One of the great tests of the upcoming American Presidential election is as simple as it is stark — as it is yet unseen. Can America finally transcend patriarchy? Will it finally elect a woman President? Even Pakistan’s had a woman as leader, my friends — America’s one of a tiny number of countries that hasn’t by now.

And yet. Bros talking about bros celebrating bros for being bros. There’s only job in a patriarchy — and that’s being a good bro. That’s how I’d sum up the leadup to the next Presidential election so far. It couldn’t be more disappointing, and I say that as someone perpetually disappointed by America in the first place. The fact, my friends, is that the women on offer are far better leaders than the guys — in every way imaginable, from intelligence to vision to truthfulness — and yet so far, it’s bros talking about bros celebrating bros for being bros. What the?

So let’s start with why this election is a test on patriarchy — and ask if America will pass, finally, or flunk.

I like Mayor Pete. I like Beto. I like Bernie, too, a lot. I’m sure that if we grabbed a beer, we’d have a great time. And so, apparently, do the pundits. The cable news anchors. The power brokers. The Jake Tappers and Morning Joes and Ezra Kleins and so on. Why is that? Why do they like the guys so much more than the women that the guys currently get not just all the attention — but attention of a whole different kind, a kind that adulates their whole lives, that surrounds them with a warm halo of intimacy and a triumphant cheer of strength?

The guys are likeable, sure — that’s the message the establishment wants you to receive. Maybe it’s even true. But a Presidential election isn’t a night at a bar with a friend. As much as I like Mayor Pete, Beto, and even Bernie, the fact is that they’re not the ones with the most radical ideas, the most transformative agendas, the most urgent, necessary, and visionary policies. Those are all coming from women. And so I have to ask the question: is patriarchy already spoiling the 2020 election?

When you or I look at America — when any sensible person does — it’s pretty obvious why American life fell apart. Americans don’t have any of the following things — decent healthcare, retirement, incomes, savings, affordable education, childcare, parental leave. These are things that if you cross an imaginary border into Canada, every person has. They’re things every European has, as basic rights. They’re things that even poor and middle income countries are beginning to develop — even Chile and Argentina have public healthcare.

So why is it that Elizabeth Warren is the one who has radical plans for every single one of America’s problems — but receives the least attention, applause, or interest? Here are just a few of the things she’s proposed: childcare centers for everyone to use, generic medicine being made by society, not capitalism, workers represented on corporate boards, healthcare for everyone. See how all those things are finely and precisely targeted to America’s problems? What the pundits don’t tell you is that these are all cutting edge innovations from around the world — childcare from Scandinavia, corporate governance from Germany, healthcare from Europe, medicine from China, and so on.

Why is that Pete and Beto’s ideas aren’t nearly as radical or transformative or daring or bold or thoughtful or interesting as Warren’s — but they get vastly more attention, interest, applause, and adulation? Mayor Pete’s proposed a…childcare tax allowance. Warren, a network of public childcare centers. Which one’s the radical solution?

The answer, my friends, is as ugly as it is obvious. Patriarchy is spoiling the 2020 election already — and in that way, America’s failing one of the great tests of its next election, the one of transcending patriarchy.

Why is that, for example, they’re “Pete” and “Beto”, anyways, like old chums of yours — but she’s “Warren”, not “Elizabeth”? It’s to create the image of a chummy relationship with you. And they do feel like old chums for most of the pundits, columnists, politicians, thinkers, journalists, and so on. Most of them are men, not to mention privileged white men, not to mention fairly mediocre ones, like the Morning Joes and Ezras. Few in the establishment are women — and what women there are are too often relegated to the role of accesories, assistant, or eye candy, not there to tell you what or how to think. The American establishment is basically like a frat party — and that frat party is in very large part how American democracy got to this dismal fatal point.

