Is America's Glass Ceiling Shatter-Proof?

In the lead-up to the GOP Debate on Thursday, a thought that I had buried away months ago aggressively returned as the attacks surged against Megyn Kelly. While I make no claim of support on her feud with GOP candidate Donald Trump, it is certainly difficult to ignore the enormous tidal wave of negativity that was predominately thrown her way. What ought to be even more difficult to ignore is the type of negativity she encountered. Regardless of where one leans on the issue that caused Mr. Trump to skip the debate on Thursday, it certainly feels more than fair to say that many have lost (or perhaps never had) the ability to maintain civility.

You can find the evidence on any social media or news outlet comments section. Pardon my language, but we read that Megyn Kelly was a 'bitch', 'slut', and 'whore', and those were some of the more tame comments in some cases.

What necessitated that type of response? Perhaps the explanation is as simple as this was a case of a small portion of Donald Trump's supporters going to bat for him (though way above and beyond the necessary means). I don't think we can be so sure that that's the sole explanation here though. I would submit to you that there is still an inherent double-standard that exists is enough places in our society.

What do I mean by enough? Translating it to the current primary election season, it is simply that the double-standard exists in enough places that it stymies momentum or even could outright block a candidate from receiving their party's nomination.

Taking a look at this election cycle, as well as the 2012 election season, Hillary Clinton, Carly
Fiorina, and Michelle Bachmann all hit or are hitting up against a glass ceiling.

I think it's fair to say that all three of these women's leadership styles all include an element of brusqueness. Additionally, I think it's fair to say that all three women are very passionate about their core issues and about the business of trying to lead America. As a result, that brusqueness comes out during policy speeches, town halls, debates, and rallies.

Enter the double-standard. My observations show a remarkably different take that we have with men still. If a man does not illustrate a certain level of sternness, he is deemed weak and therefore unworthy of the office of President. Mr. Trump's appeal, as well as the appeal of so many other men in both parties across many years of political races is based on a perception of strength.

It does not take long to find a 'Comments' section or a tweet that has something to the effect of 'Wow, she's being a real [insert flowery expletive here].'. Yet, if a male candidate took the opposing posture, we would be saying 'Jeb Bush just looks so soft'. Well, the truth is that many do say that. If Mrs. Fiorina, Secretary Clinton, or Mrs. Bachmann took a much softer stance, then they would simply go unnoticed and would be largely patronized by their competitors and the media throughout the election.

Going back to 2012, Mrs. Bachmann certainly was known to take very firm stances on a common conservative issues. Her more aggressive posture was also capitalized by being at the forefront of the rising Tea Party Movement. Let's not forget the Newsweek magazine front cover, which labelled Mrs. Bachmann as the 'Queen of Rage' and posted a non-flattering photo across the entire page. It certainly disrupt the campaign, since it came so early in the campaign, but it was arguably a contributing tone-setter to the electorate's perceptions of the congresswoman from Minnesota.

Even when these candidates are not speaking at the podium, they are often being judged by their looks. It's insane to have read that the posture of these candidates can be categorized as 'RBF', but it's just Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz relaxing in between questions.

For all of the progress that we have made, America just is not there yet and the cultural swing in that direction might not be complete by November. I remember Senator Bernie Sanders saying this during a town hall recently, and I am still surprised this did not make more headlines. He was asked if he felt that America has made more progress in gender or racial equality.He actually responded that we have made greater strides in racial equality, which might be abundantly surprising to some still in the wake of Freddie Gray and Ferguson. Still, Senator Sanders might be on to something here. After all, as he cited, 'we elected an African-American to the White House', but we still have yet to take the next step to push for a woman.

This all being said, proportionally men dominate the political scene and therefore there is a greater statistical likelihood of a male-dominated field and a man consistently getting these opportunities. That is still an issue that needs to be examined and figured out, but, then again, maybe the right woman has yet to enter the scene. Ultimately, we should not elect a woman just for the sake of achieving a milestone, but I would like to see a woman in the White House and see her continue to put our country in a position to thrive.

So, does it not better suit these candidates to take the risk of coming off as brusque and giving it all they can in this race?

Unfortunately, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't 'Catch 22' type of situation.

Maybe Mr. Trump Is On To Something

GOP Presidential candidate Mr. Donald Trump shook the news and the GOP field by opting out of the final GOP debate leading up to the Iowa Caucus. However, where some see plausible weakness, one could argue Mr. Trumps move is both calculating and self-preserving. At the heart of the issue, this could be an exhibition of a true power move by the Republican candidate.

From a certain angle, one could argue the following (and more) about Mr. Trump's power move of his very obvious and voluntary absence:

• While we can expect a fair amount of jabs thrown his way during the debate over his absence, the candidates would be losing numerous opportunities to make up ground on each other by focusing on the only person that's missing from the fray. The comparatively minimal jabs outweighs the potential devastating body blows of losing a costly exchange to a competitor on a topic that's of particular interest to the Iowan electorate. In his absence the rest of the field will be left to debate each other possibly leading to a growing parity in the middle-tier while Mr. Trump maintains his dedicated voter base.


• Mr. Trump has proven time and time again that his soundbites and actions do not have a tangibly negative impact on his standing in the polls. What would cripple a middle-tier candidate like Governor Bush or Governor Kasich bounces off of the impenetrable iron armor that Mr. Trump has created for himself. Perhaps a bit simpleton of an approach, but how would this action lead us to a new end-state? Expect Mr. Trump to hold on to his low 30s in polling both in Iowa and nationwide. 


• Getting more to the heart of this, is this not an exhibition of one the qualities that has drawn so many people toward this candidate? Mr. Trump's base finds his unapologetic trail-blazing to be quite magnetic. He has consistently pitted himself in an adversarial relationship with the press and this is the display of force that brings the entire struggle to a head. Moreover, the only other institution disdained more than the media is Congress, and Mr. Trump is taking a firm stand against both the Beltway business model and the media networks during his campaign. This might earn him a bit more than the rest might be willing to concede as of 28 January.

Meanwhile, the greatest likelihood here is that Senator Marco Rubio becomes the top target of the rest of the field on the main stage with Senator Cruz looking to separate himself further and the rest of the candidates attempting to win the 'Establishment Blessing' seeking ways to discredit Senator Rubio's record and experience. Iowa historically decides late, but, outside of some last minute jockeying, the major trends of the last several weeks look to prevail on 01 February.

Fascinating times are plentiful in both races and APN plans on keeping up with takes on it. APN will also be tweeting throughout the debate. Be sure to check in!

Welcome to Ameri-Politics Now

Welcome to the newly established Ameri-Politics Now (APN) blog! I won't dwell too much on myself because the real reason you're here is to see what's happening in the political realm. So, keeping it short, national politics has been a longtime passion for me. I studied it throughout my education and worked in the field. I hope to bring my perspectives to you and welcome your thoughts at any time on any of the topics raised in this forum.

The APN pledge to readers is maintain as much independence as humanly possible in the expressed opinions and observations made in this blog. APN intentionally does not divulge party affiliation or previous work history in order to keep the level of overall neutrality.

APN thanks you in advance for your support and readership and I look forward to breaking down some of the most pressing issues facing us today.