If the media ignores gender in the 2020 race, we’ll have a repeat of the last presidential election

Female candidates cannot offer blanket statements about forthcoming policy. They don’t have the privilege to appear unqualified or unprepared. Helping the public to understand why, could make a huge impact

Warren is the only candidate in the Democratic field with a lengthy portfolio of policy recommendations (Reuters)

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is in Vogue’s June issue, featured with a stylish shoot and described as a “policy wonk”. Buttigieg’s website, however, offers a contradicting depiction. There is no policy page. There are no directly laid out policy proposals.

When Beto O’Rourke told Vanity Fair in March he was “born to be in it”, the ensuing media coverage took a critical look at the implications of his statement: it was wrought with (white) male privilege and was one a woman hoping to win a nomination for president couldn’t seriously make.

Media analysts and reporters have made a point to acknowledge the privilege of being a man in the 2020 presidential race. They point out gender imbalance in these instances. But media organisations in general need to do a better job of analysing the role gender plays in strategising the campaigns of female candidates.

Take, for instance, coverage surrounding the policy initiatives of Elizabeth Warren. Each has received criticism and praise on its own – from her proposal on making it easier to prosecute executives, to her plan to cancel student debt, or even her most recent initiative on hospital treatment of African-American women giving birth. Journalists and analysts have argued over its merits, the possibility of it ever passing, and how successful it could prove.

Some have made the correct observation – that Warren is the only candidate in the Democratic field with a lengthy portfolio of policy recommendations. Almost all have ignored how gender plays into this.

When a woman runs for elected office, she has to work to combat stereotypes. One of the most prolific ones: that she is unqualified, or underqualified, compared to her male rivals. This is an important point. Women have to work harder to make voters see them as credentialed. This isn’t an assumption – it’s a well-studied phenomenon, proven and substantiated in academia.

It’s important to note how Warren putting policies at the forefront of her campaign is an obvious overcompensation for gender stereotypes immediately applied to female candidates. Media needs to recognise this and make a point of it. The fact that Buttigieg, despite his lack of clear policy stances, has been dubbed a policy wonk by Vogue is a clear indication of how easy it is for a male candidate to appear qualified for the job of president versus the work a woman has to do to convince people she is.

Take this CNN article, for instance, “Warren’s the professor and Buttigieg is the charismatic student without his homework. Guess who voters like best?” Beyond the assumptions applied to each candidate by the adjectives in that headline alone, it is obvious how absent the concept of gender is in understanding why voters don’t mind that Buttigieg lacks policy proposals. The article goes on to read, “Warren captures only 6 per cent of the electorate right now, even as she leads much more of the policy debate.” It notes that Warren isn’t alone in this arena – at CNN’s town hall fourm with democratic candidates, it was her and Kamala Harris who came equipped with actual policies.

After the train wreck of 2016’s campaign coverage, journalists need a new approach to coverage of candidates.

It would be worthwhile to include analysis of how gender affects the way campaigns strategise and pitch their candidates, and how it affects how candidates’ behaviour.

Warren and Harris can’t act with the same sort of chagrin as Buttigieg at the town hall forum, or his recent comments to Vogue, saying he envisions his future policies as “something to do for Dreamers [the public face of the immigrant rights movement] and some kind of border-security package”.

Female candidates cannot offer a similar blanket statement about “some” forthcoming policy. They don’t have the privilege to appear unqualified or unprepared. They can’t take the risk or afford to appear as though they are improvising their responses to an electorate that has never chosen to elect someone of their same gender identity.

Just this week Buttigieg has changed his stance on medical exemptions for vaccinations after facing a backlash. During the aforementioned forum, he said he hadn’t rolled out many specific policy proposals because he doesn’t want to “drown people in minutiae before we’ve vindicated the values that animate our policies”. And on Friday, Joe Biden said he “doesn’t have time” to delve into his healthcare plan.

Women don’t have that opportunity. That political journalists and analysts are ignoring how gender (let alone race) is dictating the debate on policy is ignorant of how society is structured to favour men and thus male candidates.

Journalists can and should do a better job of making this point. Helping voters to understand issues of gender will also enable the country to break down the barriers of entry women face. Pointing this out will ignite public conversation and debate, which could fuel change. We should welcome discussion on gender and its role in the 2020 race, not shy away from it as though it’s taboo. And to this point, having more women as part of 2020 coverage can help enable this.

We cannot afford to and should not ignore gender. It is a fundamental issue in the United States and will have an extensive influence in the 2020 race.