by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
It is hard to imagine a more immature or morally primitive stance than that of progressive women (and men) who argue how important is to support Hillary Clinton because, as your local college would put it, she identifies as a woman.
One perfect example of such thinking was the recent statement made by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright at an event on behalf of Mrs. Clinton. Albright announced that “there is a special place in hell” for women who don’t support women, meaning, in this instance, for women who don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.
Such immature thinking, it is important to note, is to be found only on the left. Racial solidarity, ethnic solidarity, class solidarity, and gender solidarity all matter greatly to the Left, not the Right. When Margaret Thatcher first ran for prime minister, she would, if she won, become the first female prime minister in British history. But British conservatives, including women who supported Thatcher, rarely mentioned her gender, let alone offered it as a reason to vote for her. …
… Then there are all those parents of girls who yearn to tell their daughters that with the first female president, there will truly be no accomplishment in life to which their daughter cannot aspire.
But that message is as morally problematic as Madeleine Albright’s.
Offering Hillary Clinton to one’s daughter as a model to aspire to — given the former secretary of state’s long history of lying; her mockery of all the women who accused her husband of sexual harassment, assault, and even rape; and her recent history of selling the power of her office to enrich herself and her husband — is telling one’s daughter that gender trumps decency. As such, it speaks volumes about how insignificant character is to Clinton supporters.