Not What It Looks Like

The Republicans are often under siege for waging a war against women and are commonly on defense over gender equality. However, on appearances, the party has long been pegged as the party for old white men. In recent years though, the party has been trying to make strides to improve perceptions. Going back the past two election cycles, the GOP has featured candidates such as Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin (as Vice President). This specific cycle is teasing out the potential inclusion of Governor Nikki Haley on the GOP ticket.

That brings us to Carly Fiorina.

Ever since announcing her candidacy, she has endured a roller-coaster ride between the lower and middle tiers of the Republican field, made headline news feuding with Donald Trump, and has generally stood her ground on every matter that has crossed her. Yet, she hasn't been able to catch fire and make a sustained run at a top-tier position.

Now, we have a conundrum. The lower-tier candidates have begun dropping out post-poor performances at the Iowa Caucus, but there are too many candidates for the main stage and not enough for the lower card debate. What this now unfortunately means for Mrs. Fiorina is that she's left without a stage as the candidate currently at the low end of the totem pole.

Everyone involved is acting 100% in accordance with the rules of the debate stage, but one almost needs to pause to ask if this is truly the wisest move for the Republican party. While it's certainly 'not what it looks like', the appearance is that the GOP is kicking the only woman in the race in their party to the curb. Perhaps in other years it might not be such a faux pas, but when the leading candidate in the opposing party is a woman, it certainly hurts any bona fides the party might be trying to establish.

Mrs. Fiorina would make the eighth participant on the debate stage on Saturday night, and the GOP has certainly showcased more candidates than that in previous debates. Of course though, it is more than likely that even a strong performance on the debate stage this weekend would yield negligible positive results for her. That's not the point.

The GOP can't afford any slip-ups that leave voters seeing them as unfair to women, especially as the general election comes up and the Republican ticket is probably pitted against Hillary Clinton. The notable exclusion of Carly Fiorina is truly not so egregious, but it's but another nail in the fence that holds back a broader base of women's support to the GOP.

In an another election that is likely to be so close (based on current head to head polls), any actions to estrange a constituency is simply bad for business for the Republican party.

Ultimately, there is no blow-back on the GOP and it helps mend the current public scourges against the party for excluding the only woman in the race on this side. Putting her back on the stage takes away minimal air time from the more main-stream candidates and alleviates the distraction that could likely be a factor in the social media realm during the debate.

Narrowing it down a little further, this is the morally correct thing to do. For so many candidates, next Tuesday will be the end of the road and everyone deserves the chance to make a very public final pitch. To deny that opportunity is contrary to American democratic principles. The GOP's best move is to reverse course and allow Mrs. Fiorina to participate this weekend. It might be the only play.

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.