Thus, being something very much like frat brothers, Pete and Beto are a natural fit for the Ezras and Jakes of the world. They could go to a bar together — or a kegger, maybe — and be instant friends. Maybe they are already, who knows? But Elizabeth? Kamala? Kirsten? What would the scene at that bar be like? Like going to the bar with your mom? Your aunt? Your teacher? You see my point, perhaps. If the American establishment is like a frat party — women are either the prey, the mommies, or the professors.

Hence, because American establishment politics is a frat party, and its single overriding criterion is likeability — what a giveaway that it is a frat party in the first place — just like it doesn’t matter if the dude next door is a dummy, a jackass, a moron, and a profound ignoramus, so long as he’s a bro…it doesn’t matter whatsoever in American politics what a man thinks, or even if he does, but only that he is one, and that he’s “likable.” Beto and Pete and the rest of the guys are “likeable”, sure. But it’s not even just that that’s mostly irrelevant — it’s a dead giveaway that what we’re dealing with is patriarchy of the most tribal and inane sort, literal fraternalism. The brothers of the fraternity, the Ezras and Jakes and so on, give the other brothers, the Betos and Jakes all the attention and praise — and the women receive none, because these women aren’t competing to be accessories or assistant or eye candy — they’re competing to be leaders. All of that’s profoundly threatening to the brothers, after all — even if they don’t know it, or won’t admit it.

“Likability” means what it always does in patriarchy, which is more or less the opposite for men as it is for women — and it’s a vastly lower standard, too. For a guy to be perceived as intelligent, as fit for power, as worthy of the respect of his bros, he has to be three things. He has to act masculine, which means something like he has to be “assertive” and “confident.” He has to act white, which means something like he has to “tough” and “brave”, emotionless, basically. And he has to be “smart”, which means more or less that he can say the right thing to the right person, and then turn right around, and say something else — smart, meaning ruthless, cunning, clever, selfish. (A cynic might add: a “real man” in patriarchy has to be suitably violent, not a simpering wimp — which means he has to think of “national security” as a matter of bombs and bullets, not of climate change and safety nets and making sure a nation doesn’t become a land of idiots.

And yet for a woman, being likable means something like being pliant, agreeable, submissive. And definitely not intelligent or thoughtful. It means never standing up for yourself — and especially not for your ideas, because you’re not supposed to have any. Women who do those things are “difficult”, “troublesome”, “challenging.” They don’t “fit”, they don’t “behave.” Minds aren’t things they’re supposed to have, just bodies — and if they do show any feelings, it proves how weak they are. The double bind of patriarchy — show that you have a heart, mind, or soul, and all it does is work against you. And yet the alternative is to act submissive, and be furious inside forever.

Hence, when you put the Betos and Petes up against the Elizabeths and Kamalas, the following happens. Even though the Betos and Petes aren’t nearly as thoughtful, even their ideas aren’t nearly as innovative, even though their agendas aren’t nearly as transformative — somehow, they’ve become the brave, intelligent, authentic fighters. But the women, for displaying more of the very same attributes — intelligence, thoughtfulness, courage, truth — are ignored, when they’re not being taunted, mocked, derided, or pilloried.

What the?

That double standard, my friends is more stark evidence of patriarchy at work. And so is the low bar. for Beto and Pete to be “smart”, all they have to do is propose something, anything, vaguely intelligible, like tax deductions for childcare. But for an Elizabeth to be smart, even proposing universal public childcare through a network of daycare centers isn’t enough. For a Beto or Pete to be thoughtful, it’s enough to talk in generalities and platitudes — but for an Elizabeth to be thoughtful, it isn’t enough even to propose radically reimagining how capitalist corporations are governed (not by tuned out boards of insiders anymore, but boards composed of workers, too.) For a Pete or Beto to be authentic, it’s enough to talk about their lives — but for an Elizabeth to be authentic, it’s not authentic even to talk about the very real problems most Americans face. She must be in it for herself! For a Beto or Pete to be brave, it’s enough to delve into their background — Pete’s gay, Beto’s a warrior. But for Elizabeth to be brave, it isn’t enough to propose transforming America into something very much like a European social democracy.

