Elizabeth Warren is our best bet for a woman President

The argument

As reproductive rights remain under attack in the U.S., America needs a woman for President more than ever, and Elizabeth Warren is the strongest bet for delivering one. The first part of the case is about advocacy. America is wracked with a pervasive sense of misogyny, and the policies most directly at stake bear on women's lives in particular. Women therefore need someone in the White House who will advocate for them — not as one constituency among many to be balanced against others, but as someone who has an immediate stake in the outcome. Proponents argue that this changes what gets prioritised, what gets defended when it comes under pressure, and what is treated as negotiable. The second part is about what the office signifies. There is a strong symbolic weight to having a woman President, and that weight does practical work. Having a female Head of State leads to more women entering politics, which compounds over time as candidacies that once looked improbable begin to look ordinary. It also offers a level of symbolic empowerment to citizens, who see the highest office in the country held by someone like them. Neither effect depends on any particular policy; both follow simply from the fact of the office being occupied. The third part answers the objection that usually closes the argument down. The electability of woman candidates is often dismissed, but this is itself a misogynistic view rather than a neutral assessment of the odds — it treats the prejudice of some voters as a fixed fact about the electorate and then asks women to absorb the cost of it. A woman is more than capable of becoming President of the United States, and more than that, now is the time it should happen. Being a woman may even give candidates a small advantage in terms of electability.

Context

Warren is now the only female candidate in the top performers of the Democratic race. After Hillary Clinton unexpectedly lost the 2016 election, it is now time for America to have a woman President.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There is no inherent reason a President who is a woman is inherently better for women. What matters is the policies they advocate for. Margaret Thatcher was the first woman Prime Minister in the UK, but her policies did not advance the cause of feminism - for instance, she advanced only one woman to her cabinet in her time as Prime Minister.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] There is no inherent reason a woman President is beneficial or indeed better for women.