why do women vote for sexual harassers?

Why do women vote for sexual harassers?

I first found myself asking this question a year ago after learning that 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump, even though a recording of him saying he could grab women “by the pussy” played incessantly on every cable news station.

I once again find myself asking this question again because tomorrow, Alabama voters go to the polls to vote for or against everyone’s favorite Senate candidate--you guessed it, child molester and anti-19th amendment crusader Roy Moore.. A Washington Post poll out last week shows that 57% of white women who are likely voters plan on voting for Roy Moore, the man who has been accused by nine (count ‘em) women on the record of sexually harassment and abuse. Four of those nine say Moore pursued them as children.

Most people in my circles (I get it, I’m a coastal elite living in a liberal bubble) are looking around, aghast, as a LITERAL PEDOPHILE conducts a remarkably successful (or at least successful for a pedophile) campaign for U.S. Senate. I think people are particularly shocked by Moore’s success not simply because he is a pedophile/sexual abuser (plenty have run for U.S. Congress before), but because in the post-Trump, #MeToo era, some feel like the public’s handling of sexual assault was starting to change for the better.

And there are reasons to think that. Three members of the U.S. House of Representatives were ousted last week because of sexual harassment allegations. Reporters, directors, actors, and more have been fired and publicly shunned for less shocking allegations. Presumably, these reactions come from mounting public intolerance of sexual assault. Still, it seems like voters, even female ones, are not ready to let sexual harassment become a disqualifier for a political candidate. Why?

This is a big and daunting question. And I might only be able to answer part of it, but gosh dang it, I’m going to try. As it relates to tomorrow’s special Senate election, I have two answers.

1. Partisanship is a much stronger political identity than gender, or beliefs about any one issue. We all have many identities (I, for example, identify as a curly-haired woman, an older sister, a Nationals fan, a lover of sweet potato fries and Russian dressing, and many more things). However, not all these identities affect how I vote. From a BOATLOAD of political science research (seriously, have you seen how thick some academic papers are?), we know that identities have to be politically activated to be consequential to vote choice. **If you want to learn how these identities became politically activated HIT ME UP because it’s basically my fav subject**. The most successful movements, the ones that bring people out to a rally or to vote, are the ones that create new political identities for their supporters (think “Tea Partier” or “Bernie Bro”). Here are some examples: gun owners, evangelical Christians, union members. We know that party, race and gender are all consequential political identities. But all political identities are not created equal. The effect of partisanship on vote choice is MUCH stronger than gender. In other words, you choose who to vote for based on which party you identify with, not which gender. Dynamics get more complicated when you talk about intersectional identities (white women Republicans, black male Democrats, etc.), especially because these identities interact with each other. Still, even in the identity soup that are our brains, partisanship usually wins out. Whatever party you belong to is your team, and you’re most likely going to stick with your team, even if you don’t like the guy on the ballot. It makes sense that most white women in Alabama would vote for Roy Moore, because most white women in Alabama identify as Republican.

But it’s not that all Alabama Republicans are holding their noses and voting for Moore because a Republican pedophile is better than a regular Democrat (though I think some are making that choice). That same poll shows a plurality of Alabama Republicans (46%), and white women (35%), flat out don’t believe the heavily corroborated and credible allegations against Moore. What’s more, majorities of both groups (87% of Republicans and 66% of white women) either don’t believe the allegations or have “no opinion” on the subject. Which brings me to my next answer…

2. Partisan media has enormous power to frame new issues and new information for voters. The power of media on people’s political choices is generally, in my opinion, a bit overhyped. This is partly because most people seek out media outlets that reinforce the beliefs they already hold, rather than change their mind about something or prompt action. Conservatives watch Fox News because they’re already conservative; Fox News probably doesn’t make you conservative. But this self-segregation of news by party and ideology reinforces the power the media does have: to frame new issues and information, ones its viewers may not have already formed opinions about. Now, I’m not saying sexual assault is a “new” issue. It’s a time-honored tradition of men in power, just like discrediting victims of sexual assault is a time honored tradition of American politics. But I think we can all agree that these last few months have constituted a re-entrance of sexual assault into the public conversation. And with this re-entrance, different news outlets have been able to shape whether their viewers really care about the issue of sexual assault and how they view accusers (e.g. as credible or not). The liberal media and Democratic party leaders have openly debated whether or not victims should be believed at the expense of party darlings (see Nancy Pelosi’s first statement about assault allegations against John Conyers. Sparknotes: it’s rough). But far right media has been much more disciplined in framing this issue: sexual harassment isn’t that big a deal (I mean anything could be misconstrued!!) and we should be wary of any allegations against Republican officials because who knows what these women’s motives are. Moore himself has even chipped in (it’s a team effort, you know). It’s worth noting too that Moore is not a run of the mill Republican. He’s a Trump-like (except ultra-conservative) insurgent that gained notoriety by getting fired from the Alabama State Supreme Court (twice!) because he violated separation of church and state. In the age of #AlternativeFacts, it’s not a heavy reach for a far right candidate to suggest that these women are part of a democratic conspiracy to take him down. It actually fits nicely into his existing narrative. 57% of white women in Alabama are not surrounded by people saying, “Roy Moore raped little girls.” They’re likely surrounded by, “these women say that’s what happened” or “Democrats/insiders/elites/devil spawn are just planting misinformation about our candidate.” Conservative media has made HUGE numbers of Alabama Republicans and white women seriously doubt highly credible reports of child sex abuse by framing them as not important to your vote and probably not true anyway.

If I was a betting girl, I’d most likely put a crisp $5 bill (I’m not made out of money) down on the odds that Roy Moore wins tomorrow. I’d also bet that most white women will vote for him. But it’s not because these voters are stupid, or pro-pedophilia, or not paying attention. It’s a complex puzzle, and one I’ve only scratched the surface of here. But if we want to make sexual harassment a voting issue, understanding these dynamics are the only way forward.

#alabama #roymoore #gross #ew #politicalpsychology #outrage