less likely to succumb to, or be influenced by, hormonally clouded decision making.
310
@ab "a postmenopausal female" !!! If that isn't sexist, what is? Is this the old canard about women being too emotional when they have their periods? And you were doing so well, ab!
125
@ab
How wonderful it would be if the "paper of record" would urge its opinion writers to write serious articles about policy, comparisons of what our tax dollars buy us versus those of other wealthy nations, and in- depth looks across the field to help voters discern real strengths and weaknesses of what the candidates have to offer. Instead, there seems to be a strong push to write pass- the- popcorn pieces such as this.
126
@ab
Thanks for your point of view. America was ready for a woman in 2016, but Trump and his cronies (how many in jail? indicted?) Russia, and other power seekers without principle corrupted the process.
We had a great man in President Obama, but he was stymied at every turn by the likes of Mitch McConnell and others who hated a future that benefitted other than white men.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most outstanding women in America in brains, education, commitment to the common good. But our miserable media allowed her to be slandered, even during a debate. Disgusting.
The electoral college must change. Utah's vote of equal importance to California's? We've played around too long thinking we're getting "freedom." We're losing freedoms every day of the Trump administration. Look at the unqualified people who now run the FTC, the EPA, SOC SEC, on and on.
Time to wake up and think.
66
I have a problem with most of the democrat candidates. If the person running is black, no matter the gender, I don’t want to hear about reparations, racial inequality and voter suppression. If it’s a woman, no matter the color, I don’t want to hear more about “the me too movement, “ harassment in the workplace, and pro-abortion stances. All democrats attest to being progressive. I’m a moderate independent and these people with their ultra progressive ideas running for president are scaring me to death! Is there a 23rd candidate out there....anywhere?
2
You think prochoice is ultra progressive?! I don't think you are a Democrat now or ever were one.
1
Yes. This! A hundred times yes!!
I would gladly vote for a women regardless of race as long as she was a Republican and adhered to first principals and constitutional republicanism,free markets and capitalism. I doubt the NYT would support such a candidate. All this gender equality nonsense as it applies to presidential politics would be quietly discarded.
2
What if diversity thinking is not a strength at all, but just endless abusive nattering at the expense of competence?
1
Americans are truly obsessed with identity politics. It is either race or gender, or ... filling in the blank.
How about let the best candidate win? Whether a man or a woman should not even be a consideration!
Queen Isabel was the best monarch Spain ever had. She was not chosen because of her gender, but because she was the legitimate heir to the throne.
Margaret Tatcher was one of the best prime Minister the UK ever had, and not elected because of her gender.
America needs to finally stop obsessing over gender issues. The whole thing is getting old.
3
The author is right. We've had 45 men as Presidents and where has it gotten us? Time to try a woman. And let's not stop there. We've have 44 white Presidents, so let's try something else. We tried one black President too and we're still in a mess, so maybe something else. So... no men... no whites and no blacks. No more christians obviously, and no jews because that would alienate muslims, so of course no muslims because vice versa. This is great. How about a disabled President? Well we did have one and most of us loved him, but you know who we loved even more... his wife. So the next President should have a disabled spouse. That should cover it, A non-white, non-black female (or non-binary) atheist with a disabled spouse. What could go wrong?
Articles like this are why I go to The Onion when I want insightful political commentary.
1
I don't care if the next president is a frog. This column is a serious problem for those of us who hope to remove the demagogue who is destroying the earth and civilization. Are you saying you can't see that?
1
So yet another man telling me, a woman, what feminism is. So how about listening to my definition? Feminism means women are human beings and have to be judged by the same criteria as men - no more and no less. This means that I won’t vote for a candidate only because she has the same genitalia as myself. I will vote for the candidate whose platform I support and whose ideology I share. I voted for Hillary based on these two criteria. Her being a woman was a bonus but not the decisive factor. In the current slate of Democratic presidential hopefuls there is not a single woman whose agenda I support. Warren is too far left; Klobuchar is too parochial; and Harris tries to be all things to all people. Not that the men are any better. Electability is not a factor in my political thinking at all because electability is a function of the agenda, not the other way round. The Democrats should start worrying about their narrative more and about skin color and gender less.
1
The Republican slime machine slimed Hillary for a couple of decades, so her negatives were high. Current female Democratic candidates (with the possible exception of Warren) have not been in Washington long enough to have a history of serious sliming, so they will not suffer its full effects but just a short, intense flood.
So we now disqualify people bc their sex and the color of their skin. How terribly retro.I supported Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama, but the new “woke” movement is beyond idiotic, smug and self serving, and could benefit from traveling to other parts of the country as a learning curve. To call fellow Americans misogynists, to make up for the fact that mrs Clinton ran a poor campaign in states like Wisconsin, is just a lack of in depth thought that is currently expected of the far left.
I don’t care if the candidate is male/female, green, white, black or blue. I want the best person to beat Mr. Trump, who will be able to navigate the economy and challenges that may arise, how they go to the bathroom is beside the point.
Whereas the writer has sex/racial preferences I really don’t give a hoot, I feel most Americans whom I met while campaigning for mr Obama don’t as well.
1
Pure garbage. I don't care about the gender of the next president. If you look at a candidate through the gender lens (or any lens), you're going to miss critical factors. You'll tend to view female candidates more positively, males less positively are you going to get the best candidate? Unlikely.
So far, none of the dem candidates are impressive. Bernie is a socialist and that is a losing bet. And he's too old. Biden-- too old and a little addled. Beto -- he's pandering to whatever issue he thinks might get him elected. The mayor from Indiana --- not enough experience IMO. But the women aren't impressive either on the dem side. Warren -- she's got a lot of explaining to do re her ethnic appropriation. It would be one thing if she said, there's a rumor in my family that we have a Native American in the tree -- quite another to id yourself as NA in an official way. Harris -- if she quit trying to pander to the left she might be the best candidate so far. The rest are sort of -- who's that. Isn't that guy spartacus or something.
Plus the dems have got egg all over their face re Trump-Russia -- and there may be more than just egg if Barr investigates. And when the leading spoke people for your party are wackos like AOC, it's difficult to present yourself as rational.
The way the dems handled the Kavanaugh hearing isn't forgotten either.
Finally -- try to impeach Trump -- that will backfire.
1
Nominate Tulsi Gabbard and you will actually pull a lot of GOP and hard right voters. The rest of that crowd are career politicians and opportunists. I would vote for her.
-From a Conservative White Male
I agree a little.
When I decide who to vote for I make that decision based on a criteria that are associated with women more then men.
So if everything else is the same and they are qualified a woman will probably get my vote.
However this doesn't happen very often.
I also value experience as I believe a person who has very little experience can not be qualified
For what ever reason there are few woman who have that experience and are therefore I believe are not qualified.
Most men aren't qualified so there are times I don't vote.
I voted for HRC because I believe she proved she was qualified
I liked Obama as a intellect but did not vote for him as he was in no way qualified.
I didn't vote that year.
I couldn't vote for Reagan because he was a idiot but Carter who was smart didn't qualify based on the term of office he had so I didn't vote.
I did vote for Bill Clinton in the general election but not in the Primaries I voted for Paul Tsongas .
I probably will not vote in 2020 because I believe non of the candidates are qualified unless Trump who is super unqualified runs and I can vote against him.
The next president should not be a man? This current one is not a man. Barely human at all.
3
Farhad, you end by asking: "In 100 years, what will stand as the more appropriate response to the upheaval of the Trump years and of #MeToo — electing the first woman or electing a very woke man?"
With your kind of diversion from our BIG issue -- our suicidal destruction of conditions for human life on Earth -- in 100 years there will be very few of us to answer. And they will say "Farhad, wrong question."
2
Any regular op-ed writer for the Times ought to be able to check facts. A majority of American voters did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. She received 48.2% of the vote.
Why don't we specify race, height and religion as well?
What a truly sad state of affairs that this is even a serious topic of conversation.
2
This article was brought to you by the Coalition to Re-elect President Trump.
2
What absurd nonsense. There is one "qualified woman" (Tulsi Gabbard) and maybe two qualified men (Biden and Booker). The views or policies or whatever of all, with the possible exception of these three, are not only patently ridiculous but hopelessly dangerous. And this is what you write about -- that it is woman versus man? There is no doubt whatsoever that the most qualified person is a woman -- Gabbard -- but for whatever reasons, she too has adopted views of the lunatic "progressives".
Awful. Not necessary. Exclude half the population, I understand you’re trying to make a point but just stop. You’re alienating good people with this nonsense.
3
The next president should not be a man only if the men are inferior candidates based on merits other than their gender.
Just a warning from a Turkish person who has been living under the same populist leader for 17 years now- identity politics will tear you apart.
2
Women in other developed nations are party leaders. Here only Speaker Pelosi has led. Tthe problem is rooted in the GOP and democrat boys Clubs. Change must start there.
You could replace male vs. female with pretty much any other identifier and have the same basic article — heterosexual vs queer, able vs. disabled, cisgender vs. transgender, etc etc etc.... This is a lazy idea at best and discriminatory at worst. We’re essentially facing the rise of neofascism on the right, with many lives and the planet at stake. We nominate whoever’s polling highest in Iowa and Florida, no matter what they look like. Am I missing something?
The current POTUS is not a man in any meaningful sense of the word.
The reaction i saw to Nancy Pelosi in business confirms the assertions
Men are frightened of strong women
Just what the county needs after this stint as the nation with the dumbest elected ‘ leader’
A smart woman
Adopting Manjoo’s logic, one could say that America should not elect another white person after the white supremacist current occupant of the White House. Not electing another white person would deal a blow to white supremacy.
So: out with whites and makes, This would reduce the field to Kamela Harris and Tulsi Gabbard.
Of course, a problem remains: Both Harris and Gabbard are heterosexual.
So, actually, a LGBTQ nonwhite woman needs to be recruited. Once she is, Gabbard, Harris and all the other candidates should drop out in order to strike a blow against misogyny, racism and homophobia.
But, wait, we still haven’t considered what the ideal candidate’s religion should be. So, back to the drawing board. Meanwhile, Trump waltzes back into the White House, Mitch McConnell hangs on to Senate, and more hard right judges are placed on the federal bench. ... So, actually, let’s just pick someone who would be a great president.
1
What a ridiculous bunch of circular reasoning. Manjoo's argument is essentially that, "it’s the women who can make the more sensible political and substantive case that someone of their gender must occupy the White House."
But he never goes on to say what that political or substantive case. In fact the reality is that of the female candidates only Warren has even made an effort to lay out the case for why she should be president and what she would do if elected.
This article also ignores a lot of other glaring flaws in the idea that a woman would be an inherently superior candidate. First, Clinton fared poorly among white women. So it's not a given that a female candidate would lead to a landslide of votes from women.
Second, most of the women in this race with the exception of longshots like Klobuchar are clustered solidly within the progressive wing of the party. Unfortunately for them, that means they have to explain how they support Me Too while simultaneously wanting to release the men who abuse, assault, and kill women because they want to "end Mass Incarceration." It means they must explain how they can stand with the likes of Ilhan Omar and defend a religion that routinely suppresses women's rights.
Then there's the fact that Healthcare, the Economy, and Immigration were the actual top issues in the 2018 election and it's fair to say none of those issues is going away. In short, chose the candidate with the best policies with no genitalia requirements.
1
The next president should not be a man?
Let me join the 3,587,604 other commenters here in saying: wrong priority.
The next president should not be Donald Trump.
Honestly, with commentary like this, I get why people voted for Trump. If 2020 turns into a referendum on liberal identity politics, Democrats will—and should—lose.
2
“The Next President Should Not Be A Woman”
Any journalist writing that would soon be working at McDonald’s.
2
The next president should be Not Donald Trump. At this point I don’t care if it’s a dog.
Clearly Mr. Manjoo is 100% correct. Unfortunately his opinion is likewise 100% invalid because he is a man and moreover one who is taking space as an op-ed columnist that should rightly go to a woman. He is therefore a misogynist and especially prone to subconscious, unresolved misogyny. Then again, I'm a man, so my observations are invalidated and meritless. I withdraw everything I just said. Which is a shame because I fancy myself as enlightened. I even had a Best Woman at my wedding, which my bride objected to because it obliged her to find a Man of Honor, and as we all know there are none.
2
Clearly Mr. Manjoo is 100% correct. Unfortunately his opinion is likewise 100% invalid because he is a man and moreover one who is taking space as an op-ed columnist that should rightly go to a woman. He is therefore a misogynist and especially prone to subconscious, unresolved misogyny. Then again, I'm a man, so my observations are invalidated and meritless. I withdraw everything I just said. Which is a shame because I fancy myself as enlightened. I even had a Best Woman at my wedding, which my bride objected to because it obliged her to find a Man of Honor, and as we all know there are none.
The Current President is not a Man.
Have you noticed the general tenor of these responses?
"The Next President Should Not Be a Man."
What do you mean "next?" The current president isn't.
How about a mixed-race, transgender, pro-BDS, open-border socialist....cover all the bases.
It’s this kind of nonsense (along with all the other nonsense) that will have me voting the other side come 2020. Sick and tired of the sanctimonious, so-called ‘progressive’ obsession with race, gender, and identity.
1
Blatantly misandrous article, as are many, if not most, of the comments. Surprise! I support Elizabeth Warren because she is the most qualified candidate. That should be the ONLY criterion. Unless, of course, you are as ignorant and prejudiced as the vast majority of Trump supporters and, for that matter, all Republicans.
2
While Manjoo’s argument may have appeal, if “implicit bias” is to have resonance, we need to recognize it in all its forms. TV news anchor Mary Bubala was fired for her on-air question regarding the controversy surrounding Mayor Pugh of Baltimore. Bubala stated that “We’ve had three female, African-American mayors in a row,” and then asked “They were all passionate public servants. Two resigned, though. Is this a signal that a different kind of leadership is needed to move Baltimore City forward?” Viewers criticized her for the underling racial (and gender) prejudice that was inherent in the question.
If we are to hold one another accountable for recognizing and moderating stereotyping which impact our understandings or utterance in ways that consciously or unconsciously negatively affect others, then we need to do so consistently. Castigating all men or arguing for their exclusion from consideration for the highest office in the land because they would be “poor allies” for those committed to feminism, or that two old guys (Sanders and Biden) cannot adequately discuss women’s issues from the standpoint of a presidential candidate (can a Catholic candidate adequately consider issues of abortion; a female candidate adequately consider issues of child custody for single fathers?), however well intentioned the argument, invokes the same kind of deleterious reasoning that our society is trying so hard to amend.
