Earlier this summer, when Trump’s star was just starting to rise, he came up over brunch — and then again the next weekend. In all of the conversations, the shared sentiment was, “Who would ever vote for that clown?” That might not be surprising, especially since as a group of educated young women, we represent a demographic most people assume to be dyed-in-the-wool liberals. But the answer is, potentially, me.
That's right, I’m a 33-year-old woman living in New York City who would seriously consider voting for Trump. And no, my name is not Ivanka….
That’s not to say I’m without any reservations, but I definitely fall into the camp of those who find his straightforward rhetoric to be refreshing. Do I agree with everything he’s said? Absolutely not, but I’m not batting 1000 with any of the other candidates either. Call him politically incorrect, call him stupid, or, like Rosie, call him an asshole — but at least you know where you stand with him and where he stands on the issues.
I’m a 33-year-old woman living in New York City who would seriously consider voting for Trump.
Yes, I’m a woman, and no, I didn’t love his comments about Megyn Kelly, Rosie O’Donnell, or Heidi Klum. But to me, the fact that he made them, and the fact that his ratings actually went up in the aftermath, illustrates how shockingly uncivilized our society – especially our political process – has become. The criticism against Trump for behaving like a sixth grade girl can and should also be levied against established politicians like Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. John Boehner, and even President Barack Obama. These are people the American public has elected to represent us on the global stage, and they’re passing a burn book around the mainstream media. Remember when Reid, the highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, called President George W. Bush "a loser", and "a liar", (and mocked his dog for being "fat")?
To the other big “women’s issue”, I actually find Trump’s comments on Planned Parenthood to be surprisingly more pro-woman than most I’ve heard. He agrees that Planned Parenthood provides vital services for women’s health, and that it should absolutely continue, but Trump says the abortion clinic should be separated in order for the overall organization to continue to receive funding.
Planned Parenthood is already barred by law from using federal money for abortion (the money they receive goes to other parts of the organization), but given the ongoing controversy, does one more degree of separation seem like that much to ask? To me, it seems like a fair compromise — something, it seems, many politicians have forgotten how to do. I cringe when people are crucified for being ‘against’ women if they are pro-life — the two are not mutually exclusive. If we agree the government should not make the very personal decision for a woman about whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, can we also agree that it shouldn’t force a taxpayer to spend his tax dollars — yes, indirectly — on an organization that performs a procedure he morally opposes?
Remember when Reid called President George W. Bush "a loser", and "a liar", (and mocked his dog for being "fat")?
Trump himself only has one plank in his platform fleshed out on his website (you’ll be shocked to hear that it’s immigration reform), and it's received a lot of flack. My response is, yes, it seems harsh. But the reality is, immigration reform has been ignored for too long because the task seems too huge to take on, and each time the can gets kicked down the road, the problem gets worse. The logistics of immigration reform are tricky, and even the best laid plans are going to need to be adjusted over time in order to achieve an optimal outcome.
Can we also agree the government shouldn’t force a taxpayer to spend his tax dollars — yes, indirectly — on an organization that performs a procedure he morally opposes?
At the end of the day, I’m not convinced that he’ll get the nomination, or that he even truly wants to be to be president. I am convinced that by throwing his hat in the ring, and making the splash that he’s making, he’s forcing the other candidates to take a hard look at the way that America responds to politicians. If nothing else, that is healthy for the system. The candidates still have a lot to expound upon and explain, and I’m looking forward to the upcoming debates. Hopefully, over the next months, straight talk from one candidate will continue to spark conversation about how exactly we make America great again.
The author is a young woman living in New York City who asked to use a penname, because her employer bars her from publicly expressing political opinions.