How rhetoric has silenced politics

| Staff Writer

A year ago, I wrote an article about how Hillary’s gender played a role in why I supported her. I was careful to avoid suggesting that gender should be the only reason why someone should vote for her because, ideally, any person should be more than their gender. I support her stance on abortion and her vow to improve women’s rights. It would be anti-feminist and ignorant to support her solely for being a woman. And yet, here we are now—essentially reducing the candidates to who they are rather than what they stand for.

Every election year, there are candidates who fall on either side of the political spectrum. Some are more conservative, some are more liberal, but there is always disagreement on the path that our country needs to take in the coming years. This year, Trump and Clinton’s disagreement goes beyond civic debate. They hate each other, but that hatred doesn’t stem just from their policies. This unprecedented hatred isn’t just political—it’s personal.

No matter how many times Trump claims to respect women, his rhetoric clearly contradicts that. He may spout out rehearsed lines at the debates that make the average viewer wonder about the legitimacy of his candidacy (see; “nasty woman”), but what he says when he thinks no one is listening is a truer indicator of his personal beliefs. Whether it’s reducing his own daughter to a sexual object, criticizing a mourning woman for not speaking more or justifying sexual assault as playful banter, Trump has time and time again proved that he does not respect women.

Trump has effectively eliminated the need for genuine political discourse in this election cycle and has made it acceptable to vote for someone solely based on their gender. It’s hard to be any more disappointed by the past few months, but it enrages me that Trump has taken away the chance for Hillary to prove she is more than a woman in politics. Personal feelings aside, I despise Trump for absolutely corrupting this election so that policies don’t matter.

But it’s not just the candidates who are diverting voters away from thinking about policy. News coverage of the debate has consistently surrounded Hillary’s email scandals and Trump’s slew of scandals and slipups. The media will talk about Trump calling Hillary “crooked” and “nasty,” and using offensive terms such as “hombre” in reference to Mexicans. But a discussion on environmental policy is hard to come by. When the media focuses in on rhetoric, they are basically urging us to make voting decisions based on character and not politics. This massive movement has effectively silenced the diverse set of fiscal, social and environmental policies that Clinton, and to some extent Trump, have put forward for their candidacy.

John Oliver said that in a computer game, it makes sense that a man like Trump is the last boss Hillary needs to conquer in her quest for the Oval Office. While the analogy is quite funny, it’s a sad reality. Clinton has worked years to accumulate the skills necessary to be a president, and, in the end, those skills don’t matter. It’s not fair to her and it’s not fair to us. Voters should get to choose their candidate based on policy instead of picking sides based on personal differences.

Sign up for the email edition

Stay up to date with everything happening at Washington University and beyond.

Subscribe