2
I would suggest that historically , women in positions of power have acted no differently that men have . A recent example is Margaret Thatcher who seemed to be a Reagen protegee .
1
Perhaps Ronnie was Maggie’s protege. Since Ms Thatcher was the Leader of her Conservative Party from 1975-1990 AND she was elected UK Prime Minister in 1979 BEFORE Mr. Reagan was elected in Nov 1980.
1
The best explanation I’ve heard yet for voting for a man. Thank you sir.
1
Manjoo's piece matches the whimsical silliness of his earlier essay on behalf of open borders (January 17, 2019).
Manjoo is not particularly nimble. Has it occurred to him to apply the same standards to himself as he does to those alleged dotards, Biden and Sanders: "Indeed, when I think of, say, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders taking on Trump on women’s issues, I cringe. The picture of two old men shouting over each other about all they’ve done for women would be a devastating indictment of their advocacy of women’s rights in America."
By his own lights, Manjoo, as a man, should not be pontificating on women-centered issues.
That Joe and Bernie engage women's issues is a sign of progress, otherwise you are only preaching to the converted.
Many nations have had or currently have female leaders. They do not belabor this topic to the tedious degree that pundits do in America.
1
yes a woman can and probably should be elected.
But women can be as bad as man and vice versa. So I believe that the political message should be elected rather than the person. it is time for politics to go back to ideas and intelligence, rather than men or women.
1
I could not disagree more with this article’s headline. The two most important criteria IMO to support a presidential candidate are policy history and emotional/psychological maturity.
Now President Trump had had no experience in public office prior to his candidacy, but an imminently available history of extreme immaturity.
We ignored that history then. It would a mistake to not look at current candidates based on their history of policy choices and behaviors. Shame on us if we don’t.
Men and women are equally susceptible to immaturity and bizarre behaviors. Perhaps the current female president of the NRA best makes my point.
2
This column makes many important points, but gender is not the most important issue of this election - by a long shot. We need to elect the person who can best do the job. We need to get rid of Trump while we still have a semblence of the country we have known.
The crop of announced female candidates like Kamala Harris are light-weight people of little personal accomplishments or promise for the future.
Hilary Clinton was a serious candidate and the public never doubted that she could be elected president. She simply lost to a superior candidate and that had nothing to do with being a woman.
No. 3 in the presidential succession chain should throw her hat in the ring. She will be a very credible candidate and could challenge Mr. Trump seriously.
2
Yes. I am supporting the women running with my small contributions. I want them on the ticket.
1
Women already control the government because most voters are female. It doesn't matter that most legislators are men. If they want to keep their jobs, legislators must pander to women. The result is countless offices, bureaus, policies, and laws for the benefit of women. Men are already second-class citizens. This will only get worse when more women are elected because we've already seen that female legislators pander to women even more than male legislators have.
Having said this, I would still vote for most any woman or man or basset hound over the current resident in the White House.
2
But I feel in this moment and article we are talking about Democrats here. What can and what will they do ?
1
I marvel at identity politics. It guarantees Dems will lose.
3
The frontier for science, medicine and education in 2020, will be protecting the most private place on Earth from religious intervention. Roe vs Wade concerns everyone but women have the wombs that male legislators are eyeballing today.
It's long past time for a woman president, so what's holding us back? It's women. American women didn't fully support Clinton, one of the most experienced and qualified people to ever run for the office. Yes, she had some "baggage", but none of it came close to her successful, male competitor's truckload of lies, history of failure, and bluster. An unbelievable contender.
If a woman wins this next election, be ready for a Joe Wilson to stand up and scream, "You lie!" during every speech. I doubt whether the Republicans would ever consider allowing one of their women to run. And the Republican women would be just fine with that. Why have no female senators ever run? I appreciate this column, but I fear we are still living in the old German dictum of "kirche, kinder, und kuche". Women will stay in the background, ceding power to men until they learn to unite.
The best person should be elected President no matter their sex, sexuality, race, religion or ethnicity.
Dems aiming for a candidate that fits their identity politics narrative are dooming their party.
Nonsense.
The current notion that we must not nominate or elect a white male , particularly an “old” white male, is ageist, racist and sexist. It is exactly what we are supposed to be AGAINST, just as we are against the notion of disqualifying someone who is a woman, or person of color, or a lesbian.
It is also foolish to thus narrow our group of possible choices.
I voted for Obama. I voted for Clinton. Let’s hear them all out and find the best possible choice. To me, right now, that would be Klobuchar. She reaches across the aisle. She’s a pragmatic progressive. She does not vilify the opposition. She would not ignore the rust belt or insult working people. She would win back the center, where there are the most votes up for grabs. She happens to be a woman.
But if we nominate a white guy (the devil incarnate to some), I won’t sulk. I won’t stay home. I won’t vote third party. I won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee.
2
Or maybe we could vote for politicians based on their actual qualifications, instead of whatever gender/race/other group they happened to be born as? Identity politics is a divisive plague on the Democratic party.
1
But, this is an absurd argument. There are interesting and qualified women and men in the increasing Democratic pool. There's much to be learned about them over the next year and a half, and, hopefully, the excruciatingly long and intense process of campaigning and debating will winnow the field down to the best candidate. However, to make such an stupid and arrogant blank statement as the author of this piece puts and even heavier undo burden on the process. What I hope to see in the White House in January 2021 is a human being, something we clearly do not have in that storied edifice at the moment.
1
Should, shouldn't....on some glorious day bias, the herd instinct and litmus tests will rule. A day not too far off...maybe even now.
The next President should be whomever we elect, period.
Our entire government is filled with wealthy, old, white men and look where that has gotten us. It is hard to imagine that almost any woman could do worse than they have.
I say that we try a new approach and find the polar opposite to Trump. The people who reject a candidate because of their gender or sexual orientation are out of reach for progressives anyway so why bother trying to placate them?
While I don't think he's quite veered into Swiftian "Modest Proposal" mode, the more I read of Manjoo, the more he seems to be a pot-stirrer, a salt-spiller, a writer who enjoys poking and prodding his audience with opinions he may hold but lightly.
This line — "... it would be tragic for the United States to elect a man to the presidency in 2020 ..." — is a good illustration of his hyperbole. Surely Manjoo himself does not believe that.
I have voted for women for high office, for gay people, for people of races other than my own. But voting for such people solely because of those identities is a ridiculous notion that plays right into the hands of those on the other side who will make much of such identitarianism.
1
Yes, there is still some sexism in society, and of course the president is horrible, but this article is so dark the author must be confusing the USA with Saudi Arabia or Brunei. And the premise that we must choose based on gender is profoundly sexist itself, mirroring the very sexism it claims to condemn. This piece is a very sad portrait of the incoherence and cruel divisiveness of identity politics.
1
Prejudice and bigotry is exemplified by judging individuals based on their identity group. The following are too frequently heard Democratic statements
1. "The next President should be a woman"
2. "No white man for President"
3. Is Kamala Harris "black enough"?
4. Catholic federal judge appointees should be rejected
Touting "inclusiveness and diversity" while discriminating based on identity groups is hypocritical.
3
I will vote for the candidate I perceive to be most qualified (which automatically excludes the incumbent), regardless of gender or any other demographic trait. However, I do wonder if Dems will suffer from reduced enthusiasm from the women who have strongly supported them, if none of the well-qualified women currently running win the nomination. Women are increasingly a driving force for the Party, and Dems would be well served to have a woman as their standard-bearer.
1
As president you need the bast person to do fit the role - irrespective of any agenda or issues around race, gender, age strata etc.
This is what elections are for: Put a diverse field of candidates out there, then people can chose.
1
If this is the logic that prevails in the Democratic Party, count me out. The core problem with identity politics of the kind Mr. Manjoo espouses is that it excludes people who could be political allies, but are made to feel unwelcome because they happen to be white, or male, or old, or Christian. Yes a non-traditional, diverse candidate may bring new perspective. It is easier, for example, for a woman to understand challenges women face in society. But it’s not impossible for a man to understand either. And there are too many other important issues unrelated to identity to let an identity issue like gender be the sole deciding factor for who should be President. I want to vote for a candidate who I believe has the right skills, abilities, and policy proposals. That might be a woman. But it also might not. I should, as a voter, be free to make that choice and give ALL candidates equal consideration. Disqualifying candidates because of their gender is not only sexist and discriminatory, it’s just plain wrong. And that’s what Mr. Manjoo is proposing.
5
"Indeed, when I think of, say, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders taking on Trump on women’s issues, I cringe."
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who understands that making the economy more equal will make women more equal and make African-Americans more equal. Tens of millions of millenials understand that as well. That's why Sanders is still the most popular politician in America.
4
We have a wealth of good candidates to hear from. Let's listen to their platforms and decide which PERSON meets our standards as President for the future. Let's NOT listen to media writers filling our heads with other criteria. We are smart enough to make good decisions based on the candidates' own words. We don't have to second guess our choices.
6
The men get all the press. In 2016 Trump got all the press because he was such an anomaly. The men are still getting all the press calculating why they're getting all the press.
In spite of media ratings in 2016, Clinton won millions more popular votes in the primary and the general, so she didn't lose - she won - it's just that the structure of the Electoral College put Trump in the oval. Did he do that "fair and square"? Of course not. Russia coordinated it, and the press made it easy for them. It's fair to say the men cheated.
Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin in spite of Russia's relentless and successful efforts to help Trump and Sanders turn the Electoral College against Clinton.
James Comey torpedoed Clinton shortly before the election. Sanders perpetuated hatred for Clinton long after it was time for him to throw his support to her. I'll never forgive either of them for what they did.
It's true misogyny is alive and well, but if writers and the press in general would stop saying, "the people didn't want Clinton" when we clearly did, women might stand a better chance.
Want to know how to stop writing about the men in the race? Start writing about the women in the race.
1
If an American Maggie Thatcher appeared on the scene, Republicans would vote for a woman in a heartbeat. It's policy, not gender, that motivates voters.
6
I do not mean to shock or offend, but is there an argument to be made for nominating and electing the best person for the job?
7
That headline and column does not get published or read because it is straight and narrow. It does not scratch the visceral gender wars topic.
I am so over the idea of "electability" as a way to justify bias and discount highly qualified candidates. It's also worth reminding anyone writing off women as viable options that, since 1950, Democrats have run eight (!) losing male candidates for president and only one losing woman.
1
If Democrats don’t put up an electable candidate, it may be nine men and one woman or eight men and two women in Nov 2020. So, pick your bitter strategy, none are sugar-coated. Politic to win or go home crying. How about if candidates only campaigned anonymously with written platforms and no images ? Would we countenance that ? Sort of like a job application without names or photos.
1
This column contradicts itself. First, it says we live in such an all-consuming patriarchy that people think women can't be elected. Then he says that women are especially electable because women are the dominant voting bloc and women's issues are the dominant issues. If the latter is true, then we in fact don't live in an all-consuming patriarchy. If, on the other hand, we really do live in an all-consuming patriarchy, then the notion that women aren't electable would be accurate. Either way, the statement that we can and should elect a woman because we live in an all-consuming patriarchy makes no logical sense.
The logical flaw here is indicative of a broader logical flaw in left-wing identity politics: groups that need special treatment on the basis of oppression usually don't have the power to get it, because of the oppression. Groups with the power to get special treatment usually don't need it. Same with PC speech protections. The only groups that can get those passed are locally powerful (e.g. women and people of color on campuses) and thus not in need.
3
I read the first two lines..............hod wash. Give me candidates male or female to support. Elizabeth Warren is simply a toxic person in her approaches to issues that she is toxic. Kamala, Kristin are all super lightweights. Sanders is too extreme and Biden is Obama all over again - old school POL. Booker is a lightweight.
I want a candidate that I feel is qualified. I don't peek under the covers to see what their gender is first and nor do I vote on that basis - it's a discriminatory practice. If there is a qualified black candidate but a voter choose a white candidate instead for skin color, same thing - old school discrimination. Candidates are people not a description, vote for an unbiased, knowledgeable individual running for personal gain.
2
I'm a woman and I DISAGREE with the sentiments expressed here.
I'd love to see a woman in power. If she is the best PERSON to be president.
Yes, yes, I know - there are plenty of male incompetents who have been elected as POTUS and the current incumbent is one of them. But a flip from incompetent male to a more competent but not the best person to be POTUS just because that person is a female, isn't going to fly for me.
4
People throughout the South and Midwest have hated Hillary for decades. I had no problem with her but she wasn't likable and many felt she was entitled. All the women running today are likeable without the baggage.
Democrats are always talking about equality, discrimination, etc. But you discriminating against men. Sex should not be on this discussion, the one that is most qualified should be the winner...in a perfect world. However, in elections, whoever gets the most electoral votes, wins, that's it!!
2
Farhad - Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she is a women, She lost because she was a flawed candidate.
If not for that and the electoral college she would have won.
2
Lesson learned from 2016, don’t vote for someone just because they are anything of what you are. Vote for a candidate who holds your beliefs, who can stand up to Trump and is electable
4
1) Historically, females have been disqualified from the presidency because of their gender
2) This historic inequity is bad
3) In the interest of atonement, we should only elect women presidents until...
The glass ceiling is broken?
Misogyny is dead?
Misogyny and unconscious biases are dead?
The party that champions this kind of logic dissolves?
If Trump wasn't president, this kind of rhetoric could push a lot of people away in 2020. Even with Trump as president, it can't be helping what will probably be a closer race than we think.
The Constitution in principle and by specific mandate protects everyone from racial or color discrimination.
As such, I suggest that the writer is more interested in identity/racial/Democrat politics than electing the most qualified person to lead the country.
2
Appalling, but not surprising, as this kind of sexism (or in other contexts, racism or other invidious discriminatory impulses) is where identity politics leads. It is a total betrayal of the commitment to equal rights and fundamental fairness for all individuals.
5
If men are so bad for women, why is it that men gave women the right to vote voluntarily. Why did they enact laws prohibiting employment and pay discrimination. Why did they pass the gender specific violence against women act? White men also passed the civil rights act to protect minorities.
For men to get the vote, they were required to serve and die in combat if drafted. Not so for women who don’t seem to see this inequality as something worth correcting.
Perhaps the men did these things because it was the right thing to do - a sign that they are not completely governed by their hormones as argued by Mr. Manjoo.
1
Republican men passed the Civil Rights Act.
No stereotyping here......c'mon. The best candidate wins. Period. What's is this gender bias garbage? My hope for our democratic women is that they get as much coverage as the men so we can decide who will best promote unity, decency.....and a great economy, needed services, and restoring trust among our allies.