What the?

You might have noticed another aspect of patriarchy in the paragraph above. The Betos and Petes are evaluated on their “character” — their lives are their biggest advertisements, their greatest evidence of competence and character — and all that is displayed by three things, in the American context. One, have they been willing to do violence? Yes. Great! That means they’re real men! Two, have they struggled against the odds? Yes. Great! That means they must be good dudes. Three, do they have the right pedigree, the right labels, degrees, markers, like Ivy League and so on? Yes. Great! That means they must be smart.

But the women aren’t evaluated the same way. In fact, they’re evaluated in just the opposite way. Their lives can never be used as evidence of character, virtue, or competence — their lives can only count against them. Hence, Pete and Beto can prove how intelligent they are with fine degrees and Rhodes scholarships — but the fact that Elizabeth’s (wait for it) a real life eminent professor doesn’t count for her, only against her. Ever pundit under the sun mentions Mayor Pete’s Rhodes scholarship — but how many times have you heard it discussed that Warren’s a real-life academic? Hence, no matter what Elizabeth Warren has done in her life (or any of the other women), it’s used a way to attack her. If she’s smart, she must be unfeeling, if she shows feelings she must be weak, if she shows strength, she can’t be smart. Bang! The trap is sprung. You can’t win under patriarchy, unless you’re one of the bros — but that’s the point.

This time, we see one of the most poisonous mechanisms deepest at work in patriarchy: the deep, hidden double standard that men can prove their character by what they’ve done, but women can only prove their character by what they haven’t (sleeping around, making trouble, using their minds, and so on.) Hence, men get endless second chances — but women barely get first ones. Anything a woman does counts against her in a patriarchy — never for her — that’s the trap.

But if a woman can only prove that she’s good, competent, virtuous, trustworthy, desirable by what she hasn’t done — never by what she has — then what can a woman do, but submit to the wishes of men, since being obedient is all you can do to prove your goodness and worth? That’s patriarchy in a nutshell.

And that, my friends, is exactly what this election is boiling down to so far.

Hence, everything I’ve seen so far in this election’s leadup tells me that patriarchy is spoiling it, and spoiling it badly. The Betos and Petes are likable, sure. I’d have a beer or three with them anytime. But what they’re not are the radicals. The visionaries. The innovators. The pioneers. They are probably good and smart and kind. But they’re a long, long way from the best and smartest and realest and wisest people for this job.

But this job is not a small one, my friends. It is a great and grave and crucial one. It shouldn’t be decided on the basis — Dubya style — of who we’d most like to have a beer with. America is falling apart before our eyes. Yes, really. Nowhere else in the world, apart from maybe the Congo, has falling incomes, savings, longevity, trust, meaning, and happiness, not to mention declining democracy — nowhere. This election will be a genuine turning point for Americans — and a last chance, too.

And in that way, I suppose, it’s also a test. Are Americans smart enough to choose the truly best leaders from among them — the most intelligent, thoughtful, courageous, defiant, wise, and true? Or will they just choose who patriarchy tells them to? The dude, the white dude, the pedigreed white dude, that’s the most aw shucks likable? Those aren’t nearly the same thing.

So far, America’s pundits, columnists, thinkers, and intellectuals are all failing that test, and failing it badly. They are choosing the Betos and the Petes over the Elizabeths because it’s an easier story to tell, a better product to sell, in a patriarchy — and it benefits them more to choose little patriarchs — because all of them are part of the patriarchy, too. Bros protect bros. Bros elevate bros. Bros talking about bros celebrating bros applauding bros. Women are only there to be seen, not heard, felt, not obeyed, led, not led by. Even if they’re the best ones for the job. In a patriarchy, after all, the only real job is being a bro.

And so one of the great tests of this election is whether America can finally transcend patriarchy. After all — not being able to is exactly how we ended up with “grab ’em by the pussy” Trump.

Umair

April 2019