Hillary Clinton recently said she hoped the U.S. would elect a woman to the White House because it would send “exactly the right historical signal” to men, women and children. She said women in politics need to “dare to compete” and the nation needs to “take that leap of faith.”
Why do we need a woman president, as opposed to an excellent President? And exactly what kind of “signal” does it send—and to whom—by electing a woman as opposed to a man? Why is this important?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against a woman president, any more than I’m in favor of necessarily having a woman President, as opposed to a man. If someone like Margaret Thatcher were running for President, I would rush to support her. No such woman—or man—presently exists, not to my knowledge, at least.
Is Margaret Thatcher the kind of woman President that Hillary Clinton has in mind? I doubt it. We know from Hillary Clinton’s history that her policies would almost certainly be precisely the opposite of Margaret Thatcher’s. Whereas Margaret Thatcher sought to partially privatize Britain’s socialist economy, Hillary Clinton would undoubtedly finish Barack Obama’s job of fully socializing ours. Whereas Margaret Thatcher attempted to lower taxes, Hillary Clinton would undoubtedly seek to raise them higher than even Obama has, to date.
The feminists of Hillary Clinton’s generation who call for “a woman president” are not being forthright and honest. It’s not a woman president they want; it’s a certain type of woman president. Choose your label, but it’s a woman president of the socialist/leftist fusion-of-economics-and-state variety that Hillary Clinton wants to see in office.
We already have a president like that now. It’s hard to imagine a more leftist president than Barack Obama, unless you voted into office Karl Marx himself.
I doubt very much that Hillary Clinton would support Sarah Palin, if she ran for office. I’m not sure what Sarah Palin’s political orientation is, although I know it has something to do with fundamentalist religion, and she seems not to like leftist Democrats. But that’s not the point. The point is, if it’s a woman president that you want, then shouldn’t you support any woman who runs for high office? Shouldn’t she support Sarah Palin against Joe Biden, if the two were running?
Hillary went on: “Let me say this, hypothetically speaking, I really do hope that we have a woman president in my lifetime. And whether it’s next time or the next time after that, it really depends on women stepping up and subjecting themselves to the political process, which is very difficult.”
Again, why does it matter? If you care about who the President is, you presumably care about what that President stands for, as well as the present and future condition of the country. That’s why I would support a President—any President—who, with integrity, is committed to restoring a constitutional republic, based on individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism, as much as possible within a single term of office. In other words, someone who would dramatically move us in the completely opposite direction of the last 75 years or so.
I realize that Hillary Clinton, and people who support her, want more of Obama’s policies. They wish to finish the job of nationalization begun by Franklin D. Roosevelt and others. However, they’re already getting that with Barack Obama. Why is it so important that a woman carry on those socialist/leftist policies when Joe Biden or any of the men in the Democratic Party establishment could do it just as well?
It’s hard to take someone like Hillary Clinton seriously when she claims to believe such self-refuting contradictions. She can’t possibly mean what she says, even if you accept her values and her terms. So why does she say them? And why do so many of her supporters pretend to see no contradiction in them?
If I were a leftist-socialist, I’d be ecstatic that Barack Obama is president. I would probably see Hillary Clinton as his best possible successor. I would not say this because she’s a woman. I would say it because she came close to beating him last time around in the primaries, served as secretary of state, and despite her history as Bill Clinton’s defender during his impeachment and sex scandals (painful for a feminist to watch, I would think), a plausible heir apparent to run against an apparently moribund “me-too” Republican Party devoid of any discernible principles.
Yes, if I were a leftist-socialist-Big Government Democrat, I would rush to support Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, and I’d be optimistic about her prospects for victory.
None of this is because she’s a woman.
Why does Hillary Clinton insult herself, and other women of all political points-of-view, by making one’s gender the centerpiece of fitness for office? Transgendered people aside, you don’t choose your sex organs. Why is being a woman any more an accomplishment than being a man? It seems to me that it’s what you do with your masculinity or femininity–more importantly, your humanity and your intellect–that really counts.
Dr Michael Hurd
Latest posts by Dr Michael Hurd (see all)
- Bill Nye: The Tyrant Guy - 2016.04.20
- Europe Sacrifices Free Speech for Political Correctness - 2016.04.10
- Bill Clinton Exposes The Hypocrisy Of “Black Lives Matter” Protestors - 2016.04.09
- Acts of War in Europe: Brussels Takes Another Hit From Radical Islam - 2016.03.22
- Trump Is Not Responsible for Violence Against Him - 2016.03.16