Debates will begin ferreting out who we choose. But, please, give me a break about the whole man thing. Men have done great things for our country. Don't forget that. Women have, too. Don't forget that!
Let the chips fall so the cream can rise to the top and stop all this divisive nonsense.
2
It takes real courage to jump on a bandwagon that everyone else is already on, doesn't it?
3
Let's be clear: The only reasons a woman is not in the Oval Office right now are 1) 70,000 votes and 2) Democratic hubris. Because Mrs. Clinton and her team believed they had the 2016 election all sewn up, they found themselves victims of reverse Sun Tzu: they lost the electoral vote before the votes were even counted because they mistakenly took the Blue Wall for granted.
With all this said, I'd like to delve a bit deeper into the real elephant in the room: It's not that the next president shouldn't be a man. More exactly, America's next president shouldn't be a white man. Specifically, a white Republican.
The GOP in general, and Trump specifically, suffer from the same problem: they are convinced the White House is exclusively the white man's domain. It's like Manifest Destiny twisted. They can go where they want, do what they want, anytime they want without being held accountable for their actions. That's really the crux of it: Republicans resent being held accountable for their actions while simultaneously expecting all other Americans to be accountable for theirs. Such hypocrisy is the hallmark of GOP America.
BTW, President Obama's election made things worse for the GOP. Obama's greatest sin wasn't that he wielded the same power as his white predecessors. What drives the GOP the most insane is that now American democracy has been democratized for all Americans. Democracy for all is anti-Republican. That's why no GOP white man should ever become POTUS again.
Following the election of Donald Trump, a terrible person who has been a predictably bad president, the Democrats had a clear strategy for regaining the white house: present themselves as the rational, reasonable, sound-thinking alternative.
Instead, the unhinged elements of the left have gone mainstream, and are becoming prominent in the party. No, I will not vote for a candidate just because she is a woman. No, I will not eliminate men from consideration. I will choose the candidate who makes the best appeal on the basis of the issues.
Why can't the political parties simply give us a good candidate?
2
Yes, we should elect a woman because she is a woman...no other reason. A sort of gender restitution. Brilliant.
5
Perhaps the US Constitution should be amended to add the requirement that the President must be female at the time of the election?
4
I am a woman and I am appalled by this article. Needless to say, I am not opposed to a woman candidate. I am also not swayed by idiotic criteria like "electability" and "likability."
The problem with this argument is that it traffics in a veiled gender bias - albeit in the service of a pro-woman stance. If women are equal to men, and deserve equal treatment, why should they get a preference simply for being of that gender?
I want a candidate who has the best ideas and who can govern best. If that is a male, so be it.
On the other hand, maybe Mr. Manjoo should be replaced by a woman! A woman journalist would be more careful about making the kind of disingenuous argument that he has made.
9
Here we go again! Why should the identifier be sex, race, nationality etc? I’m for the BEST individual to govern in a unifying way.
2
Great article for Trump supporters to scoff and share on Facebook to embolden their friends to never consider a Democratic candidate and marginalize the NY Time to boot.
2
America will one day have a woman president.
After Trump’s second term, maybe Nikki Haley.
3
My emotional heart agrees with the author. My sense of fairness and justice does too. We men have made a mess of things for too long.
But the basic idea of selecting the next candidate for President based on gender is ridiculous. There is only one consideration worthy of discussion. What Democratic candidate will have the most support among the broadest range of voters. Who has the best chance of winning!!!!!!! ?????
And then there is the idea of qualifications.
I will support Harris, Warren or Klobuchar with enthusiasm if one of them becomes the nominee.
But the best team - ready to do the job on day one - would be Biden and Buttigieg (or Buttigieg and Biden!)
I’m a woman who voted for Hillary Clinton, and I’d welcome a female president.
But this piece is over the top. Manjoo appropriately condemns reflexive bias against women. Unfortunately, his call for a female president “no matter what” is equally reflexive.
Democrats should nominate the candidate who performs most strongly in the primaries.
2
A pundit once said, "we don't choose our leaders, they choose themselves." Who said that? Kinda makes this column superfluous.
And here the "left" has its own clown show. I'll vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of race, gender, or shoe size. I can't wait for identity politics to go away.
3
Good luck with that. White women will disagree and vote trump in 2020, like they always have done. I ain’t gonna care about this until women stop voting republican.
1
What patriarchy are you talking about? Elect who is most fit to become president. Leave gender out of this.
2
Read Frank Bruni's column for a possible answer as to why the female presidential candidates are doing so poorly. Using Kamala Harris as an example Bruni points out that she hasn't appeared on the covers of influential magazines such as Time and Vanity Fair. The mainstream media simply refuses to grant women equal time. Institutional sexism is still firmly entrenched in our culture.
127
@sharon5101
Was Hillary not given equal time in 2016? Was Margaret Thatcher not given media time in the 1980’s? Is Nancy Pelosi not given equal media time in 2019? Has Oprah not been bandied about in the media as a good candidate for the past thirty years? All powerful women; all plenty of magazine covers.
Does sexism exist? Of course. But, the fact that Kamala Harris isn’t being discussed has way more to do with polls right now than gender.
9
@Cass.
I don't know about that (your final conclusion). I don't think that Pete Buttigieg had much in the way of poll numbers before he was profiled (numerous times) by the press. That raised his visibility and his poll numbers, but I think the coverage came first. I've seen nothing similar (interviews, write ups, etc) for Kamala Harris.
And in terms of coverage of Hillary Clinton, I'm not sure that the gazillion pieces about the dang emails was a positive.
9
@sharon5101 -- Those magazines come out every week, so give it time. We need substance, ideas, hope, strength. We could care less about a pretty picture on a magazine at the grocery store (mainly looked at by women). Kamala Harris is so much more than a pretty face.
3
I hope that I have the opportunity to vote for a woman for president, but I would like to point out that not all male candidates are the same this year: We have a gay candidate, too.
Gay men aren't women, of course, but considering our years of mistreatment and oppression--I grew up in a state where homosexuality was a crime, and is still grounds for firing and the occasional hate crime--I'd hate to think that I'd gone through all that suffering just to come out "just another man" (or "just another white man" in the case of Pete Buttegieg) only a couple years after having been allowed to marry, serve openly in the military, and have a relationship without fear of criminal penalty.
We need the best candidate who can first win, then do the best job of correcting the problems in this country, much but not all due to the GOP.
Those are the only 2 main qualifications that should matter for the most critical election since Lincoln.
As a woman, I don't care if than means a man or a woman.
Identity politics is distracting the Dems and alienating many possible voters.
We can't do any justice to those issues if we are not in office.
I actually support the premise of this article, and at this moment, my vote would go to Sen. Warren (depending in part on her VP choice). But the title of the article is offensive. To vote for or against a candidate simply because of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender is simply wrong in my view. Vote for what the person stands and for her/his policy positions.
1
Thank you for this piece. I have been dismayed by hearing “progressive” voters rejecting female candidates based on the perceived electability factor. I encountered this in 2018 when the best qualified candidate for my NY Congressional seat was a woman. A man would appeal more to the voters in a historically red district, so the argument went. Yet Americans elected a record number of women in that election. For the 2020 Presidential election my top two candidates so far are women, based on their qualifications and leadership qualities. And I do think that this country is better when our elected officials are more reflective of our diverse population. We would do well to begin electing more people whose gender reflects at least half the population. The imbalance has certainly furthered the notion of white male privilege which is so much a part of our social fabric many fail to see it.
4
I can never forget Bernie Sanders’ characterization of women’s reproductive rights as “social issues.” For someone who fashions himself as a champion of healthcare and economic equality, he has a shockingly ignorant view of the economic and medical impact of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
4
All the commenters kvetching about identity politics and not picking a candidate based on gender have a point but miss the point: people actually believe a woman can’t/shouldn’t be president. This belief is at work in the world we inhabit. Mr. Bouie means to counteract it, prevent it from working its sneaky little way into people’s choices. Biden or Warren? Warren! Sanders or Harris? Harris! Etc. No reverse prejudice about it. Pick the best person. Don’t accept the idea that it can’t be a woman. As it is, people will let the notion that a woman can’t win guide their ‘thinking.’ Put any of the excellent women in the race up against Trump’s phony persona and warped version of masculinity and see what happens. Everyone saw what they did to Hillary (who clearly couldn’t believe what was happening). Think it will work again?
First it is way too early in this process to say that a Woman will not end up the Democratic nominee. Second, as noble a pursuit as "smashing a symbolic blow to the patriarchy" is, it isn't the most important thing to do come 2020. The most important thing is putting up the candidate most likely to succeed! If that's Biden, fine. Harris, fine. Etc, etc. In my opinion Warren is a non-starter. She is far to polarizing and despite what many far-left Dems think, to win this election will need elements of the center. That means putting forward policy ideas and using rhetoric that embraces compromise, while still achieving the overall goal of progress. Warren's scorched earth tactics and persona (which she has intentionally cultivated) will not play in a national election. Harris is a big of an enigma at this point. She seems too nervous to define her candidacy in terms other than identity and gender. Both are powerful, but what people really crave is a point of view, which is something she is lacking to date. Honestly, I will support a woman for President if she is the right person, not because she is a woman.
3
From the article:
A male candidate’s very maleness would damage a central pillar of the best political arguments against Trump. And if he wins, his gender’s enduring blindness to issues involving women in society might stunt urgent and necessary political action.
This is close to a textbook definition of sexism. Try this: A female applicants very femininity makes her less qualified for a job in engineering.
I don't believe either.
4
I agree.
Now, the bigger question is how to get Trump to leave power.
1
The U.S. is just so going down the road of a massive P.C. route. It is interesting to note that the U.S. was at the forefront of civil liberties, feminism in the 1960's or early 70's. So what happened thereafter, U.S. women were simply happy to revert back to traditional stereotype roles i.e. get an education, marry, have children? In the meantime, in certain European countries, they have overtaken the U.S. and women have for the most part achieved equality at the workplace, in politics, in life genarally etc. But to go down this silly route of categorization of people into different segments as the U.S. has now embarked on is just naive and derogatory towards the many educated males who value women as equal partners in society. The U.S. elected Obama and he turned out to be a weak, indecisive President on many important fronts. And now as this article states, the U.S. should elect a women as President on the merits of her being intelligent, accomplished or solely due to the fact that it is now a women's "turn" to hold high office...
1
While I think the field of the Democratic Candidates is very strong I do believe that it is time to elect a woman. Not for all of the reasons that are in this article. But Hilary's vote count is proof that the country is ready for a woman President. This seems to get hidden in any discussion as to whether the country is ready for a woman President.
Furthermore, policy issues are what is going to be the driving force in this election, not just who can Dump Trump. And by the way I think a woman can definitely Dump Trump.
Look at Nancy Pelosi for example. She has managed to show up Trump not by getting in the gutter with him, but by being smarter and braver than he is. She would have made a great candidate as well, except she is more valuable in the Speaker of the House seat.
May the best woman win. She can always pick a male VP if balance on the ticket is a necessary.
4
"and it would be tragic for the United States to elect a man to the presidency in 2020"
Honestly, it's conjectures like this that will lead to a second term for Trump. I'm sure Warren or Harris would make fine presidents. The same can be said for men on the Democratic primary trail. But this base thinking is damaging and flawed.
3
Yeah, but the sad truth is that a woman cannot win the White House at this time. It will be hard enough for a man to beat trump. Hillary couldn't win against trump and he was the one she wanted to run against.
The sign says it all. The FUTURE is female. The future is not now. And sadly the future will NOT be 2020.
We need to get the person that currently occupies the White House out. Identity politics is NOT the issue in this contest.
1
" After everything we’ve just learned about how gender bias has systematically decimated female leadership in America, can you give us one good reason for the next president to be yet another man?"
Because the overrriding criterion should be "who can defeat Donald Trump."
That isn't to say that only a man can do so, but that there is no other factor more important. Even accepting for the sake of argument that a woman is a better advocate for social issues (a conclusion I don't believe), that doesn't matter if she does not become president.
Considering how wrong the 2016 polls were, I don't know how we can determine electability with great certainty, but I'd prefer any Democratic candidate who can win over one I more wholeheartedly agree with.
2
There is no basis upon which to assume that Americans won't give a woman a shot simply because she is a woman. The overwhelming majority of men who declare they want to be president are also dismissed by most Americans, correctly, as not having a shot. People would have said the same about the overwhelming majority of blacks who ran for president. That was until Obama announced and Americans saw that he was presidential material. And the same is true of the current crop of women who believe they should be president. People look at them and according to polls not one of them has even 10% that feel they are suitable to be president and this includes women. The fact is that Hillary actually won the popular vote, and but for the technicalities of the electoral college would have been president. This proves that Americans will elect a woman if they feel she is fit to lead this nation.
The art of the possible. Anybodies guess. It seems to me that if it comes down to a choice between strong and compassionate, Trump will serve 8 years. There is a built in problem here: any candidate's promises will attract some and repel others. You need a candidate whose strength lies in our better nature: our tendency to want to play fair and enjoy doing so. Someone who can convince enough of the electorate that this country can be governed with a more convincing show of decency.
1
This line of thinking is tailor made to help Trump win in 2020. It is political suicide. It is yet another of many indicators on how identify politics, alienation and creating division will lead to the Democrats failing yet again. Clinton could have won had she only reached out, with the barest amount of effort, to white male working class voters. Only a few thousand of them and this nightmare would have never happened. These people have much more in common with oppressed minorities than established power brokers. In addition, is there some issue with collective memory here? We had an African American President for 8 years and then a woman candidate for 2016. The Democratic Party has a good enough track record here. I am not a white male and I am not wasting one second on pre-determining the race and/or gender of my preferred candidate. Can we ever focus on issues? Keep it up Dems and we will lose it all - our political establishments, our life savings (if we have any), our standing in the world, our free press, our healthcare, our social security, and oh yea, the climate.
2
I certainly never expected a minority to be elected president in my lifetime. Barrack Obama's election in 2008 was more shocking than Hillary Clinton's would have been that year. Let's find the best candidate/campaigner and running mate; no reason either or both can't be a woman and/or minority. The country took a step back in 2016. Easy to see us taking two steps forward in 2020!
3
@Andy Miller - There's also no reason either/both shouldn't be white and/or male. We took a step back in 2016 not because a white man was elected but because that white man was Trump. I agree, let's pick the best candidate and running mate. We just need to make sure that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot by picking people just because they happen to be female or a minority.
