Why did so many men vote for strongman politics?
Patriarchy isn’t a passing concern - it diminishes and injures us all
Since Tuesday, I’ve been scratching my head, trying to make sense of the results. How in the world did we get here, again? And more precisely, why are so many men voting for strongman politics? In my view, patriarchy explains, in substantial measure, the results cast on Tuesday. What is patriarchy? Patriarchy, in brief, is the an ideology and set of associated practices which hold that men and male-identified folks should guide and govern society from institutional seats of power. What justifies patriarchy in the minds of those who believe its myths — I do not count myself in that number — is the language of custom, ideas about human biology, claims about God’s will. The quickest of glances at national exit polls suggests that quite a few demographics want a supposedly strong man, brash and swashbuckling, blustering about success with little evidence to show for it, still less evidence to indicate any signs of pretending to exemplify moral courage, ethical integrity, or principled leadership on issues that require careful, consensus-building judgement.
Some may argue that Harris campaign had just 107 days to organize its case for the Presidency; too little time, too tall a task to execute. A fair point. Some may contend that a stronger case for economic populism, moving to end the war in Gaza and instituting a weapons embargo, or picking a different VP candidate besides Gov. Walz may have yielded a different outcome. These are also fair points. Such points, notwithstanding their merits, are not what interest me here.
My question is: how could a bully, sexual predator, indisputably rude person, who rose to political prominence on the basis of a patently racist claim that President Obama was not born in the United States, won the White House for the second time in three bids of the Oval Office?
A cultural explanation, it seems to me, can account for the persistent, under-considered factors undergirding not only Trump’s victory, but also the US Senate and likely the US House while campaigning with the President-elect as its standard bearer. In brief, the American electorate’s voter choice is driven by a desire for a white alpha male to exercise what they perceive as steady guidance and frank speech that can institute “law and order”, relieve economic anxiety around inflation, and address conservative angst about gender identity. This argument is substantiated by exit polls and post-election analysis. Further, it speaks to what many left-leaning, progressive, and radical folks may be hesitant to admit. And what is that?
A majoritarian consensus of Americans made a calculated choice for an authoritarian president whose military personnel — folks like John Kelly came to mind — called a fascist, unfit to lead, and worse.
Such patriarchy isn’t acceptable in any respect. And though electoral outcomes are not reversible in the short-term, the cultural underpinnings which spurred those outcomes deserves urgent, detailed counterargument.
Such argument, in abbreviated form, might hit at least two points:
Conservative Christian patriarchy contends that God is father, in a non-symbolic sense, that the rightful place of men is to lead their homes and guide our politics. One counter argument is that the Spirit has fallen on all flesh, that women, men, and gender non-conforming folks deserve to lead in whatever capacity their talents, expertise, ambition, and community support allows.
Conventional patriarchy implies that executive presence and assertive, even aggressive decision-making stems from white men who project confidence and fly by the seat of their pants, leading with charisma, instinct, facts, data, and sensible strategy be damned. The counter argument here is that the ideal of professional, principled, and skilled public servants — and for that matter, civil servants, given Project 2025 decision to use Schedule F to shred as much of the federal administrative staff as possible — should lead the executive branch. Merits, not maleness, should be the deciding factor.
Patriarchy suggests that reproductive health, from breast cancer research to maternal care to equitable access to abortion, is somehow less important than, or separate from economic issues. The counterargument here is that reproductive health is not walled off from economic issues but rather is important on its own terms, is linked to economic health given that low-wealth women have a tighter time access, and is an issue which impacts entire families and communities.
Patriarchy injures and harms everyone. It’s not only women, femmes, and girls who suffer, but the entire population that is negatively impacted. What will are witnessing is more than one party ascending back to unified power in Washington. We are witnessing the after effects of America making an unconscionable compromise with an impetuous politician in order to secure a few crumbs and tax breaks, all because, in the aggregate, white men refuse to do the work of having difficult conversations around loss, adjusting one’s identity, and power sharing. That’s not easy work, but it’s doable, necessary, and I’d argue, holy labor. I acknowledge my social location as a terminally educated, cisgendered, hetero- male pastor, political scientist, son of black physicians, and yet, I think ending patriarchy in our politics is possible in our lifetime. It is certainly worth the effort, and further, I believe it glorifies a God whose spirit is freedom, whose moral will is love and justice, whose ways are peaceful and gathering strangers into accountable community.
As a society, we can, within our local communities can scaling up from there, practice power-sharing, mutual problem solving, repairing the damage wrought by the rarely spoken, yet even more rarely overturned assumption that white men are the most electable, the most trustworthy candidates, the most fit to govern. May the days of such misleading, conquistador mythology soon end. May male identity arise upon sturdier, fairer foundations, like those of equality, consent, and soul-deep labors of creativity. And may God hasten the day that maleness no longer represents the will to dominate, compete, and win at all costs. It can mean, so I hope, pray, and resolve, the will to love, to keep faith with one another, in pursuit of justice and a participatory, anti-colonial government that works for all God’s people.