Democrats: Party of (Some) Women

Member Group : Jerry Shenk

Female voters determine elections, so the Democratic Party desperately wants to be seen as the party of women.

In fact, their party platform declares: “We are committed to ensuring full equality for women. Democrats will fight to end gender discrimination in the areas of education, employment, health care, or any other sphere. We will combat biases across economic, political, and social life that hold women back and limit their opportunities.”

The party’s website states: “Democrats will make sure that women thrive…, because we know that when women succeed, America succeeds.”

Many women buy the party’s affectation even though its word choices, “women,” “thrive” and “succeed,” aren’t fully-inclusive. Clearly, Democrats don’t mean all women.

For example, Democrats were excited when Geraldine Ferraro became the party’s 1984 vice-presidential nominee. However, in 2008 when Republicans nominated Sarah Palin, Democrats’ enthusiasm for female vice presidential candidates disappeared.

During that campaign, Palin was smeared and ridiculed by Democrats and by every national media outlet sympathetic to Democrats.

In reality, Democrats’ attitudes about gender, opportunity and ambition inevitably devolve from their platform’s statement of broad principles into strict preferences for females to whom they relate ideologically. When Democrats say “women,” they invariably only mean “female Democrats.”

Even Democratic women’s contempt for the rest is painfully obvious. Rather than persuade nonconforming women, Democrats attempt to bad-mouth them into compliance.

Hillary Clinton, a corrupt, incompetent two-time failure, recently claimed that women who didn’t vote for her, including working women, subordinated themselves to men: “We don’t do well with married, white women,” she said, because of “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

When were secret ballots outlawed for women?

Today, left-leaning outlets are full of exuberant accounts of “Strong Democratic Women.” Strong Republican women, however, are usually maligned when they’re not ignored.

President Donald Trump’s cabinet and White House are full of strong women: Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the United Nations (a child of Indian Sikh immigrants); Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation; Kirstjen Nielsen, Department of Homeland Security Secretary; Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos; U.S. Treasurer Jovita Carranza, (a first-generation Mexican-American immigrant); Linda McMahon, Administrator of the Small Business Administration; Neomi Rao, Regulation Czar (parents are from India); Dr. Heather Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force; Sarah Sanders, White House Press Secretary; Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President. There are many more.

Haley, Nielsen, McMahon are frequent, and DeVos, Sanders and Conway are constant targets of Democratic/media invective.

President Trump nominated Gina Haspel, a respected 33-year career professional, to lead the CIA. Trump offered Haspel a top job with top government pay, a unique, historical opportunity to break another glass ceiling — the first woman to head the venerable intelligence agency. But Democrats, the alleged “party of women,” attempted to prevent her eventual confirmation.

One can almost hear George Orwell’s sardonic laughter at the Democrats’ Orwellian “goodthink” conceit that independent, but nonconforming women are submissive, but that feminine acquiescence to Democratic orthodoxies somehow makes women “independent.”