1
The premise that the most essential aspect of the president is that she be a woman is simply misguided. It suggests that the most fundamental trait is gender. And there is ample evidence that women can be every bit as flawed, egotistical, and power hungry as men. The country needs a virtuous, effective president with sound policy proposals, and who can begin to close the divides in this Country. The identity optics may appeal to a demographic. Yet they are way down the list in terms of what we need today.
7
I like this article, but the argument has flaws.
Essentially, the best replacement for a Trump presidency would be one led by a woman. Historically, Americans also tend to choose the opposite of the last president. Obama replaced Bush, Trump replaced Obama. A woman with a pulse could outclass our president, should be “electable”, and the female candidates clearly outshine him, while the men have more to prove.
The problem is, we don’t necessarily vote in our ideal leader. Hillary Clinton was not ideal, for one, she was a hawk, but she was far better than who we got. For a minority, Bernie was best, but he wasn’t even on the final ballot.
I read this article as an argument for a happy ending. Americans chose xenophobia, misogyny, racism, cruelty, corruption, dishonesty, plutocracy, and Russia in 2016. Let’s hope we reverse that course. Let’s redeem ourselves. Let’s pick the candidate that clearly denies that vision of America.
It’s an idealist position with reasonable prospects, but it’s oriented toward the best outcome, not the game our system presents. Hillary Clinton did receive millions more votes, but Trump’s challenger in 2020 needs to win them in the most strategic states.
It’s hard to know which candidate can win those voters. So it’s important to keep an open mind. Vote your preference in the primary, where it can best count. Then vote for whoever Dems pick overall in the general. Have faith that the candidate, man or woman, will be better than Trump.
5
If only you spoke for the boys and the girls, many of whom are not persuaded that a woman can win. I agree that it’s sad, and I wish it weren’t so and personally think Elizabeth Warren would be one of the most capable Presidents this country ever had; but she is struggling, I am sad to report, and you need a story to compel the attention of the American public to the points made in your piece. Politicians understand that the prevailing narrative prevails in any era. Offer these women a compelling narrative to ride to victory. Ask Donny Deutsch to explain a successful campaign for a brand.
3
This idea is good, it's just too terribly divisive and unpopular to line up against the lock-step GOP that thinks it is fighting the final battle.
Great! So let's implement it and not run on it in the general election. Oh, if it were only that easy . . .
We need to harness the forces of populism during the primary with concrete promises to the working class - ideas which are quite far to the left. If we try to run on identity again, we're toast.
1
I am sharing this column with the women and men who have already told me a woman candidate won't win if the Democrats run her against Trump. I agree with Mr. Manjoo that a woman is an excellent antidote to Trump and his ilk, with the reminder that the woman candidate (despite her severe flaws) garnered more votes in 2016 than the severely flawed man.
And I just made a second contribution to Elizabeth Warren's campaign today.
17
Elizabeth Warren is currently my favorite candidate, but this is identity politics at its worst! I can't even begin to understand this thought process, the primary defining characteristic I should consider when voting is gender? Not the person's ideas, ability to lead, or their character??? Really? He and I will both be voting for a woman, but for very different reasons. We cannot sink to identity politics.
24
It's not Democrats who are the problem; most white women voted for Trump. You can't support equality for women if women don't want it.
7
@Joe
Stop telling women whom to vote for! Trump has delivered a strong economy and jobs. Economic security and prosperity is very important to women. Your notion of what women want is clearly distorted by your identity lenses.
3
@Joe
You will get bad government when you vote on a single issue, 2016 was more proof.
Wow, I am humbled and inspired. As a person who very much wants to see a transformational change in our politics. I too am strongly in favor of female candidates, especially Elizabeth Warren. But have succumbed to the idea that we should get behind the most "electable" candidate in order to defeat Donald Trump. This column has reminded me of the obligation to not lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator in order to accommodate the low bar that our country has sunk to as a result of the election of Trump. Thank you, Farhad Manjoo.
3
As long as the president on January 20th 2021 is not Donald Trump, I'll be happy.
4
Equal rights is a worthy goal. How about this. By the end of this administration, men will have led the US for 244 years. To be equal, women should lead for the next 244 years and then we can go for that 50:50 split. That would be equal and fair.
6
The next President has to be the one who beats Trump. If that has to be a white man, someone who Middle America will actually vote for, then so be it. All the SJW hand-wringing we read from this author doesn't change that basic requirement.
3
sorry - I wont vote for a woman! The women candidates running cannot be trusted.
4
Tell me why Elizabeth Warren can’t be trusted, and which man you think can be.
1
The point is to stop discriminating period, your article definitely doesn't help.
18
@Rilke
The idea that we don't look at a person's skin color, gender, etc., is now a quaint one. Yes, many of us were taught to filter out these characteristics and in doing so filter out any biases we might hold. Judge only on the merits.
Today it is just the opposite. The filters used are filled with identity, and with each one an entire story has been created. So they just don't see the identity but that story. My guess is that they never even get to the person's individual characteristics, so laden are they with these identity burdens.
2
@AACNY: I always find Trump supporters' version of identity politics interesting. What else do you have to say on the subject of race? Please enlighten us.
Stop preaching identity politics. I wonder why this was even published. I want a female President- but not because of her gender. She must be qualified to serve us and better than others.
Some of the so-called progressives are preaching for it which is a nonsense. What is next? A hispanic or Jewish or African American or Russian American President? Our nation was built on merit. Despite many prejudices, we prospered. We should not destroy our values because of the propaganda created by certain special interest groups.
21
It was not a lack of “merit” that has kept women out of the Presidency for 244 years! Letting go of the myth of American meritocracy is an important step in awakening to reality.
1
I wonder why the Times chose to run this story, but I'm not surprised that it was written - it's the perfect summation of the current gender/identity politics nonsense that has oozed out of the humanities departments at universities to infect society at large. I'm surprised the author didn't apologise that his very existence as a man oppresses women. Dig a little deeper and I bet you'd discover that's just how he feels.
The embers of democracy will grow colder when the Democratic party again nominates their embedded power structure backed candidate against the Republican backed Trump candidacy. Drain your swamp you equally loathsome Democratic party. Only then will you provide the nation the realistic chance to begin to be able to rebuild the fire from the embers that remain of democracy.
3
As woman, I say that gender blindness, not reverse prejudice is the ideal. It shouldn't matter if the candidate is male or female. Ideas and experience count, and only ideas and experience should count--not gender, not age.
Bernie is the unscripted idea man with high moral standards who has his heart in leveling the playing field for college education, and who believes that healthcare is a human right. Bernie has the brains and mouth to combat Trump in the debates. It is Bernie who had the genius to introduce the concept of "Medicare for All". Tulsi for VP. She's a bit inexperienced but she's solid and has high moral standards, and an important-- first hand-- perception about the terrible costs of the use of the US military in regime change wars. Tulsi holds her own and speaks from the heart like Bernie does.
The US healthcare system is a profit driven disaster. Obamacare is not a good solution because it keeps the profits of the insurance companies in the costs of US health care. The statistics show just how lousy the outcomes of the pricey US health care system are. The US healthcare system is an absurdly profit driven system, which is ripping people off--often of their life savings. It is the number one reason why Americans--even insured Americans,go bankrupt.
The best reason to live in Italy is the Italian healthcare system. It is rare for the total cost to be more than the US co-payments would be. I would rate the quality as equal and at times superior.
7
Aargh. Identity politics. Yes, I will be excited to see the first woman President, and the Obama inauguration was a heartwarming day. That being said, Biden and Sanders are both terrific candidates and I would vote for either one over Trump at this point.
9
If you're going for identity politics in 2020, might as well call the Donald today and concede the election because the outcome is guaranteed. This country doesn't vote for a woman or a minority race and ignore the issues. Even the Donald knows he has to run on an issue with a firm stand. It feels like this is a thinly veiled opinion piece for Harris, who I do not trust at all due to not taking a firm stand on many issues. I feel like she is very high risk of being a friend of Wall Street (nobody would outright admit in a debate). For me, being a friend of Wall Street is an automatic disqualification and her flimsy stand on controversial issues is ringing alarm bells, so I'm done with Harris and choosing Bernie or Andrew Yang despite gender or race.
9
@FrankM
I want my elected representatives to not knowingly violate basic human and US Constitutional rights. The California supreme court found Harris when she did just that at least 4 times in the DA's office. She is not qualified, not even close.
1
@FrankM
The left may be in for a rude awakening. This election could very well be a reckoning on identity politics. Biden's early appeal could be the first sign that democratic voters have had enough of both identity politics and its coercive tactics, which seek to destroy anyone who violates its self-selected rules.
2
Your argument about Senator Harris is standard fare from the male left. At least have some original thinking.
Lots of negative comments on this oped, but I agree that many of the outstanding women running for president in 2020 are being overshadowed by the men.
Why are these women being called “unelectable?”
What on earth do Beto and Pete have that allows them to fly past many of the excellent and qualified women in the polls?
It was frustrating to see with Hillary and it is frustrating to see again with female candidates in 2020.
It’s the patriarchy that allows us to feel comfortable dismissing a woman (and BTW it’s not limited to politics).
Unfortunately, changing cultural norms is a slow (generational) process. I hope we get there sooner rather than later.
11
I support Lori Lightfoot. Just look at those credentials - she is a black gay woman with, no doubt, Native American heritage. I am sure she doesn’t have any “Me Too” issues. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to elect the first black, gay, female, Native American president?
2
Manjoo's column is an embarrassment to basic norms of modern American political life. We teach young children that it is wrong to root for or against somebody based on surface biological characteristics such as race and gender. He spends so much energy on emoting that he never pauses to think that his thesis statement boils down to "In American society sometimes voting decisions should be made simply on the basis of the sex of the candidate." This is shameful.
27
Thank you so much for getting it!
5
Even the electoral college is against having a woman, right?
3
I don’t want to see another old white man elected president in 2020. It is time for change. Women represent change and the future. A woman president would not be a man wearing a skirt (or a pantsuit). It is time for a new view, for a world where women are heard and respected and not dismissed as unelectable or unfit for office. Let’s vote against misogyny.
7
I am female and this writer is wrong.
In any place in the world where a female leader has been elected, they have NEVER been elected because they were a woman.
It will happen, when it happens.
Campaigning for a female leader for the sake of having a female leader is silly.
That said, yes, female leaders can be great.
21
I usually like Farhad Manjoo's columns whose sincerity I never doubt. I just think that identity politics should be denounced - at least by Democrats - as another insidious and divisive approach to the improvement of minorities' lot. It is part of the more general creeping political dysfunction. I would welcome Mr. Manjoo and others to revisiti this issue is other columns. Be brave, not just woke.
7
Advocating against a male president for a woman president based only on gender is essentially sexism. Post-modern relativism run amok.
11
We need somebody who can win and that person is Joe Biden.
3
Sure. Why not? The current one isn’t.
I will never vote for a woman just because we must vote for a woman---because men are...bad. I will never vote for a non-white person because I'm instructed that White people are bad. Likewise and for the same reasons, I will never support a young candidate over an old, a gay over a straight, a liberal over a conservative.
But I will tell you this: If such identity politics continues to be the raison d'etre of the Democratic party, you can be sure I will never vote Democrat.
13
@David Bartlett - I don’t understand all the fuss about the Democrats and identify politics. After all, our Republican president was “elected “ on the basis of white supremacy identity politics. What does that red had say - “Make America White Again?”
3
@Nicholas Hotton what kind of logic is that? If bad guys can do it, good guys should resort to being bad guys? Come on.
@Nicholas Hotton
So you don't see why those of us who object to the identity politics of the right wing would object to identity politics else where? Really?
Per Ayanna Pressley, those closest to the pain should be closest to the power. Men have caused so much of the pain; it’s time they surrender some of the power.
3
So shortsighted. Do you remember Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meier? They all had their wars. And how about Queen Victoria and her many wars and Catherine the Great? Cleopatra anyone? Wonderful rulers, right? Those are but a few examples how female rule does guarantee peace or quality administrations.
5
You really should have stuck with writing about tech because your recent op-ed columns require a level of experience and a complexity of thought that sadly you have yet to demonstrate ... even if your primary assertion may be appropriate.
11
The next president should be the most competent person. The idea that a woman. or as many are pushing, a woman of color for president has no basis. It is not a matter of whose turn you think it should be, but who is best. Joe Biden is currently the most competent person running for the job but many are criticizing him for the sole purpose of opening a space for a less competent person to run based on sex or color. Currently, there several loud mouth congresswomen who think they should be president.
4
Why is the US behind many countries in still not ever electing a woman president?
Time Magazine, Nov 7, 2016:
“These 59 Countries Had a Woman Leader Before the United States”
CNN.com:
“All the countries that had a woman leader before the U.S.”
It's a long list.
We need columnists to analyze---what is the difference in attitudes of these societies who have had women leaders, compared with the US?
What blocks the US from joining the modern world? Re a female president and also health care for all. What is the source of our blockage into the 21st C?
Now some say, we are progressing, but even with new qualified women candidates, they won’t be able to beat Trump, and that is the highest priority.
How about 2024? How long must we wait?
3
Hillary Clinton was highly qualified, incredibly qualified. There's no question about that. However, she managed her campaign very poorly, had a tone deaf approach to raising money, had an uncompelling message, and ignored the states that ultimately gave the election to Trump by very small margins.
There is more to winning the Presidency than being highly qualified, as we all discovered (to our horror) in 2016.
3
One might be able to argue otherwise if there was a truly standout male candidate. But Warren is better than Sanders, Harris is better than Buttigieg or Beto, and Kobluchar or Gilibrand are better than Biden.
5
I very much agree we need a woman's voice at the top. I am very concerned that we also need someone with enough experience in the federal government to be able to govern.
Charismatic leadership, positions on issues, and credible understanding of all the diverse peoples of the US are critical - but I worry that's not nearly enough to be effective in office.
Identity politics will assure 45 and his cronies victory. Keep to the agenda we need, increase in pay, removal of Citizen's United, fix the health insurance debacle , fix student debt and , immigration legislation. That's the progressive agenda's first phase.
Issues not identities.
5
This commentary is spot on. America needs a female president, if only to bring our nation into the 21st century. Feminist men like me can't do this job alone. WOMEN: UNITE FOR CHANGE!
1
Give me a break. We should vote for the best candidate regardless of gender!
7
The next president should not be Trump; that’s what matters.
3
Hillary Clinton’s loss to a “cartoon misogynist” does not make her loss any lesser, but greater: she lost to a “cartoon misogynist” and in her attempt to be a first, in her incompetence, may have denied women a chance at the podium for one or two generations.
