The notion that the 2016 election offers us the “most corrupt candidates in history” has gone almost completely unchecked. We're supposed to believe that an admitted sexual predator who pays no income taxes, who mocks virtually every marginalized group, who has repeatedly fun afoul of the law, and who appears not to have read the Constitution is more competent and less corrupt than a former Secretary of State who mishandled her email. Really?
We're also supposed to accept that, because Clinton isn't as progressive as Sanders, she deserves whatever corruption claims Republicans can lob her way.
Almost every candidate the Democrats have ever offered has been less progressive than the base desires. Virtually every candidate to ever run for political office has skeletons in their closet and questionable ethics. Clinton is not an anomaly. What is anomalous is the shocking corruption and admitted criminal behavior of her opponent. This is not a match between the two most corrupt candidates in history, but rather a clear choice between an eminently qualified establishment candidate and an unhinged criminal.
The Sexism of Progressive Critiques of Clinton
I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary. I always pick the loser in the primary, and I do so knowing they won't win. Progressives like me are inevitably unhappy with the Democratic nominee because we live in a country that is afraid to run a true liberal. Personality, connections, and a party apparatus dedicated to the establishment always win. This is nothing new.
Except that when a female candidate runs, progressive candidates are shocked—shocked!--that what always happens has happened again. Suddenly they're ready to elect a fascists just to send a message. While a lot of factors play into this—ignorance of the process, a media that fans the flames of partisanship without educating viewers—sexism unquestionably plays a role.
The same progressives who were all hopey changey in 2008 are ready to abandon Clinton and the party. Yet Clinton is more liberal now than Obama was then. She supports gay marriage, a massive hike in the minimum wage, an overhaul of drug laws, and paid parental leave. Does she go far enough? Nope. Neither did Obama, and progressives were willing to forgive him. Why the distinction? Could it be that we're still more willing to punish a woman than a man? Could it be that progressives are all too eager to cater to a charming man, while applying a double standard that makes it impossible for a woman to be charming?
Criticism From the Right: A Clear Double Standard
The criticism from the right is even more galling. To accept the right's criticism and vote for Donald Trump, a voter must apply completely different moral norms to the candidates.
We're told that the numerous sexual assault allegations against Trump are a distraction by money and fame-hungry women. Even though Trump not only admitted to, but bragged about, sexual assault on tape when he proudly declared that he liked to “grab women by the pussy” without their consent. So not only are we not supposed to believe these women. We're also supposed to not believe Trump.
Bill Clinton's accusers, though, are supposed to all be telling the truth. And never mind the fact that it is Clinton's husband—not the candidate herself—accused of raping women. In one scenario, the word of nearly a dozen women should be disbelieved. In another, a woman should be held responsible for the alleged sexual misconduct of someone else. In this mindset, women are to blame for rape not only when they are victims, but also when they have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged crime.
And what about all that drama over emails? These are the same people who didn't raise an eyebrow when the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. They express concern about Clinton's error, yet Trump's ongoing involvement with and affinity for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin matters not.
We're told the Clinton is a murderer for supporting abortion rights, even as she supports policies known to reduce the abortion rate, such as paid family leave and an increase in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, Trump was pro-choice until sometime recently, and probably paid for some abortions. He opposes virtually every policy that would reduce the abortion rate, yet conservatives laud him as a pro-life hero.
For 20 years, the right has been blinded by rage against Hillary Clinton. Two decades ago, they were furious that a woman dared to demand a role in public life. Now, their sexism is concealed behind innuendo, all-caps shrieking on web forums, and a refusal to provide actual evidence of, well, anything.
Asking Women Candidates to Smile and Be Likeable
On both sides, it's widely accepted that Clinton is not likeable, not open and honest, just not folksy enough. She lives in an ivory tower and doesn't see the world the same way as common people, the argument goes. Somehow the wealthy white men who ran before her were exactly like the rest of us. And, of course, what you really want in a president is someone who's exactly like the uneducated stiff who voted for him.
Asking female political candidates to be likeable, to wear their feelings on their sleeves, is the high-stakes equivalent of demanding that women smile, talk to strangers, and answer personal questions in job interviews. No one ever expected that George W. Bush would be the same in public and private. No one bats an eye when male candidates are aggressive and competent. Virtually every candidate ever has given private speeches, but Clinton is the first one to face criticism for those speeches.
Sexist critiques of Clinton sound legitimate, since critics are right that she could be more progressive, more honest, more willing to listen. The problem is that this is true of every candidate ever. Just as women in the workplace are bitchy when they assert themselves and insufficiently competitive when they don't, a female presidential candidate who does exactly what men have always done has been turned into an untrustworthy monster.
That's sexism, plain and simple.