PARTNER SITES

Irresponsible Choices: Choosing a “Woman” President Because She is a Woman

Source: Donkey Hotey (cc/atrib)

Source: Donkey Hotey (cc/atrib)

The latest Gallup poll indicates that 14 percent of the people “moderately disapprove” of Barack Obama’s performance as president and 39 percent “strongly disapprove.”

Since Obama won two presidential elections, chances are that some of those who now “strongly disapprove” of what he has done voted to put him in office. We all make mistakes, but the real question is whether we learn from them.

With many people now acting as if it is time for “a woman” to become president, apparently they have learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous results of the irresponsible self-indulgence of choosing a President of the United States on the basis of demographic characteristics, instead of individual qualifications.

It would not matter to me if the next five presidents in a row were all women, if these happened to be the best individuals available at the time. But to say that we should now elect “a woman” president in 2016 is to say that we are willfully blind to the dangers of putting life and death decisions in the hands of someone chosen for symbolic reasons.

If we were to choose just “a woman” as our next president, would that mean that any criticism of that president would be considered to be a sign of being against women?

No public official should be considered to be above criticism — and the higher up that official is, the more important it is to hold his or her feet to the fire when it comes to carrying out duties involving the life and death of individuals and the fate of the nation.

We have not yet had a Jewish president. If and when we do, does that mean that any criticism of that individual should be stigmatized and dismissed as anti-Semitism? What of our first Italian American president, our first Asian American president?

Human beings of every background are imperfect creatures. When they are in a position high enough for their imperfections to bring disasters to more than 300 million Americans, the last thing we need is to stifle criticism of what they do.

It is by no means guaranteed that this country will survive the long-run consequences of the disastrous decisions already made by Barack Obama, especially his pretense of stopping Iran’s becoming a nuclear power. Obama may no longer be in office when those chickens come home to roost.

If we wake up some morning and find some American city in radioactive ruins, will we connect the dots and see this as a consequence of voting to elect an unknown and untried man, for the sake of racial symbolism?

Among those who look around for someone to blame, how many will look in the mirror?

Presidents already have too much insulation from criticism — and from reality.

When President Calvin Coolidge caught everyone by surprise in 1928, by announcing that he would not run for reelection, despite a prosperous economy and his own personal popularity, he simply said, “I do not choose to run.” Coolidge was a man of very few words, despite his knowledge of multiple languages. Someone once said that Coolidge could be silent in five different languages.

But, when he later wrote a small autobiography, Coolidge explained the inherent dangers in the office of President of the United States, especially when one person remains in the White House too long.

“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshippers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness.

“They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.”

Of presidents who served eight years in office, he said, “in almost every instance” the last years of their terms show little “constructive accomplishments” and those years are often “clouded with grave disappointments.”

Another president chosen for demographic representation (whether by race, sex or whatever), and further insulated from criticism and from reality, is the last thing we need.

  • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

    Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are both socialists with an agenda to “transform” America, as Obama has had and he’s transformed it for the worse – on purpose. Warren and Hillary are political disasters, with Hillary much more so than is Warren, because she’s accomplished absolutely nothing but a record of traveling the world as Secretary of State and achieving nothing but the alienation of our allies and the encouragement of our enemies – chiefly Putin of Russia and Islamic supremacists from Nigeria to Somalia to Gaza and ISIS – to do what they will in the most bloodthirsty and avaricious manners. Margaret Thatcher achieved some stature because she stood for something, mostly freedom, and never minced words about it; Hillary stands for nothing but whatever the political windsock says. Warren is a phony Indian and
    there’s no reason to assume she hasn’t the same crude “savvy” as Hillary’s; she hasn’t had the exposure Hillary has had, such as Benghazi and a woozy autobiography that failed to sell and earn back the millions in the advance her
    publisher gave her. Hillary is also arrogant in person and a tantrum-thrower
    when she doesn’t get her way (ask her Secret Service guards if they’re really
    happy having her as a charge). Unless Bill Clinton has something really, really
    rotten up his sleeve to get her and him back into the White House, he isn’t even an asset to her. Hillary has absolutely no qualifications to occupy the Oval Office – fewer, in fact, than Frank Underwood in “House of Cards.”

  • Phineas Worthington

    I am a big advocate of changing the term of service for president to one six year term.

    And I know quite a number of women who say they intend to vote for Mrs. Clinton simply because she is a woman. This demonstrates to me the emotional power of certain collectivist ideas, particularly around gender.

  • http://www.batman-news.com Jacob Cremer

    Disapproval of president Obama’s performance doesn’t imply a wish that Romney or McCain were president instead. Many Obama voters are upset about issues like drones, the NSA, or foreign interactions — issues that have to do with our political ideology, not Obama’s competence. There is no “learning” here from a “mistake”; we didn’t pick Obama for his skin color. We won’t pick Herman Cain and we won’t pick Sarah Palin.

  • Jack Mosby

    The biggest mistake I’ve read sooo far was your parents not using a Condom what a waste of Skin ! Lord help Us