The current lot of women in running for the Prez ARE unelectable. That is just reality.
Go back to the drawing board.
2
Secretary Clinton won the election in 2020. It was hacked by the Russians.
The sad thing is that this seems to be the rule now with the Left - the days of judging an individual by the content of their character are over.
The Left has become increasingly untethered from liberalism with every year.
8
@Jon yes, because the Democratic party has been infiltrated by fascist socialists. Its getting worse every year. The democrats are now being the thing that they have been opposed to for decades. So-called Progressives are really regressive. Anti-Fascists are really just fascists. We are living in Orwell's worst nightmare. Liberals need to take back the Democratic Party.
I do not agree with Mr. Manjoo. Sex is irrelevant. We need to elect the best person for the job and vote based on the candidate's policies, competence and qualifications. And we shouldn't focus on guesses as to who we think can beat Trump, with an "anyone but Trump" attitude. That's not a winning strategy. Vote for the candidate you like best in the primary and for the Democratic nominee in the general election. My main concern is that the Democratic Party leadership, the DNC and "superdelegates" will try to influence the primary election and push a candidate on the people as they did in 2016. The Republican leadership, without "superdelegates" stood aside and let the voters choose the nominee and won the White House as a result. If a candidate can't win the nomination without the favoritism of the DNC and "superdelegates" they can't be counted on to win the general election. The DNC and the NYT should publish detailed resumes of all the Democratic Primary Candidates and let the voters choose.
7
Nikki Haley will be the next president. In 2024.
3
More divisive identity politics in lieu of making common cause around economic fairness
Exactly the opposite of what we need to defeat Donald Trump
No sale!
8
The next president should be a competent leader. We are lacking in the true leadership category.
2
We are much more lacking in the true competence category.
1
Totally agree.
America deserves their own Margret Thatcher. Most successful western female politician of the last century.
2
@Tom Amen. Nikki Haley in 2024.
@Tom
That retrograde pompous reactionary? Merkel, Clinton, Warren, and others , but not Reagan's buddy, Thatcher. Not Nikkie either.
I know it takes a solid ego to run for President.
But where does anybody get the "confidence" to tell--demand that-- people vote for someone based on gender. Or race.
I hated it in 2016 and I hate it now. Tell me why you like somebody. Why they have your support. But don't tell me that your reasons can claim my vote.
4
Please recognize that women like Coulter and Warren not only have nothing in common, they are polar opposites. Identity pieces only hurt our chances of restoring decency to the White House, and the country.
7
Where are the Republican women? If only to set herself up for 2024, at least one should test the waters in 2020 and file for president. Gov. Kristi Noem, Rep. Elise Stefanik, former Rep. Mia Love, ... or even Rep. Jenniffer González to make a strong case for Puerto Rico after Trump's paper towel tosses for hurricane relief.
Any one of them could do a better job than this incumbent, and help restore some credibility to their party. Enough money would flow in to gain votes, and the publicity would be priceless. How about it, Lisa M? Or Susan C? Who wants to be a Profile in Courage?
3
So not OK with this. It's fine to say no one sex/gender/race should be disqualified. But if you exclude any group you're as bad, and as ignorant, as the people you want to displace. I'd be happy with at least a few of the male Dem candidates - white or not. (For what it's worth, my current favorite happens to be female...again, happens to be...)
Glad to see a rising tide of voices against mindless identarianism.
Having said that, I strongly disagree with those that say HRC lost because of incompetence. She was certainly a victim of sexism from a sizable part of the electorate. And the "likeability" tropes about the current female candidates are reprehensible.
4
'Voters are discounting female candidates as unelectable.'
Wrong. Voters are discounting this year's crop of female candidates as unelectable. Because they are. Trump would beat any one of them handily.
2
The next president should be the best qualified person. Your statement is prejudiced. You can either argue for non-discrimination or discriminate. You cannot have it both ways. We need to support the election of quality not gender.
5
There is no good reason to elect a male as the next president? Not that a female wouldn’t be/ couldn’t be, because of gender, a competent president; but to exclude a male for being male is an absurd, un-scientific statement, apparently highly emotionally based. Trump, for example, is a poor excuse for a human being, not even to mention a man. But that’s it. As far as ambition goes: It’s not exclusively a male trait. There’s a lot of talk in campaigning for the presidency; but what’s been actually done by an person is what ought to count.
2
I want a woman in the White House -- and more people beyond white. But despite the current low bar to the presidency (i.e., anyone who is sane, not a criminal, and adult) I think the best person for the job should be chosen for their leadership qualities, their ideas, and their qualifications. Trump's election was a hysterical response to the identity of Obama. He campaigned on that. Selecting a successor to Trump based on identity would be more of the toxic same.
How about having the BEST person for the job instead of using identity politics to choose?
3
What utter nonsense. In the last election Hillary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump. And more people voted for her especially because she was a woman than voted against her because they were misogynists. Let the best person win! And not because any "expert" here tells you to but because in their trip across America, the most electable candidates will show themselves by winning primaries.No one should be the candidate simply because he/she fits into a particular category nor should anyone be excluded for the same reason. If people continue to argue about whose turn it rightfully should be, it may end up being Trump's turn again.
3
The next president shouldn't be a man, because men aren't sensitive to the issues women face.
The next president shouldn't be white, because white people aren't sensitive to the issues that non-white people face.
The next president shouldn't be Christian, because Christians aren't sensitive to the issues non-Christians face.
The next president shouldn't come from the coasts, because people from the coasts aren't sensitive to the issues people in the country's heartland face.
The next president shouldn't...
Instead of choosing a president based on intersectionality, maybe we should just choose a president who is genuinely sensitive to the different issues people across the country face.
Besides, it is unclear how electing a woman would help women--face less discrimination in the workplace, face less sexual harassment, face less sexual assault, etc. Sure, it would be a nice symbolic victory. But Obama's victory was a nice symbolic victory for black people and how much better do we really think it is to be a black person in America now than in 2008? Have we marched meaningfully closer to racial justice since then?
I'll vote for whoever I think is best. Right now I like Warren and Beto. Warren has a lot of interesting ideas, and Beto seems very sensitive to the issues people face and very open to listening to people. He is more intellectually humble than the other candidates, and is more open to changing his mind if he realizes he is wrong.
3
@EL
Hooray. I support you with Warren and Beto for whom I voted against Cruz. The longer Trump hangs around, the more I welcome her economic views. Certainly her founding of the CFPB now being undermined by Trump's guy reflects the real aim of the GOP. And Beto is, as you put it, more intellectually humble.
What, not even Corey Booker can be President?
Joe Biden has been running for two weeks. He has made two gaffes, at least. And yet he has opened a 40+ to 15+ lead on Bernie sanders.
Kamala Harris are fighting for third with single figures. Huge segments of the Party have fallen in line for Biden, gaffes notwithstanding, the 1993 Crime Bill notwithstanding, Anita Hill notwithstanding. This includes large numbers of black voters, who are, pundits and other are shocked to learn, socially conservative on lots of issues, not attracted to progressive candidates and loyal to a guy who was “...ride or die...” with Obama.
Joe may not win. A woman candidate may crush him in the debates. We will see.
However, it is getting really tiresome reading progressives who are stunned to see Biden pilling away from the field an who keep telling us that it is just so wrong.
1
Wow, I really thought a better argument would be put forward. Not so much. Disappointing, but then again, it was written by a man so we shouldn't have expected much here.
4
We definitely need a reasonable transition to a saner regime. When the sleazy geezer and his pious sidekick resign, a smart, usually sensible, effective leader will become the first Italian-American and first woman president.
President Pelosi will not pardon him. He's a sleazy geezer. No reasonable person would ever pardon him. So he will pardon himself before he resigns.
No court will agree that he can pardon himself. No human being should be allowed to pardon himself for committing a serious crime before he is tried and convicted. After he's found guilty, he might be eligible for a pardon, but not from himself.
As he flounders in legal quicksand, President Pelosi will promise not to run for president in 2020. And she will keep that promise. After her, the next president will be Kamala Harris. Mitt Romney will lose again. And America will recover some of its sanity.
But none of this will erase even a sliver of the hate and fear that is consuming the world.
got it. forget electing the best person to be president. just find a woman who can get elected. great way to move the hearts and minds of people in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
4
It shouldn't be that way, but who said life is fair?
There were many cogent issues presented in the argument here. Currently, Elizabeth Warren is my favorite candidate based on her stand on the issues and her obviously feisty nature, but a recent poll I saw had her as the only top tier Dem that wouldn't supposedly beat Trump today. And that makes me worry.
I also worry about Mayor Pete. Would a lot of Black Christian Democrats not be willing to pull the lever for him because he is openly gay?
It is unfortunate that we have to consider electabiity. I'm not a big fan of Joe or Beto or Bernie, but I think someone has to stand up to Trump in a serious way. Maybe Harris can train those mean eyes on him and make him squirm like she did when questioning Kavenaugh and Barr in Senate hearings, but it seems like a longshot.
We all go into the voting booth with our biases and prejudices. I just hope we can come out and this national nightmare will be over.
We are hardly the only country to have centuries of rigid beliefs about what women are capable of, yet we’re one of the few remaining advanced nations to never have had a female head of state. What is it about the American character that can’t let go of these barriers?
3
Agreed. The GOP needs to draft Condolezza Rice to run with Meg Whitman as the VP candidate for 2020.
3
it is amazingly ironic to me that a man
who comes from a culture where women
are forced to cover themselves from head
to foot is giving us lessons on why a woman
should be elected President of the United States. very interesting indeed.
3
People are so resistant to looking at their deep seeded biases in the face. There is nothing spectacularly off about this column pointing out the benefits of electing a qualified woman over a man. After all, we've been living in a patriarchal system that would only elect white men since the beginning for no good reason. By making an effort to affirm the value of others, helps our limited vision society create and see more opportunities for success. It should be clear by now that it's our prejudices and empty biases that holds this country back the most. Russia understands this.
Of course the candidate should be qualified and offer good policy and leadership; but to suggest that the symbolism in electing a women is not important progress is an act of willful denial at best, but more likely misogyny.
3
@Al its really sad that you just parrot a narrative that has no principled position other than to instill you with authoritarian rhetoric. We can and should have a women for president. The only bias I see is in arguments like the one you put forth. Americans are ready for a female president, but to suggest we pick a candidate merely based on the fact that the candidate has ovaries is ridiculous.
Women are actually, in general, better humans than men. Many exceptions exist to this rule. But overall, the patriarchy has been a gigantic bust for humankind, and for all the other species on the planet. In the end, I’ll vote for the best candidate on the issues, particularly on climate change and biodiversity loss. Our WA governor and presidential candidate, Jay Inslee, is currently doing a marvelous job on this issue, so he sure has my attention. But overall, as the old song goes, “the women are smarter . . .” (and more compassionate and less racist and . . . better humans).
3
@Ispeakforthetrees
Great misandry. The patriarchy only but modern civilization. You call that a bust?
Not that long ago women could not vote,file a patent,had to publish with a mans name , not encouraged to get a degree. A lot has changed in a short time. There have been numerous studies that indicate women are better business and money managers than men. Given a chance-Germany,Pakistan,India,England, New Zealand, Israel- women have met the challenge.
1
This sounds like a good argument for making a women the Commisioner of Sexual Harrassment and Gender Discrimination. The last time I looked, the Presidency required a more broadly qualified candidate.
Barack wasn't a woman, and he was inarguably a much better candidate than Hilary, and I strongly suspect the better president, even if Hilary had been elected.
Maybe there are more dimensions to the equation than narrow political identitarians would like to believe? One's race, gender, or sexual orientation does not, in itself, form the primary qualification -- not even close. Nor should it ever be a a reason for disqualification. Treating the Presidency like a school-yard game is what has got us to this point in the first place.
2
I had hoped that there would be a woman president in my lifetime. But now, there is only one thing that the next president absolutely must be: NOT DONALD TRUMP.
Manjoo is not arguing that the next President should be ANY woman that should be elected above ANY man. He's looking at the declared candidates and saying that we have an abundance of qualified women and he's made some darn good arguments why the scales should tip in their favor over the men in the current field. That's hardly "identity politics." Nuance, people, please. Confirmation bias is how we got into this mess in 2016.
5
what if the next president were an algorithm? no past, no obligations, no aspirations, no race, no gender, no entanglements, no politics. if it didn't work, could we be any worse off than we are today?
Americans will vote for the right woman candidate. I like several of the current female Democratic candidates, but none of them have what I and many others call the "it' factor...a distinct personal charisma that makes them stand out. I'm a life long democrat and am extremely unlikely to vote for a republican, even a female one. I've listened to all the Democratic candidates multiple times, as well as to Nikki Haley. I have to say, regrettably, Governor Haley has the resume and the charisma the Democratic candidates lack.
1
@phil Give Tulsi Gabbard another listen. I think she has a bright future ahead of her on the national stage. Maybe not in 2020, but definitely 2024 and beyond.
The next president should be someone who will do something to help Americans who are struggling economically. Over 40% of working Americans are making less than $15 an hour. 40% of Americans can't put together $400 to cover an emergency. Yet we are the richest country in the world, and we've supposedly had ten years of economic growth.
I will vote for the candidate who is most committed to helping struggling Americans and who has the best ideas about how to do so. Helping the less well-off is good politics (40% is a lot of people) and it's the right thing to do.
1
C'mon guys, and girls, he is talking about highly qualified, sane, ambitious women to lead us into the future. It's ok to at least TALK about a belief, desire, and hope for an actual woman leader in America. We have had 45! men. Some great. But if we don't openly acknowledge our biases, that are based on our differences (which in large part are our identities), how do we create real and lasting unity amongst ourselves? Without consciously tipping the scale towards those who are chronically oppressed and under represented how can we destroy "identity", and establish equality? The idea that our identities are somehow not to be considered, and that to do so is evidence of one's lack of political prowess and naivete is itself so.
3
I am ready to elect a woman president: Nikki Haley. I am not ready to elect any woman just because she is a woman. As with any male candidate, I look at policy positions in deciding for whom I will vote.
6
@Ann
I, too, would vote for Nikki Haley. Her leadership at the UN was impressive.
1
Eyes on the prize, people. There is ONE goal in 2020. The Dems have a great field with a lot of talent and many who could do the job well. But the ONLY priority is to win.
And this is from a woman who worked for Hilary.
Eyes on the prize.
12
@Elizabeth
Amen, Sister, amen. Vote Blue No Matter Who.
I think the title is much too general. I suggest "The Next President should not be Donald Trump." Anyone else with a pulse and intact cognitive function would be a significant improvement.
