A notable number of unwed individuals tallied as part of exit poll results—about 55%—cast their votes for the Democratic Vice President, Kamala Harris. However, the finer details are revealing, as Harris and President-elect Donald Trump were shown to be equally preferred among unmarried men. Single women seem to have a different bearing, with Harris leading Trump 61% to 38%. The young, unmarried female demographic is a particularly interesting case, as it overwhelmingly favored Harris at a 64% to 35% rate. The question here is, why is the political inclination so singular for this group, differing strikingly from the national average?
According to some analysts, the guiding force behind these voting patterns could be fear. There are claims from within the polls’ industry hinting that the politics and personal choices of young, unmarried women are becoming increasingly fear-driven. It’s argued that fear was instrumental in the Democrats’ efforts to rally young women behind Harris. Pregnancy is projected as a life-threatening condition, almost parallel to receiving a death sentence.
In another twist, the media often shapes its narratives to make abortion laws look cruel and severe. The implication is that Republicans would intrude into your private life, keep tabs on your sexual health, and prosecute you if you miscarried. Fear mongering takes a turn towards matrimony too. The perception peddled in the campaign’s closing sentiments was that married women were afraid to vote in favor of Harris, concerned that their controlling husbands may find out.
These reports were clearly aimed at America’s young, single women. They suggested that marriage should be viewed as close to incarceration—a gloomy, frightening ordeal. After years of being exposed to such messaging, it’s no wonder that young women are growing less and less interested in the prospects of marriage and motherhood.
Men as a collective didn’t escape the fear narrative either. The percentage of women fearing sexual assault reportedly rose significantly. In 2017, around 39% of women under 50 expressed occasional concern about sexual assault. By the year 2023, that figure had increased to 55% of the same group, now claiming to have at least sporadic fears about sexual assault.
It seems our media and political machinery are nurturing a specific subculture that has an antipathy towards commitment. They appear to harbor disdain towards the opposite sex and are prone to avoiding forming deep connections. To the Democrats, this apprehensive and careful demographic constitutes their principal supporters.
It can’t be denied that no subculture is uniform in opinion or preference. Despite apparent statistical trends, it’s essential to avoid blanket stereotypes about young, unmarried women or any other demographic. Critics have described the fear-based narrative often associated with Harris and her Democratic comrades as manipulative.
Campaigns should be built on shared values, achievable policy goals, and genuine concern for the well-being of all citizens, rather than fostering and manipulating fear for political advantages. A close examination of the 55% majority that voted for Harris among young, unmarried women might reveal that these voters see themselves on the margins of mainstream politics, their fears, real or imagined, being capitalized by Democrats.
Many might argue it is alarming that fear has become a tool to influence voters when it instead needs to be addressed, reassured, and relieved. The higher rates of anxiety among young women evidenced by the increase in fears of sexual assault need serious attention rather than being twisted into a political game.
The media’s role in shaping the public’s fear, perceived or real, is undeniable. Instead of informing and cultivating understanding, its efforts to vilify Republican policies have often contributed to deep divisions reflecting in voting preferences. The pitched fear of personal privacy being violated is, for many critics, a blatant exercise in scaremongering.
Fear can be a powerful influencer, but its use in swaying opinions is questionable. Many critics argue that igniting fear of institutions like marriage, infusing doubt about commitment or relationships, is a stark example of psychological manipulation.
The declining interest in marriage and childbearing, paired with alarmist views about men, paints a distorted image of society. The nuances of this narrative are often used to peddle political agendas, manipulating the narrative to breed apprehension among potential voters.
Critics believe that a healthy democracy thrives on debate, understanding, and inclusivity, not the exploitation of fear. If fear becomes the main currency in politics, it risks corroding trust in public institutions and the bond between citizens. Ultimately, it’s an ominous situation that one party benefits from such a divisive narrative based on fear and distrust.
Fear inadvertently trains people to be more defensive and less open. It seems like the Democrats have capitalized on this fear among young, unmarried women, catered to it, and manipulated it for their political gains. This, in a democracy that prides itself on justice, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, looks like a painfully ironic contradiction.