The California Democratic primary resulted in a resounding victory for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders -- the vote was 56% for Hillary and 43% for Bernie. Hillary’s comment was, “Thanks to you [primary voters of California], we’ve reached a milestone, the first time in our nation’s history that a woman will be a major party’s nominee. Tonight’s victory is not about one person -- it belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible.” Thus, to her, the California primary victory is a victory of gender over all the male chauvinist pigs who have dominated U.S. politics through the centuries. Her statement positions her as another bitter feminist curmudgeon. She does not depict her victory as one for a certain set of policies or for a vision for America moving forward. 

Rather, in her stupid (yes, stupid) stereotypical thinking, her victory is a victory for “equality.” She thus is driven by what we might call the Sentimental Fallacy. By some strange chemistry, a woman’s candidacy, especially for the highest political office in the land, is a victory for daughters, sisters, moms, and working women who are eternal underdogs in life’s struggle for power, money, and a voice in the running of the global village. If we love women, we will then automatically see her victory as a victory for all women in the USA. It is a victory that is by a strange alchemy a victory of Hillary-as-symbol over a defunct and misconceptualized political system. The old way of seeing the USA as a constitutional republic is inextricably linked to male domination, according to the Hillary mindset. If we are to transition to the global village (read “federal takeover of local functions and individual responsibilities”), the male domination (sic) component of social and political authority must be diluted and/or eradicated.

According to gender identity politics, the authority and goodness of our misconstrued national entity called the USA has somehow failed to understand the power of women to balance the focus of our policies and our national purpose -- the female principle (sic) will enable the USA to be firm without being dominant. Who is this socialist masquerading as an updated, 21st century Teddy Roosevelt progressive?  What will this new firmness exemplified by Hillary look like?  Well, she is someone who will speak shrilly and carry a big umbrella. 

Does female leadership make a country great? Benazir Bhutto served as Pakistan’s prime minister from 1993-1996. Indira Gandhi held the office of India’s prime minister from 1980-1984. And now, since 2014, Bangladesh has a woman prime minister, Sheikh Hasina Wajed. Are women more respected and loved in those countries than in the USA because they have had women in the highest political offices? Just looking at one measure of “gender equality” -- literacy -- we can see the radical disparity between males and females in those countries: Bengladesh has a literacy rate of 85% for males and 72% for females; India has a literacy rate of 82% for males and 65% for females; and Pakistan 79% for males and 61% for females. Did those countries become “kinder and gentler” under female leadership?  Did their economies advance?  Was Islamic radicalism suppressed? 

Headlines about Hillary being the first woman presidential nominee, or possibly the first woman president, are nothing more or less than public relations and electioneering hype. It is ignorance appealing to ignorance. The media hype is attempting to make gender a qualification for office, which it is not and should not be. Would any woman in the world prefer to move to Pakistan, India, or Bengladesh rather than the USA because they have now or have had in the past women prime ministers? Of course, it would be nonsense to say that even for one second. Yet, that is just what Hillary is implying by her candidacy and victories. And that is just what many voters believe. 

However, there is another element in the picture that makes all of Hillary’s gender posturing even more noxious. That element is the attempt by Democratic leadership and the MSM to tie in gender politics with racial identity politics. After the results in California were announced, the president’s puppet, Josh Earnest, announced plans to play a role in bringing Hillary and Bernie together, thus helping to keep the Dems united. With words reflective of the pomposity of Obama, Earnest told the breathless press, “The president is an important validator.” This one short sentence has a wealth of meaning. Earnest taps into that subconscious association engendered by the word “validator.” There is a subtle but powerful link between the president and the legendary film character the Terminator. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand is intended to give BHO superhero status. As validator he is invincible. He will appeal to party and national unity in a transcendental way. Republicans will be drawn into this unity appeal as well as rival factions within the Democratic Party. The mystical ecstasy that moves through the Democratic Party about these issues is almost tangible.

Further, as Validator-In-Chief, Obama’s claim to racial rights and racial power will be publicly identified with Hillary’s claim to gender rights and gender power. This higher level of unity will forever link these two themes into an unbreakable bond. The Obama-implied mantle of racial justice will cover and incorporate the faux-plank of gender justice. Just as the prophet Elijah threw his cloak over his disciple Elisha passing on his unique powers, so Obama will imagine himself passing on the validating power of the presidency to Hillary. If there was any split between these two streams of leftist ideology, that split will now and forever be healed. The Marxist slogan “Workers of the world unite!” will be retooled to read, “Women and minorities of the world unite!” The symbolism of Obama and the symbolism of Clinton will merge. It will represent an orgiastic repudiation of males and whites. LGBT rights and poor peoples’ rights will be swept into the mix by this new union. This will be a moment of leftist ecstasy even though rationally and practically, it makes no sense at all.