8
I agree with Farhad, it’s time that presidential baton should be given to a woman. There are so many qualified women running in the Democratic presidential primaries . They are all equally capable and qualified than their male counterparts. Also, they are more than capable and qualified than Trump. Countries such as Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Israel and many others have elected women leaders to head their countries then why not USA. These women leaders have proved that they are equally competent than their male counterparts in governing and taking critical decisions at times of crises and stability. So why not elect a woman to be our president in 2020?
9
The presidency should not be “given” to anyone. The people must vote for the best candidate no matter the gender.
3
Perhaps the electorate doesn’t like the policy positions of the female candidates.
2
@Aziz Lalji
We women havebeen waiting for men to tell us who “should” be president. What a relief y’all stepped up to do it. But now that you’ve decided gender, could you specify hair color? Thx.
The next President should be the best candidate, based on a large variety of criteria. Identity politics has already caused a lot of social and moral problems related to perceived exclusion. Whether intended or not, those problems are real. We need content of character, not gender or race or sexual preference or religious (or irreligious) persuasion, as the deciding factor.
13
Since 1776, the USA has only ever had male Presidents, so, I’m inclined to agree with the author.
You can’t claim to be gender-blind, and yet only ever elect men!
6
The women to which the author refers are thought of as unelectable, not because of their gender, but because of their lack of support in polling, endorsements, and contributions; the same reasoning as applies to many of the males who are running. There is no good reason to deny the Democratic nomination to the person most likely to defeat Donald Trump, and as of now that person is Joe Biden, who happens to be a man.
13
@Charles Chotkowski they could still nominate former NRA champion, Senator Gillibrand
1
Sorry, but gender is not an issue for me, policies and the ability to beat Donald Trump are. We haven't even started the debates so it's too soon to make a decision. I don't know who I will support though I have eliminated some male and female candidates already. It will be interesting to see who is eventually nominated.
12
I’m old fashioned. I still think that we should elect a President based on his/her views and vision on issues not on gender, color,etc.
37
@Daniel Messing the old fashioned process has done resulted in 100% men so maybe that’s not the best plan
1
@Daniel Messing @fmanjoo
Daniel, read the comments here. You are in better company than you realize. Not all women, or immigrants, or gays, or people of color prefer being labeled and sliced and diced like this. We too want only the best in leadership places, no tokens to make up for the mistakes of yesterday.
Mr. Manjoo: Your obsession with numbers has obviously blinded you to common sense and American history. Women were too busy for many years, raising the children, providing at home, and carrying on the next generations to openly COMPETE for the presidency. Please read the comments here, turn off your headphones, reread them, and spend some quiet time thinking (it's not just for the computers/tech devices). ..
No body wants your "special" help. You think women have lost because they cannot compete and win over voters? You help them to lose saying that. Leave the contests unsullied. Women will win, on the merits.
All in good time, friend. All in good time.
Now, my stats analysis has shown me that in the past, 100 percent of the people who have had the honor of gestating, delivering, and nursing the presidents of the United States have been women. That is so unfair to men.
This weekend is Mother's Day. We need to get busy, clearly, on equalizing out those statistics otherwise it proves that men are being discriminated against in building strong homes and families, like women have done througout the creation of this nation. (Don't undercut our work.)
Bernie Sanders has a record of always voting for abortion rights. His Medicare-for-All bill would end the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding of abortion.
Joe Biden voted for the Hyde Amendment.
Their records shouldn't lumped together as this op-ed does.
5
Thank you, I wholeheartedly agree. We've had enough white men in the White House. We have several qualified, capable, smart, progressive women running, so let's elect one!
I am tired of all the pundits who confidently declare that Warren (or Harris, etc) are not electable. Their declarations create a narrative that the media repeats and voters parrot, so that "unelectable" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just shut up about electability, already! We are 18 months away from the election. And shouldn't 2016 serve as a reminder that "electability" is a squishy concept at best? Who thought Trump was electable in May 2015?
360
@sarbear
I agree completely with your point about electability- the seemingly least risky choice may be very risky and vice-versa. I don't think Democrats will ultimately choose Biden.
I disagree with the sentiment "we've had enough white men in the White House." The last time Democrats nominated one was 2004, so I don't think the party is unwilling to choose a non-white male candidate.
Non-Hispanic white males make up about 32% of the US- there's no reason to disqualify any talent the country has on an identity basis. Obama and H. Clinton were, IMO, the best candidates in their years. I hope we get the best candidate again.
27
Perhaps there are voters who don’t want a progressive in the White House. There is an assumption that failure to vote for one of the female candidates is due to an aversion to a woman president any not to an aversion to her policies.
9
@sarbear
All of your qualifiers for U.S. President (qualified, capable, smart, progressive) except one (female) imbue candidates across all identities.
Why would you base your support on the supremacy of that one category? The logical reality is that gender and sex simply have no bearing on those other qualities of qualification, capability, intelligence, and progressive ideology, so why distort that reality with identity politics?
10
So if Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin run against Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, we can say that you are misogynistic if you don't vote for Ann and Sarah? Okay...
28
@Jim
If the "you" you refer to is a democrat, why on earth would they vote for Palin or Coulter
1
@Alison Cartwright that is his point. Most voters vote for policies and not gender.
1
We don't have a man, now.
7
The current president isn’t a man.
7
"There is no good reason to put yet another man in the White House"
Ummm... except if that man's name isn't Donald Trump.
3
Deeply offensively sexist.
12
Warren for 1/2020th!
8
Really? Says who? How dare you dictate to us whom we should vote for.
11
He’s an opinion columnist stating his opinion. He’s not a dictator telling you what to do.
It’s columns like this that will get Trump re-elected.
23
This is just another form of bigotry that fans the flames of resentment and division. I’m so sick of the zero sum identity politics of the leftist firing squad. How about we focus on ideas and character?
32
Was there ever a "good reason" that we "needed" to put a man in the White House?
6
I am looking for two things. First and foremost someone to beat B L O A T ( Biggest Liar Of All Time) and once that victory is achieved someone with smart and practical ideas to rebuild our nation and move us forward. It’s that simple. It matters not to me whether it’s a man or a woman, white, black, brown or orange, straight or gay, religious or an atheist.
I also know that the “haters” on the whole already vote Republican ( though most Republicans aren’t the deplorables, that already is the natural home for those who are!)
However I do believe there was a “Bradley” effect that may have contributed to the fine black l a mayor losing the California governorship. So did Clinton’s gender cause her loss? I don’t know. But when Trump won by only 77 thousand votes, I wonder.
I will cast my vote for the BEST candidate and hope, if that candidate is a woman or a minority or “too” old or “too” young, that there are not enough dumbos to cause her or him to lose to the embodiment of non-Presidential capacity defiling the WH now!
1
Nikki Haley in 2024!!
5
The next president should be whom ever is the most qualified man or woman. Gender has as much to do with running a country as it does with doing a job. As long as the person is qualified and has the backing of the population that is all that should matter. Using gender or skin color or religion as a modifier is idiocy at its best
228
Would I vote for a woman? Absolutely! As long as they don’t shill their gender as a reason they deserve my vote.
The signals from Booker, Pelosi, and others that a vote against Hillary would be a betrayal of women cost the whole crew my 2016 and future votes. Bias of any kind is intolerable.
5
@Andrea C Maietta sure, the public is never generally influenced by issues such as sex or social status. Men have more than had their chance - time to turn that tap off for a while.
7
@Andrea C Maietta: Agreed. If you vote for someone because of their color or gender, you are doing exactly what the equal rights movement has been demanding we stop doing all along. Equal rights is either color/gender blind, or it isn't equal.
3
The next president should be anyone who can beat Donald Trump.
Categories of such I will not rule out:
(1) Anyone who is too tall, anyone who is too short.
(2) Anyone who is too white, anyone who is too dark.
(3) Anyone whose sexual proclivities are not mine.
(4) Anyone whose gender in not mine.
(5) Don't much care for any religious gang but one must compromise. Just keep it to yourself.
(6) Anyone (or creature) smarter than Donald Trump. I will vote for my cat, Smudge II if he's nominated.
3
We need a democrat who can beat trump. Period.
2
This is one of the stupidest columns I've read in a long time, and that's saying something.
The Democrats' obsession with gender and minority identity has cost them severely in both presidential and other elections, and has shown itself to be a losing proposition since the 70s. The idea that the most important issues in the country can or will only be resolved by someone who is a woman is not only offensive, it's totally ludicrous.
The idea that a woman is somehow better positioned to run the country because of her gender is positively absurd. It is not that a woman can't be elected, but rather that someone nominated because she is a woman will not be elected.
But, you know what? Go ahead and nominate some woman -- any woman -- and see what happens.
Enjoy the next 4 years of Trump.
18
@Marcy
Exhibit A for this article would be Sarah Palin. A woman.
Warren is inauthentic and a traitor to her own cause through her silence during the 2016 primary season. Harris is a California Democrat. California Democrats are worse than Republicans. (See statistics on education, immigration, income inequality, regressive taxation, etc.) also, trump took a majority of white women. While most Americans agree that gender equality is a worthy goal, only a small percentage identify as “feminist”, thanks to absurdly radical writers such as this author. Grow up and get behind Biden.
5
Misogyny dominates, yet I feel a change coming.
3
Why are Democrats always playing identity politics? I don't really care about the sex/race/religion of a president. Trump will win because of this nonsense on the left. People are tired of it.
12
@Pedro. Sorry, the Republican Party plays identity and gender politics much more than the Democrats ever have!! When you are the biggest white supremacist organization in the world and you only elect corrupts old white men, THAT is identity politics! Get your facts straight.
Women are the future, corporations run by them do better and it’s high time a woman came in and helped straighten out the mess the old corrupt racist sexist xenophobic repubs have made - for decade after decade. Woman ARE already the majority. So live with it. It’s high time we make things right, most men seem incapable of really leading except in a corrupt way.
1
If John McCain had won in 2008, President Sarah Palin could very well be finishing her first term and working toward re-election in 2020. I'm guessing Mr. Manjoo wouldn't be making the same argument.
7
I read this headline and literally thought: "Oh, Shut Up."
I don't care if the next president is a woman or a man. I just want the next president at end Citizen's united, keep our elections safe and secure, make the economy more equal and spend less on the military and more on the needy.
But moral posturing like this -- moral posing, really -- does nothing to give us a more intelligent, more rational, more informative electoral process. It's about counting clicks and outrage, making sweeping pronouncements that have nothing to do with anything other than the author's regard for himself. NYT: Why run nonsense like this when there are still real questions to ask the Dem Candidates?
12
As the Democratic party increasingly devolves into a right wing party with nothing to offer the 90% beyond a few center-left social policies permitted by the donors who own it so as to make the bitter economic medicine go down, we've seen increasing volleys of this kind of abject nonsense.
When you have nothing to offer but division and false difference, this is the foolishness we get in place of real candidates and real policy.
Funny, too, to push a woman's candidacy now when in 2016 Democrats ran a woman who was so obviously hungry for war around the world--she and her staff at State celebrating with cheers and drinks their smashing all records for arms sales to Saudi Arabia was just one repulsive example--that the odious Trump could pretend to run well to her left on war and imperialism.
Try emphasizing policy next time, Mr. Manjoo. You're failing your readers badly.
7
But that would definitely disallow Sanders! ...oh, right. Gotcha.
3
And there you have it, in one short column: why sensible people hesitate to vote for Democrats. Mr. Manjoo disqualifies half the citizenry for elected office based on their genitalia, in service of some ridiculously circular logic about how only women can truly represent an America that is (hopefully) changing its attitudes towards women.
1. MeToo and issues of fair treatment of women are not the only important issues facing the country, or even the most important. If Democrats try to make that the single issue, they will lose.
2. These identity politics arguments don't even make sense if you accept identity politics. As we are told repeatedly, it is men who need to change, not women, so by that logic don't we need a male nominee?
3. When you start creating extra litmus tests for candidates (2 X chromosomes in this case), those litmus tests are also felt by the voters. Is the Democratic party only for women now? Should all of the candidates be women? Are men welcome in this party? Are they allowed to speak up?
4. Americans care about taxes, health care, education, budget priorities, and quality jobs for the non-elite. If an actual member of the Democratic party stated what Mr. Manjoo has here, I would swear off that candidate for life, because of their lack of perspective. We need a party that cares about improving America for all Americans, not chasing the latest identity politics fad straight from a college campus, where we expect this sort of idiocy.
290
@Tom Meadowcroft Manjoo's opinion here is not reflective of most Democrats. There are Republicans who have off the wall opinions, too. In fact, one of them is in the White House right now.
10
@Jeremiah Crotser Manjoo's opinion here is not reflective of most Democrats.
----------
If this is true, Democratic candidates need to start getting that message out ASAP. If there are calls to openly discriminate against white, straight, Christian men in voting, imagine what it will be if this type of identity-group, reparations push finds a platform in office.
That is what made the Jussie Smollet saga so scary to so many: look what happens when this mentality infects the justice system, and you start deciding everything based on skin color or other identity traits. Special rights for some means lesser rights for others.
Best for the gender and racial warriors to take a cue from the conservative gay leaders who called for equal rights and opportunities. Same as the other person, no ore no less. So long as our "diverse" Dem candidates all get to line up at the starting gate and run, the actual contest matters.
No picking the winners from the paddocks based on this personal characteristic or that.
2
@Jeremiah Crotser
Most Americans view the NYT Op/Ed page as a forum for the American moderate left. They will associate this column with the Democratic party.
3
Stop.
Please. just. stop.
I voted for Obama, twice, both in the primary and the general. Not because he was black, but because he was the best candidate.
I'm a supporter of Warren. Not because she's a woman, but because she's the best candidate.
But if a white, straight, Protestant male ends up being the Democratic nominee, then that's whom I'll vote for in the general. Because this election is too important to divide ourselves according to DNA sequence. Let the Republicans play the identity politics card. We need to stick together, and support whomever is nominated.
25
@Bill,
I hope everyone will stop saying “whomever” really really soon. Whoever is the word, the extra contortion of the “m” completely unnecessary.
3
The 11th-hour-and-58th-minute argument that will be pulled out, in use since at least Reagan, is that the President has to be a tough guy who can keep us safe in a dangerous world.
Never mind that the President is not our parent, nor are we the President's children. Never mind that our round-the-clock intelligence and military capabilities are part of what keeps us safe. (Our commitment to peaceful values is the other.) And never mind that a woman can't be every bit as tough as a man. No, it is the last card to be played, and we fall for it every time. We must not do so again.
