Trump Needs Women

W hen I was editor of National Review Online, I had a rule: Never post unflattering pictures of Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. I’m not a fan of their politics, but cheap shots aren’t winning moves. Similarly, Donald Trump and J. D. Vance need to discipline themselves and establish some rules of engagement regarding Kamala Harris.

If Trump does, in fact, debate Harris, he would be wise to keep in mind that making fun of her past verbal gaffes is a cheap shot, and he should remember a senatorial debate in New York in 2000, when Republican candidate Rick Lazio walked over to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s podium. It didn’t go well for Lazio. He looked like a bully. And for all our faults, most of us recoil at bullies — especially, I’d like to think, at men who bully women. Trump needs to be self-aware. The “Me Too” moment is still in our contemporary cultural memory despite the short attention span that our phones have trained in us. We know Trump’s history. Even if everything on the cover of the New York Post about him over the years wasn’t true, we’d still know enough about him that is. A Billy Bush interview and an awful comment he made to Megyn Kelly during a primary debate come to mind, for starters. (If you don’t know, do yourself a favor and don’t Google it.)

Also, it’s no breaking news that abortion policy is going to be a major motivating factor for voters in this election. Pro-lifers are seen as judgy, I get it. I’m sorry if I’ve contributed to that. If you have had an abortion and haven’t been on a journey of healing — and even if you have — understandably, you might perceive much of pro-life messaging as judgmental. I have no polling to base this on, but I think women who have had abortions are going to vote for Harris, who doesn’t seem to be judging what they’ve done. Moreover, and maybe it’s because I’m in New York, it appears to me that young girls look up to Harris. Even if they don’t really care about politics or policy, they see someone who looks like them, and there is something comforting about that.

If Trump and Vance want to win women’s trust, they should rely on women to make the conservative case on their behalf. It’s not necessarily right and just, but the simple fact that they are men is a liability with female voters when their main opponent is a woman. They could, for instance, have rallies during which they take a back seat and let women share their experiences — about the pain of abortion and much more. Eleanor McCullen comes to mind. She was a plaintiff in a Supreme Court case involving buffer zones outside abortion clinics. She’s a beautiful, grandmotherly figure whose simple smile and “Good morning” seem to be an offer of hope, help, and love. She’s often told by women that she is what they’ve longed for — a way out of the abortion appointment. (The opportunities for such encounters and dwindling because of abortion pills, which isolate women even more.) She gave a riveting speech about the generosity of Americans outside of the Court on the day of the oral arguments in her case.

I’ve always encouraged men to not be shy about talking about abortion — as an act of chivalry. But we’re in a moment when men’s taking the initiative on this issue could result in anger and confusion. Republicans were right in that a different approach to the Roe regime was needed, but they were wrong to decide that leaving abortion policy to the states is the way to go. Assuming that Harris is the Democratic nominee, the ways of Trump, in particular, are not going to cut it. There is a myriad of women the Republican nominee can call upon to counter the narrative that Trump has done (and will do again, if reelected) a disservice to women.

I read a meditation in Magnificat, a Catholic monthly, about how we are meant to sow seeds of charity. Politics is one of the last places where you’d expect charity, but it’s what people need now. Everywhere I go, I encounter people who are sick of politics. And politicians. A progressive woman in New York told me the other day how relieved she was to be able to watch the Olympics and pay attention to something other than the news.

Perhaps she’s enjoying a honeymoon period, but Harris is resonating with people who don’t otherwise care about politics. Even if she never even said a word on the campaign trail, that would be the case. If Republicans want to win, attacking her is not the ticket. They need to do more than turn down the volume. They need to give the microphone over to women who can convey something tender and powerful. Vance tells a redemption story, but his mother was the star of his convention speech. And, of course, she was present as a witness to the beauty that can come out of pain and weakness. That’s the stuff of hope.

Enough with the ugliness of politics. There’s a vast country of women with similar stories of hope who can set a tone for our political debate that is foreign to most of us. It is critical that Republicans do so during these early days of the Harris campaign. Trump and Vance have a chance to make a lifesaving contribution to a culture desperate for hope.

This column is based on one available through Andrews McMeel Universal’s Newspaper Enterprise Association.