Criticisms of the Women Running for President in 2020 Are Fair—But At What Cost?

You also don't have to be a political scientist to anticipate the sexist challenges each woman will and is already facing, from media coverage poring over their "likability" to potential male rivals already accusing them of playing "identity politics." But one particularly nuanced challenge each woman must contend with is the often disproportionately high standards by which their records and moral characters are assessed.

That's not to say there aren't deeply valid criticisms of Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, and Gillibrand, and all of these criticisms necessitate awareness and dialogue. Yet, it's important to consider how we can balance conversations about their very real flaws, with consciousness of the biases that shape our reactions to women — especially women in their 50s and 60s, considering ongoing anti-women ageism in politics — and candidates of colour.

These same biases tend to motivate the hyper scrutiny to which we often subject candidates who don't fit our kneejerk perceptions of who belongs in power. Critiques of their "likability," "electability," "authenticity," "temperament," — and other gendered buzzwords — reflect broad cultural attitudes about who deserves status and power on the basis of identity.

Still, as campaign season picks up, Sen. Warren should face questions about her choice to share a DNA test "proving" her Native American heritage. In sharing the test, Warren has been criticized for propping up use of race science and further marginalizing Native Americans.

And while many, often progressive-identifying men would rather criticize and attack Gillibrand for her advocacy for sexual assault survivors — specifically, her leadership in calling for former Sen. Al Franken's resignation from the Senate — there are actual shortcomings in her record she should answer for. Gillibrand has formerly taken hard-line anti-immigration stances, as well as dangerous pro-gun stances, when she formerly served a conservative New York Congressional district in the House of Representatives. That said, Gillibrand has already expressed an openness to discussing this record, and spoken to the experiences and dialogues that moved her to grow and evolve.

Criticisms of Sen. Harris are complicated by her mixed record as a prosecutor and attorney general of California prior to joining the Senate. Still, Harris and others have acknowledged the difficult reality that the criminal justice system is flawed and deeply racist by nature. Additionally, her record also includes progressive reforms that deserve attention, while her Senate work has largely centreed around uplifting people of marginalized identities, particularly in the realm of criminal justice reform. Valid as some of the strongest criticisms of Harris have been, including her support for policies that have harmed or endangered sex workers, most have lacked in meaningful context and nuance that considers what was within her power to change during her time as attorney general, or her Senate work and progressive evolution.

Scrutiny surrounding Harris' record is further complicated by her identity as a woman of colour, and, so far, the only viable woman of colour in the presidential field. Most of this scrutiny comes from progressives and left-leaning voters, who are right to question her record, but should also consider questioning their underlying biases and priorities.

The perspective and experience of women of colour candidates, and their power to represent, serve, and identify with those they serve, is transformative. Political science research has already made it abundantly clear that female and minority lawmakers govern differently, with an eye to the needs of communities that are traditionally excluded. Interestingly enough, these communities are often the most reliably Democratic voting blocs, and as they grow in size and political clout, they deserve a Democratic Party that adequately represents them.

At some point, support for diversity has to become more than words, and when we're given the opportunity to uplift and support progressive-leaning women and candidates of colour or tear them down, we need to choose the former. In a similar vein, we need to question whether we're actually moving the needle forward by hyper-scrutinizing and capitalizing on any flaw we can find in a progressive-leaning woman of colour candidate.

There are no perfect candidates, but as we continue to challenge them to listen, evolve, and better support our values, we should also consider the deep value and power of electing women and diverse politicians to represent us. Certainly, "progressive" male candidates are allowed leeway for past, mixed records: Sen. Bernie Sanders once maintained a more conservative record on gun control, but has dodged the same criticisms about authenticity and "flip-flopping" that Gillibrand faces for her record on gun control. He also voted for the same 1994 crime bill that Hillary Clinton, his former rival for the Democratic nomination, was endlessly attacked by progressives for supporting.

Concerns about the record and character of a candidate will always be valid, especially in a political climate in which there has arguably never been more at stake. Nominating an electable Democratic presidential candidate is important — but so is questioning why some candidates are considered electable, and others are not. Women and women of colour candidates will face more challenges on the campaign trail than white, male candidates. But if we don't regard inclusion in government as worth the extra work, our stated support for it becomes meaningless.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton became not only the first female nominee of a major political party, but also the first woman to win the popular vote. After her defeat, many mused about whether it would take generations for women to heal, let alone run for and be elected president. But in 2018, her loss had the opposite effect, galvanizing hundreds of women across the country to run and win. Now, in 2020, any of the three women currently in the Democratic field could build upon her legacy—and perhaps even win.