4
All of the top comments are, of course, by men making veiled statements about how offensive the idea of a woman president is. This further supports that it’s imperative we have a woman president — and more women in government in general.
8
I don't think Warren or Harris are un-electable because they are women. Don't get me wrong -- I would happily vote for either one of them without hesitation vs. the alternative, but I think they are un-electable – or more accurately, less likely than other candidates to win the general election -- because they are too liberal. While true, the statement "it’s a mistake to conclude that Americans will not vote for a woman over Donald Trump, because what happened in 2016 was that a majority of Americans voted for a woman over Donald Trump." is semi-irrelevant because of the electoral college (I don't like it but it is a reality that won't change before 2020). My number one choice based on policy, temperament AND electability is Amy Klobuchar. Whoever runs must put some of the upper midwest states back in play, and as a life-long rust-belter, I think she has the best chance. I know her campaign hasn't really taken off, but if she is still in it when the primary comes to Ohio, she has my vote.
4
Well, Donald Trump is certainly not a man in any of the ways that are important. But I agree with the writer; there are so many talented women from whom to choose, and some of the male contenders for the Democratic nomination remind me of "been there; done that."
1
We need a female president for all the reasons stated in the article and more. Both girls and boys need to see a female leader in this country to know that the sky's the limit for women in power and in every other aspect of life.
7
@C. Hart
They said the same thing about Obama, that he would show black kids what is possible if you stay in school and work hard. It had almost zero effect on those kids, young and old. Results in their communities continue to go downhill.
I assume that "The Next President Should Not Be a Man" = "The Next President Should Be a Woman." I think it would be great--and fitting if Donald Trump were ousted by a woman. And it would be great to at last have a woman as president. But I would be much more excited if the next president were progressive. Since there is only one progressive woman in the race, I guess I would be over-the-moon if the next president is Elizabeth Warren.
10
The many new ways centrist commentators find to argue that Bernie Sanders must not be nominated are quite amusing. Clearly they have learned the lesson that attacking him from the right won’t work very well and in particular will alienate young folks. So now the argument is cleverly hidden by saying instead that some group of candidates that Sanders happens to belong to should be disqualified. (That said I find both Warren and Harris impressive candidates in very different ways, and if I had a vote I’d likely cast it for one of them. But Klobuchar or Gillibrand? Give me a break.)
3
Sorry, but that’s exactly the thinking that crammed Hillary down everyone’s throats, and prevented any other contenders, male or female, from emerging in 2016.
I’m a far-to-the-left-of-Bernie baby boomer, and a woman, and I couldn’t find a single friend of my peer group, who could stand Hillary, left, right, or center. Younger people were spared the memory of Hillary’s entire life, but we couldn’t forget. In any case, it was the idea that she “should” be the party’s nominee because she was a woman, and it was her “turn” as so many said, that was the problem. Writing an opinion column is all very well, but god forbid this thinking should once again take hold.
We’ve had dreadful token female figures before: Condoleeza Rice, for example. It was absolutely no comfort to anyone that she could outhawk the hawks. Being a woman? Of no moment.
Perhaps it’s a way of establishing your nonsexist credentials to write this piece, but it’s absolutely dangerous nonsense. I, for one, don’t thank you for such prescriptions. Young people can’t simply engineer their desired outcomes, regardless of the current propensity among millennials to do exactly that.
We should all hope for the best possible person, regardless of gender, period.
42
If the voters want a woman, they will nominate and elect one. Plenty are now available. It's a waste of time to argue we "need" a woman. The voters alone will determine that. So far, women are not cutting it. Not the men's fault. Most voters are women.
17
We did elect a woman, she just wasn’t allowed to take her office.
2
Manjoo is overly-optimistic about the ability of a woman president to change underlying dynamics of women's oppression precisely because he underestimates how entrenched these dynamics are in our society. Better to have a candidate who understands these dynamics than one who looks the part. Warren is both these things, btw, and she's my candidate.
5
Suppose the woman elected turned out to be the 21st century equivalent of Margaret Thatcher or Phyliss Schlafly or Eva Peron or Imelda Marcos? One vote here for none of women's (and therefore society's) objectives being accomplished. By all means elect a woman you think, believe to be, the person best qualified to be president. But don't make gender a condition.
11
Good points, however, unfortunately gender has always been a condition for every president we have put in office to date.
5
Why not advocate for the most capable candidate regardless of his or her gender? Shouldn’t the candidate with the best ideas and the widest appeal be someone we back for the highest office in the land?
It seems very undemocratic and downright discriminatory to make selection based primarily on one’s gender, or religion, or race, or sexual orientation. The diverse group of candidates is already a testament to our diversity and opportunities for all. Let’s choose the best candidate based on their skills and not based on their categorization.
20
Farhad usually makes more sense than this. Now we’re OK with discrimination—as long as it’s against men. Wasn’t this once an awful thing? I’ve seen this theme lurking, but it’s been denied. Now it’s in the open and can’t be. A beautiful word like “diversity” actually coming to mean “No men need apply.” Yea, that will play well with most voters. If it continues, get used to another four years of Trump. I’m currently leaning towards Senator Warren, but her gender has nothing to do with it. I really wish we could learn to address legitimate harms, like the ones Farhad discusses, without the collateral damage to our other values, like fairness, judging people as individuals, and legitimate merit. We need to try to make a careful judgment not only about electability, but who has the vision, courage, ideas, and temperament to dig the U.S. out of the many messes we are in. If we think we can identify that extremely rare person, and we actually get it right, I don’t care if their gender is any of the over 10-plus types identified to date. We’ll be lucky to have that person. Don’t make it even harder.
13
So far, there are only two candidates with platforms that focus on coping with the climate crisis and reversing activities that are making it worse. Neither of them are women. Until that changes, I won't be supporting a female presidential candidate.
I hope that changes. So far, I see no reason to expect that, as most candidates, male or female, lack the courage to address an issue that is wiping out crops, homes, and business activities, in ever larger swaths of the country (and the planet) each year. The next president will need to be an extraordinary crisis manager due to worsening climate destabilization and the wretched political atmosphere that Trump has achieved. None of the Democrats seem ready to take that on, but at least there are a couple of guys who are already committing themselves to climate crisis strategies. Until there are better options, those will be the candidates on my short list.
6
The author cites Hillary Clinton's "loss" to back up his assertions. I put loss in quotes because Clinton won the popular vote...overwhelmingly. Clearly, the country is perfectly ready for a woman to be president. Trump won the Electoral College by razor thin margins in a few key states. If Clinton had run a better campaign that didn't neglect winnable states like Michigan and Wisconsin, we'd have our first female president. She was an establishment candidate running in an anti-establishment election, where most of the energy was with the populist Right and populist Left. She realized this far too late. When a self-described democratic socialist has a better idea of the pulse of the Democratic Party than the presumptive nominee, that's a problem. Look at where the Democratic Party is today from a policy standpoint, it looks a lot more like Sanders than it does Clinton. Clinton lost because she ran a bad campaign. And despite running a bad campaign, she nearly won. James Comey certainly didn't help either.
There is perhaps no better example of virtue signaling than a headline that reads “The Next President Should Not Be a Man.”
12
@SF, agree. Virtue signalling is exactly what this is.
5
@SF 3% of the popular vote is not "overwhelmingly" over Trump; while the popular vote should be the deciding factor, 3% over Trump is embarrassing. Any decent opponent would have received at least 10-20% over Trump.
1
@SF
Thank you for completely taking down this piece. The premise is wrong. The rest may be ignored.
Have you looked at the polls recently? The prospect of a woman heading either ticket in 2020 appears dim. I don’t share your enthusiasm for any of the women currently running, but I do look forward hopefully to the prospect of casting my vote for Nikki Haley in 2024.
13
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am so glad someone with an actual platform has finally said what needs to be said. It seems obvious but apparently it’s not. The most important statement the democrats need to make is that it’s time for someone other than a white man. And you run a woman candidate like it’s the obvious choice and you run a woman candidate until you win.
4
@Jill can we afford to get Trump elected again just because we chose a candidate with ovaries rather than credentials? Break free from from the indoctrination and apply some principled reasoning here.
1
@Jill And you run a woman candidate like it’s the obvious choice and you run a woman candidate until you win.
Even if this means four more years of Trump and eight years of Pence? Really?????
Our mindless fixation on "misogyny" being the be all and end all of debates is tiresome.
Here's a list of female leaders throughout the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state_and_government
Are all of these States less "misogynistic" than the United States?
We would have a female head of state if Clinton had not run an awful campaign. Driving away even those who would have voted for her when the primaries began. Anyone is electable, as seen by the fact that Trump is President, the question is: can you run a campaign strong enough to win.
15
Well, there is one good reason why a man should get elected. That reason's name is Andrew Yang.
3
Please pick the best human....this time!!
7
I am going to vote for whomever I think is going to be the most effective at pushing policies that are going to achieve the goals I support. If there are no candidates that meet that definition I will vote for whomever is going to prevent the most harm.
I am not going to base my vote on skin color or genitals.
19
Click bait, that's the level many of the NY Times articles have descended to in recent days.
That explains the appearance of this article and others like it.
Meanwhile, Rome is burning.
41
Call me crazy, but don't we have elections to determine this? And doesn't the opinion of the American electorate mean a bit more than one Op Ed writer's injunction? Embarrassed that this "Sorry boys" piece even popped up here.
12
Expecting "other people" to be swayed by gender bias while "we" are not is the very definition of the "3rd Person Effect." It's worth Googling. Sorry, B Boys. You'd all make fine Vice Presidents. If they want to strengthen the country (and the Democrat party) the male candidates should all start campaigning for Harris and Warren and Klobuchar.
I'll vote for the best candidate, period. I don't care whether they are male, female, white, black, lavender, proper purple, or orange (ok, well, maybe not another orange candidate). I don't care if they are heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual. I don't care if they are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Agnostic, or Atheistic.
Choosing someone based on gender, race, or religion is wrong. If Kamala Harris ends up being the best candidate, then fine, I will vote for her. If it's Biden or Buttigieg or any of the other multitude of candidates, fine. I'm picking the best candidate.
The mentality of voting for someone because of the above mentioned is no better than the Republicans always wanting a white male. It's no better than discrimination.
To answer Mr. Manjoo: I can give you an excellent reason why the next President can be a man. A man may be the best candidate. And really, that's all that matters.
18
"The Next President Should Not be a Man"???? The one we have now is no man - he's a monster. The next president should be a man or a woman with a strong moral compass, great leadership skills and the ability to heal the nation from the pestilence it's now experiencing. There should be no bias when it comes to sex here. May the best "person" win.
7
Great example of the Democrat fixation on identity politics. It may make Democrats feel better about themselves to nominate a certain sex or race. But independents are going to vote for the best person... If a woman wins this time, will it be time for a man next time?..It's sexist and another example of hypocritical Democrat thinking.
13
Gender, race, age, sexual orientation ... all that matters to me is that the next president isn't Trump.
1
Man - this is a seriously flawed article that supports a seriously flawed world view.
Where to start?
How about: "But even if you overlook this candidate’s handsiness or that one’s casual male entitlement, the idea that men are poor allies is supported by evidence: Surveys show that men significantly underestimate the frequency of sexual harassment of women."
Stats 101 - you can't make individual predictions based on group statistics. We even have a name for it: The ecological fallacy occurs when inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inferences about the group to which those individuals belong.
I would not expect the average person to necessarily grasp this but I would expect someone given the bully pulpit at the Grey Lady to understand it.
Part deux - to paraphrase the SCOTUS - the way to eliminate gender discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of gender. Fortunately polls support this ethos at the rate of north of 70% of Americans.
I could go on and on and ... not unlike the author but many... many others have already said it better than I could.
I do note with some relief that they are clustered at the top of the "Reader Picks"
12
This is very sexist. The next president, hopefully, will be an intelligent, moderate, representive, honest, and highly educated person.
8
Mr. Manjoo, you write “what happened in 2016 was that a majority of Americans voted for a woman over Donald Trump.” From a total vote count, absolutely correct.
For my vote, completely immaterial. I voted for the best candidate remaining in the presidential race. Regardless whether it was a female or male. And exactly how I will vote in 2020.
You make the argument for Democrats voting for a woman. But what type of woman? Heterosexual? Homosexual? White? Black? Asian? Jewish? Catholic? Baptist?
This is exactly what all voters need to get away from, and even more important, not to pander to President Trump, who is waiting patiently for exactly what you are opining in your article.
Let’s simply concentrate on vetting and selecting the best candidate to represent the Democrats, and, with any luck, wins the presidency in 2020.
4
The current President should not be a man. He lost by 3 million votes to a woman.
Dan Kravitz
3
Stand up Stacey Abrams. Your country needs you!
2
"The Next President Should Not Be a Man". Any party that believes that men should be automatically be disqualified as a candidate because of their sex, is a party that deserves all men voting against it as a block. Why vote for a party that has no place for you?
13
Men, as a group, have a lot of damage to correct for. Damage caused by other men. Damage which came about because men haven’t applied sufficient peer pressure to end misogyny, harassment, discrimination against women, to break the glass ceiling and to end rape. A ten year moratorium on males being admitted to college, on men being promoted at work, on men getting raises above the cost of inflation should allow some catch-up.
2
@From Where I Sit
No one has to account for anything "as a group."
My husband, father, father in law, brother - none of those men have any "damage" to account for. They are all upstanding citizens, faithful husbands, and good fathers. They have certainly had a more positive impact on my life, as a woman, than all the "intersectional feminists" on Twitter.
And we wonder why married woman consistently vote Republican. Has it occurred to this "boo, men!" crowd that most women have men in their lives that they love and care about? It's time to throw the identity politics in the garbage.
@A F
Men who grew up around, are related to, work with or socialize in the same circles as misogynists, rapists, crude boors and homophobic teens yet don’t voice their concerns, push back against these attitudes or publicly shame those men committing these abhorrent acts/words/attitudes are only slightly less guilty than the offenders.
1
Should the next President be a man or a woman? Who cares! As long as it's not Trump.
2
I'm prepared to vote for the best person to be President. I don't have to know if it is a man or a woman or someone Gay until I vote. The presumption that it should not be a male is foolish. To assume it should not be someone you don't know anything about could be considered racist and/or sexist. Those are all possibilities with the current Democratic field. The fact that it is means it isn't a factor to me. It could be Male, Female, or Gay. It appears you are Anti Male and Anti Gay.
3
I would love to have a drink or meal with Mr. Manjoo an explain to him why a woman needs to compete openly and honestly with a full field ahead of her to win.
