Gender and Race Politics and the Democratic Flameout
When men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons are always different.
– George Santayana
In the days following the election one of the fascinating themes coming from the need-to-be-committed Democrats is that Hillary Clinton lost the election because she is a woman. The Democrats’ rant is that there is so much sexism in our society that a woman cannot be elected President.
Some of our crestfallen media have pursued this line of reasoning with vigor, and it crops up randomly from otherwise intelligent women on Facebook and in the loony left Internet media. It’s one of the more stubborn ideas to come out of this election.
The line of reasoning, I suppose, is that like all else in the realms of politics, education, business and media there should be privileged classes and they need to have their turn. We had a black President so now we should have a female one; later on, we will need to have a Hispanic one and maybe then a transgendered one, or at least a homosexual one. Sort of a checklist of the currently fashionable parade of the perpetually aggrieved; by designating success for their representatives, we can eliminate perceived discrimination.
Something like that. But logic doesn’t always seem to be a necessary component of such things.
However, if one were to spend any time with a gathering of conservatives and ask about, say, Margaret Thatcher, there would be instant agreement about her leadership, toughness, vision and success. And, of course, her integral role in winning the Cold War with Ronald Reagan. The same would be true of Golda Meir and her ability to navigate the complex and contentious politics of the Knesset while winning a war. And our conservative Indian friends would have great compliments about Indira Gandhi.
Those of us who study history have great admiration for strong women leaders throughout history – including Eleanor Roosevelt, Elizabeth I, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Hatshepsut, Isabella and Catherine the Great.
Today the Republican Party lays claim to some of the most prominent female leaders throughout our country: Kelly Ayotte, Nicki Haley, Joni Ernst, Sarah Palin, Susana Martinez, Marsha Blackburn, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Carly Fiorina, Mia Love and Ohio’s own Mary Taylor. There are a significant number of capable women in the halls of Congress, all of the state houses, and in established and startup businesses.
The problem with conflating Hillary’s defeat with the status of women is not complex: Hillary was a disastrous choice as a Presidential nominee. Narcissistic, corrupt, dishonest and unwilling to act as a leader rather than a scold, she was thoroughly unlikable and a vapid and boring campaigner. Even now she is pointing fingers in every direction but her own for her failure, and most analysts are breathing a sigh of relief that she is soon to be exiled from the body politic.
A recent Pew Research study showed a large majority of Americans accept the idea of a female Chief Executive. In fact, one recent study showed more men than women are indifferent to the sex of their leader. The same study showed that political party was more important that sex in determining who to vote for. The results of the election show that while the country may be ready for a female leader, it isn’t Hillary.
No conservative organization I know of doesn’t have women involved or in leadership roles, which are never a topic of discussion relative to their sex. We have absolutely no doubt that women can lead local, state and federal organizations all the way up to and including President.
The deep and abiding problem for Democrats is their constant lurch leftward, leaving them with marginal ideological candidates for leadership roles, such as the ever-partisan Nancy Pelosi and the demagogic Elizabeth Warren. It is even worse when one looks to the ranks of Democrats that could normally be expected to be rising and assuming prominence.
Eight years of the always-about-me Barack Obama have left the party in shambles. His legacy is the worst party infrastructure since Reconstruction. When he took office the Democrats had large majorities in both houses of Congress, 29 governorships and control of 27 state houses. Today it holds only 18 governorships, and 12 state legislatures and neither house of Congress. The raw numbers are staggering: Under Obama Democrats have lost over 900 state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats and 13 Senate positions. Adding insult to injury, Republicans took decisive control of the Kentucky State Senate for the first time in 91 years.
It is a Republican America and the media ensconced comfortably in New York and Washington have failed to notice, with a few notable exceptions. CNN’s Amanda Carpenter commented “Who thought Obama’s legacy would be the destruction of the Democratic Party?” She even tweeted about Hillary being the worst candidate in modern history.
The Democrat Party is seemingly intent on a massive flameout as they are considering the radically left-wing Keith Ellison to chair the DNC. One of the few people in the world that could possibly make Debbie Wasserman-Schultz look competent.
President-elect Trump has clarified a movement in the Republican Party that most prominent members didn’t acknowledge. He has also caused an enormous fissure in the Democrat Party that may take years to resolve. If they continue to fully embrace radical progressivism, they may in fact cease to be credible.
Women in leadership are an integral part of the Republican Party, and it is highly probable that soon we will see a female President. A Republican one.
By the way, did someone mention recently that Ivanka Trump will be taking a prominent role in her father’s administration?
Originally published on Cleveland Business Review.
Trending on Affluent Investor
Sorry. No data so far.