Gender, Security, and Politics

Brian Frederking

August 20, 2006

Our next presidential campaign will be the first where a woman has a real shot to win. Hillary Clinton will run, she will have a ton of money, and she may be the nominee of the opposition party when the country is ready to throw the incumbents out.

Her candidacy will put gender at the forefront of our politics. Will more women show up to vote for a woman? Will men vote for a woman? Can we trust a woman to protect national security and fight the war on terrorism?

There are differences in the political behavior and policy beliefs of men and women. Men are more likely to vote for Republicans, and women are more likely to vote for Democrats. This trend is larger among men. In the 2004 election, for example, men voted for Bush 55%-45% and women voted for Kerry 52%-48%.

The same trends exist in party identification, and it is more pronounced in the majority white population. Democratic Party identification among white men has decreased (59% in 1952 to 37% in 2004) more than Democratic Party identification among white women (55% to 46%).

The gender gap extends to some policy differences. While there is no gender gap in the culture wars issues of abortion, gender equality, and gay rights, men are more conservative on economic issues and more hawkish on foreign policy issues.

One obvious expectation is that the candidacy of Hillary Clinton will increase the gender gap, with even more women voting for her and more men voting for the Republican candidate. The pundits will wonder whether enough men will vote for Hillary to enable her to win.

The campaign, however, should not be about the biological notion of gender. It should be about the cultural meaning of gender: notions of masculinity and femininity. It should be about which approach is better suited to provide security in today’s world.

The Republican approach is supremely masculine. We are a powerful, sovereign nation-state with the most powerful military in the world. The enemy punched us in the nose and we are fighting back. We will use our military superiority to provide national security. If others do not want to help us, we will do it alone. We are independent, at the top of the global hierarchy, and we will use our position to protect us.

Republicans will continue to characterize the Democratic position in feminine terms. The “cut and run” Democrats are “soft” on terrorism and “weak” on Iraq. They do not understand the nature of the (masculine) world. The will not be able to protect us.

This can be a winning strategy because the masculine is generally preferred to the feminine in a patriarchal society. And the Democrats do have a feminine view of the world: we live in an interdependent world, not a hierarchy. We will achieve security through political cooperation with others, not by using military power alone.

Given the importance of terrorism and Iraq, the upcoming presidential campaign will tell us many things about the intersection of gender, security, and politics. It will tell us whether our masculine country can embrace the notion that a feminine approach is the more appropriate way to achieve security in today’s world

Can the Democrats convince us that the Republican approach is essentially too macho? That a hyper-masculine approach is counterproductive when we need Russia to prevent Iran from going nuclear and China to prevent North Korea from going nuclear? That Guantanamo Bay, renditions, and torture are counterproductive because the war on terrorism is an ideological and political conflict more than a military conflict? That we should understand a country’s culture more than its military targets? That we should listen to others? That we should compromise on issues of importance to our allies in return for their cooperation in the war on terror?

Can the Democrats point to the failure of us going it alone in Iraq and convince us that it is the Republicans who do not understand the nature of today’s (feminine, interdependent) world? The Democrats have the more difficult argument. A masculine view of the world is more consistent with our self-image and easier to convey in our media-driven presidential campaigns.

The biological notion of gender may dominate the 2008 campaign if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. But the cultural notion of gender will dominate the campaign even if Hillary is not the Democratic candidate. Although it will not be explicit, the campaign will be about whether a masculine or feminine approach is the more appropriate path to security in today’s world. And this is much more important than whether Bubba will vote for a woman.