If the media backs an identity candidate, over more qualified people, it looks like you think women need the man/media's help to win.
Do you think that, Mr. Manjoo. Do you think you are helping women by telling them they need to compete in a special "Girls' Lane" or because some gender reparations are due them?
Would you support a white, qualified Republican woman as professionals did Sandra Day O'Connor? The first female president, unlike the first black one, will not be an identity-politic pick. The work will have to stand up, on its own. No excuses. No special help from the men needed.
13
The end of the feminist road is a desert with no men. It is not a utopia, it is the end of mankind.
8
There were plenty of women who voted for Trump. I know of 21 women who have already committed to voting for Trump again in 2020. They range in age from 25 to 74. Most of them are in the military, a couple own their own business or work with their partners who own the business. Four are stay at home conservative mothers. Two are retired.
I haven't heard one campaigning woman talk woman to woman about women in the military and the problems they face there. Women are wives and mothers in the military too. They have issues to talk about but no female democrat so far is talking to them.
I would love it if a woman could break through to become President but I think we have to wait for the current patriarchy to die off and that is 2 or 3 generations away. For women, America is moving backwards, not unlike Iran.
3
Any male candidate who truly understands the reality for women of all colors in America and is committed to changing that for the better would understand that he needs to bow out of the race...like, now.
3
One of the main reasons Hilary lost in 2016 was because she failed to get the vote of middle aged white women, who voted for Trump. Statistically, she would not have even voted for herself. It seems the last sheet of glass on the glass ceiling is made of women who don't believe in women. Sad!
3
A woman ought to be the most famous political leader, ever... bar no man, whatsoever. No one seem to know of her! Still, she has a statue facing the French Senate, in the Jardin du Luxembourg, in Paris. This is Queen Bathilde, who ruled the Imperium Francorum in the Seventh Century.
(Saint)Bathilde outlawed the trading of slaves who were denizens of the empire (be they Christians, Pagans, Jewish, etc.) A millennium later, slavery was reintroduced in English America.
So women can have the brains where it makes a difference for civilization.
The outlawing of slavery forced Europe to become much more technologically advanced, by using machines instead of people for all sorts of tasks (in the Middle Ages, China was still using men, for many tasks where Europeans used mechanical advantage).
For most, Einstein, a popularizer of Relativity, which Lorentz & Poincaré discovered, symbolizes science.
However, who knows Émilie du Châtelet? She is one of a handful of top physicists. She overruled Newton, elucidated the concept of energy, tied it to heat, found infrared, was a top philosopher… and died after childbirth at 41
Women are deliberately ignored.
Thus half of humanity is thrown away by artifices in part deployed by the other half.
It’s not just a waste of half of humanity. It also makes women less motivated, less performing, less sure of themselves… And they are on the front lines of early child education… so humanity’s mental performance is hit twice by sexism!
1
How about voting for who I think is the best candidate?
17
Vote for the Democratic nominee.
4
Georgia and Ohio are getting ready to jail women -- or worse -- for having an abortion. Trump and McConnell are stacking the federal courts at every level with judges who are ready to overturn all the gains women have made in the last 40 years. Young men who call themselves incels are committing mass shootings because women won't have sex with them. The misogyny is rampant throughout this country, and running a woman candidate is going to turn over the rock of white male rage even more than Trump has; just as the election of a black man revealed the racism of these same white males.
I'm not saying we shouldn't nominate a woman, but we have to be ready for an unprecedented level of misogynistic white male violence directed at women nationwide should she be elected president. And if that woman is Kamala Harris, it will be open season on black women. The patriarchy will not give up without a lot of female blood being shed.
1
Supporting someone based solely on some aspect of their identity is beyond stupid. Policy matters. The difference between Warren and Klobuchar is profound. Supporting them equally because they are women is ridiculous. Warren is a genuine progressive, Klobuchar is a corporatist get nowhere incrementalist.
If Warren were not in the race the Only choice for progressives would be Sanders. Everyone else in the race is corrupted by corporate and big money via the democratic party machine, if not directly in their campaign "donation" policy. I really like how smart and competent Harris is, but I can't support her. She is part of the fundamental problem with our politics. She inherently promotes the political power of the financial elite over real representative democracy. Warren and Sanders are working actively against that. They are the only true patriots working to restore the vision of the founders by eliminating the Usurpation of sovereignty of the people by the financial elite.
I do support Warren...For her policy. Similarly at this point I support Sanders...for his policy. Women, Men, Black, White, Gay, Straight, or any other doesn't matter to me. It's All about the policy.
5
OMG. Yes there is a good reason: if the best person for the job (and/or the one the most people feel best represents their interests) happens to be male.
I would LOVE to see a female President, and voted for one the only time we've ever had this option. But this idea that gender should be part of the CRITERIA for picking one's President is literally a case of "tyring to make a right with two wrongs." Only supporting a woman for President is no stupider and undeserving of acceptance and praise than only being willing to support a man!
7
There are times when I am just sick of the New York Times. When did this paper become the Daily Worker? I mostly keep my subscription for the crosswords. They're great!
25
David,
FWIW, you can get a subscription to the crosswords separately, but it’s only for computers and mobile devices.
Let the democratic process run and put the best qualified, duly elected man or woman in the WH. Articles like this just help perpetuate the divide in our country.
8
Elizabeth Warren is a leftist--not to be confused with a liberal. Like all leftists,she is mysteriously calm when it comes to the suppression of women in Islamic countries. Similarly, she is unaware of Israel's history of being pro-woman. She does not know that Golda Meir was the first woman in human history to become a head of government without being the wife--like Sirimavo Bandaranaike, wife of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, or the daughter, like Indira Gandhi, daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru--of a previous head of government.
15
This essay strikes me as utterly disingenuous, and I count myself a feminist. After centuries of sexist oppression the world over, it was only with "the spiraling revelations of #MeToo," according to Manjoo, that "much of the nation (especially men) suddenly saw the damaging pervasiveness of misogyny in every part of society"? What rock has he and his woke brethren been hiding under? Maybe it's by this same shoddy logic that Manjoo can then assert that a man, by his very gender, is going to be incapable of addressing women's issues as a leader.
13
``When I think of, say, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders taking on Trump on women’s issues, I cringe. The picture of two old men shouting over each other about all they’ve done for women would be a devastating indictment of their advocacy of women’s rights.''
And yet here's Farhad Manjoo, shouting about how much he wants to do for women.
Cringe, indeed.
12
There is no good reason the next president can't be someone, male or female, the majority votes for.
4
I am a woman and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 because she was the best candidate in my view. I am going to vote for the most qualified candidate in 2020, be a man or a woman. It was wrong to rule out women before and it is equally wrong to rule out men in 2020. Please stop this type of divisive politics - we have had enough of it.
14
This is just plain silly. I favor Elizabeth Warren. I really like Kamala Harris. I'd vote for either of them, just as I voted for Hillary Clinton. But to answer the question you raised: "After everything we’ve just learned about how gender bias has systematically decimated female leadership in America, can you give us one good reason for the next president to be yet another man?"
Yes. IF the male candidate is the best qualified candidate and has the best chance of beating Trump. I don't see that male candidate on the horizon, but your question is hypothetical. So is my answer.
7
The 2018 midterm results clearly demanded more women hold elected office.
1
A woman candidate would be fine but she has to be able to beat Trump. Extremist left views will not win back the heartland.
8
Enough identity politics! Anyone who beats Trump is a suitable replacement. Want Dems to lose in 2020? Keep this up.
19
“... what happened in 2016 was that a majority of Americans voted for a woman over Donald Trump.” Yes, proving that a majority of Americans are willing to vote for the candidate they believe best-qualified for the office, regardless of gender. And regardless of Farhad Manjoo’s endorsement. Give your fellow citizens some credit.
2
Just a reminder (because people seem to keep forgetting), that so-called "terrible candidate" Hillary Clinton got more votes for President than any white male in American history, including Trump. When the top vote getter in American history is routinely called a terrible candidate and a cautionary tale, it does make ya kinda wonder if there's a hidden bias at work...
6
Whoever loses an election to Donald Trump is a terrible candidate. Clinton took the industrial Midwest for granted and she lost the election. Who knows what might have happened without the Electoral College? Both campaigns would have been entirely different.
It's a zero sum game. The days of altruistic politicians is a myth, days gone by.
The whole gender issue is more smoke without mirrors. Whoever is elected will at best be a caretaker not a leader or innovator that the media and political movers and shakers decide to implant.
It's a new age, a new era. You worry about big tech? Look into the political intrusions and manipulation of your privacy and you'll get an appreciation of the senseless rhetoric that is spewed daily on the gullible and wanting populace.
That's the face of our political leaders, whichever party. And, you can thank for the Democratic leadership for stupidly creating this irrevocable template in American politics .
1
As a counter to the argument that women, simply by virtue of their gender, would make better presidents (or leaders, or human beings), here's a rogues' gallery:
1. Carly Fiorina - reduced Hewlett-Packard from one of the most admired companies in the world to a joke.
2. Margaret Thatcher -destroyed Britain's social safety net.
3. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, a company founded on the basis of fraudulent science.
4. Heather Bresch- CEO of Mylan and daughter of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). The prime mover behind the plan to inflate the price of Epi-pen.
5. The Fox News "journalists" Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Jeanine Pirro.
6. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, whose respect for the truth isn't much higher than her Lord and Master.
This list could go on and on. Of course, I could readily come up with a far longer list of males with the same character flaws. But the idea that women's lack of a Y chromosome somehow automatically makes them morally superior or emphathetic is beyond idiotic.
(That said, this male's going to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but because of her positions and track record, not her gender.)
8
@PMN
I'd vote for Margaret Thatcher in a second!
She saved the UK from complete bankruptcy, and that included saving its social safety net.
She repulsed an invasion of British territory and, unlike Obama or Trump, caused the downfall of a dictatorship (Argentina's).
She also played a big role in bringing down the Soviet Union by permitting the US to place its defensive missles in the UK, against the cries of liberals do-gooders. That was part of the reason for Gorbachev folding.
If only we had a candidate like her!
5
Non-since. The next President has to be the most qualified ever period.
4
I have no preference WRT the gender of the next president. I definitely prefer, however, that the next president *not* be selected on the basis of gender. Or race. Or religion or irreligion. Or sexual preference. Or ethnic background. Or musical or artistic ability. Or athletic achievement. Or . . .?
I *would* definitely prefer that the next president not be a toady for the one-percenters or the military-industrial-prison complex that, collectively, have so long dominated American government.
6
This is imbecility; we need a good president, male or female. According to this guy, if Sarah Palin were the only woman running in 2020, we should elect her. It's hard to imagine anyone, aside from Trump, being worse than her.
What is worrisome is that people like Mr Manjoo are either forgetting, or never learnt the lesson of 2018; one of the reasons Dems did so well was because, this time, we did NOT make identity itself an issue. the candidates focused on health insurance, economic inequality, and Trump's corruption. Mr Manjoo and his ilk just make Trump's re-election more likely.
5
So many on the left are unwittingly working very hard to reelect Trump. Manjoo's essay is a perfect example of the kind of knee-jerk twisted reasoning that will give the most corrupt president ever a second term.
I voted for Ms. Clinton, I will vote for any person male, female, gay, etc who will restore this country's dignity and sense of fair play.
A sexually oriented litmus test will only divide the left. Some of us have to realize that a simplistic search for perfection will end badly. See Nader/Bush and Stein/Clinton.
Some people learn from past mistakes, some don't. Those who don't will leave us with 4 more years of Trump.
3
How about "The next president should be most competent applicant for the job"?
5
The next president should be someone who, as the primaries and debates play out, inspires the greatest number of people (voters).
To say that person should not be a man (or a black, or a woman, or a gay, or a Latino, etc, etc,) is eerily reminiscent of what we currently have in the White House.
A bigot.
We need the best person for the job, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.
Period.
5
I wish this paper would stop telling me who to vote for. You have totally lost sight of the big picture. The Democrats need whichever candidate will beat Trump, male, female or otherwise. The other candidates should focus on the Senate. Democrats will need both houses and the whites house to reverse the damage of the past few years. Does anyone really care?
7
I’ll settle for the next president should not be Trump.
2
The next president should be aprogressive with a proven record. There should be no race or gender tests.
Being a woman doesn’t guarantee a progressiv view of the world. Look at Teresa May! I don’t want any tests.
I don’t want any one to feel comfortable writing an article say that the next president should not be a woman either.
2
I can at least agree with the headline of this article to a degree: the next president should not be a man, and the man that he should not be is Donald Trump.
2
If I recall correctly, men have been losing presidential elections to each other for a long, long time.
One woman loses because of Russian interference and everyone decides to go back to the old losing formula.
Sheesh.
4
Lets see where candidates land on issues and focus less on whats in between the legs. Basing decisions on immutable characteristics is what is called discrimination. I would love to see a women in the white house, but my vote will go to the most qualified candidate.
4
Sorry, but I am opposed to quotas. They are dehumanizing and unfair, and they invite corruption.
The next President should be the best person for the job.
5
@James Grosser furthermore quota systems have also been ruled to be unconstitutional methods for affirmative action programs by our Supreme Court on multiple occasions.
The next president should be of any gender. A qualifed person who can beat Trump and then be a good executive. Someone who believes strongly in democracy, the rule law, honesty fairness and compassion.
4
@Bill B
Someone who understands the rule of law. And why playing by the established rules is the most fair competition for all.
We can't bend the rules for this special group or that.
1
"You might say it’s unfair or even sexist to question a male Democrat’s commitment to feminism." Yeah I might, unless the only people who can any group of us have to be exactly like us. Then, I guess, we pick a President for some other group.
The present group of Democratic candidates have opinions so goofy that it is difficult to imagine ANY of them beating Trump unless the economy tanks.
I would cheerfully vote for a person with reasonable ideas and some integrity. Does that person have to be female? Let's remember Maxine Waters as we think about that.
3
Wrong on several counts. Most important thing is beating trump.
Most important policy issues are climate change and addressing income inequality. Don’t care if it’s a male or a female who beats trump. Just get it done!
1
The next president should not be Trump.
I’ll take just about anyone or anything over him.
2
Just a thought from a concerned citizen of Canada. How could it be remotely possible to elect a woman as a president in your country. As the citizens of all the other western industrialized nations are still reeling from the fact that your current president (small p intended) is still in your White House despite his unsuitability for the office and that he was elected because such a great proportion of your eligible voters did not vote you want us to hope that you will elect a woman. Your eligible voters are living in one of the least socially progressive countries in the world.
1