Seth Connell reports for decades, there have been cries from the feminists that a woman needs to be President. For some reason, we just need a woman to be President of the United States. It just has to happen, because social justice or something like that.
It has been hailed a chapter in history, now that Hillary Clinton has effectively secured the Democratic nomination for President and (*wince*) stands a legitimate chance of winning. No other woman has accomplished this in American history, and it is an historic feat.
But congratulations Democrats, you’ve nominated a lying, cheating, murderous, crony scam artist to be your pick for President. Well done, you deserve what you will reap in future years.
Let’s get back to Hillary though. She’s effectively gotten the nomination, so now what?
Now, what does she run on? What do her supporters tout as her best characteristic and platform?
Probably that it would be great to have a woman President, just because we haven’t had one yet. It’s about social justice here, and equality, not true justice and quality.
This logic is extremely dangerous. Applying it to almost any other area of life is ludicrous.
“I haven’t tried drinking and driving yet, let’s give it a shot and make history!”
“I haven’t tried heroin yet, let’s give it a shot and make history!”
“I haven’t robbed a store yet, let’s give it a shot and make history!”
“I haven’t learned anything about the law of consequences, let’s give this a shot and make history!”
Yes, they will make history alright, but making history in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing. Hitler made history, Stalin made history, Vlad the Impaler made history. Being written down in the history books does not make a political leader inherently good.
The potential election of Hillary Clinton must be about more than electing a woman as President, otherwise the Presidential election loses its integrity. It becomes a reality TV show about certain people trying to break invented stereotypes and defy imaginary limits; all as an excuse to get into power and exercise more government control over our lives.
Hillary’s campaign is about gaining more control over our lives, there’s no other way of describing it. Whether it’s about guns, economics, war, or business, her main objective is to exert as much control over the American people as possible. If she has to use her gender as a vehicle to get there, she will use it without apology.
But for a moment, let’s use this logic against them. Let’s say that a woman executive would be the greatest thing since sliced bread, just because it would be great to have a woman as our executive in order to have a woman as our executive.
If that were the case, then Margaret Thatcher’s election to U.K. Prime Minister should have been celebrated by feminists everywhere. She should be idolized by feminists for breaking through the “glass ceiling” and becoming the top dog.
But they don’t, they rather see her as a lunatic and don’t consider her a success. One outlet, NewsThump, had this to say about the Iron Lady:
After Democrats had hailed Hillary Clinton as the first female presidential nominee, Britain reminded them that a lunatic is a lunatic, regardless of gender.
British voters have told those Americans celebrating a potential female commander in chief that maybe they should look to other examples around the world before blindly assuming a woman leader is a good thing.
Now the principle here is right, but the motives are different. If Thatcher was a diehard socialist, and absolutely destroyed the United Kingdom’s economy, would this site have been writing this? Probably not, because everything would have been in the name of socialism and social justice.
But because the Iron Lady stood against the socialists and communists, Leftists actually took the time to think about the consequences of her government’s policies, and came to the conclusion that they did not like it (because apparently lower taxes and a stronger economy is a bad thing across the pond).
Now it’s Hillary Clinton’s turn to run for the top executive position, and she simply must be President for the sake of history, damn the consequences. Do you think that her record will be scrutinized like Reagan’s or Bush’s? Of course not, but it doesn’t matter if she ends up further shredding the Constitution or enacting more fascist policies.
We would have a woman as President, and that’s all that matters, right?