I grow tired of the often false dichotomy between “economic politics” and “identity politics.” First, all people have an “identity”—and yes, that includes white working class men. And all people—including white working class men—vote at least in part on the messages that appeal to them based on how they perceive their “identity.”
Often, what is interpreted as an economic message is really at bottom an “identity message.” When Trump says “They are taking away your jobs,” many have labelled it an explicitly economic message. But in reality it can also be interpreted as an “identity” message—a cultural message about “us v. them.” It is a message that stokes resentment and appeals to those who support a worldview open to ideas of white power, white supremacy, misogyny, and xenophobia.
On the other hand, what often is labelled as an “identity” message is really at its foundation an economic message.
Take the meme of Trump as sexual predator in general and the “pussy grabbing” incident in particular. While the wider press and majority of media communicators didn’t interpret this as an economic message, I would argue that at least half of the population does see and hear it that way.
I was once told by my mentor that when one studies women’s history (or African American history), the history we know is literally turned upside down.
A more “economical” way of saying it is that where we sit informs where we stand.
While talking about sexual predators is generally deemed an “identity” issue, coping with sexual harassment in the workplace is at the foundation of women’s economic reality. This first came to widespread public attention with the Clarence Thomas -Anita Hill hearings in the early 1990s.
And in the vast majority (if not all) of the instances of the women who came forward to accuse Trump, workplace sexual harassment was at the bottom of it.
The comments Trump made on the bus about pussy grabbing were generally about his position of power and how women in the workplace were forced to submit to him if they wanted to keep their jobs and/or get ahead. “They let you do anything.”
All women who work outside the home face this reality at one point or another in their lives. This behavior by men like Trump is ubiquitous, and it constitutes a threat to all women’s economic existence. Of course not all men behave this way. But the vast majority of women experience it.
The comments about pussy grabbing were specifically within the context of the woman who was being paid to come out and greet him. She was essentially forced to let him hold and kiss her. It was an unspoken but well-understood condition of her employment—by all parties involved.
According to the many women who have come forward with stories about Trump as predator:
Trump grabbed and propositioned a reporter who was trying to write a story about him. She knew if she said something, her job, the beat she covered, and her reputation as a reporter would be in jeopardy.
Trump grabbed and forced himself on at least two women who were trying to obtain either contracts or jobs from him. They were initially afraid to come forward because they feared it would affect them economically.
Trump barged into the dressing rooms of pageant contestants. Women enter pageants for economic reasons. They could not complain about him because at that point he was their “owner.” They would jeopardize their current status and possible future career opportunities if they spoke up.
Trump fat shamed a Miss Universe winner. He forced her into publicly humiliating situations with the threat that she would lose her job if she did not lose weight. What is losing a job if not an economic reality?
There was a meme to all of these incidents--submit and keep your job or complain, get fired and/or lose out on future opportunities because you are perceived as a “troublemaker.” What is that if not economic?
The Mirrors ad? What was that if not talking about how Trump judges the “worth” of women? When a man like Trump judges a woman’s looks, it has everything in the world to do with how he judges her economic worth. Trump’s notions of women’s sexuality are all, at their foundation, monetary and transactional. Women are taught about this view and about men like Trump from a very early age, just as the Mirrors ad implies. How men like Trump judge them, they are told, determines their success or their failure in work and life.
And that’s precisely the (economic) message Hillary Clinton sought to counter.
Hillary Clinton’s message was that she would work to ensure that everyone would be judged by their brains, skills, experience and competence, and not on their bodies and their looks. Hillary Clinton’s message was of equal pay for equal work, no matter your gender or your race or your ethnicity. How is this not economic?
I guarantee you. Clinton knew that her message to women was economic, and more than half of the voting population saw it that way as well. (Some men got it too.)
Not all of the people who saw that message and “got it” were Democrats. (In fact, not all Democrats “got it,” as this site seems to be proving.) I have Republican women friends who refused to vote for Trump, precisely because he reminded them of predators who had used women’s economic vulnerability to force unwanted advances upon them.
Most women voters are not simply revolted by the “pussy grabbing” comments—although they are certainly revolted. Most women also see pussy grabbing comments as economic at their foundation. And Trump lost most women voters.