By Diane Alden
The NewsMax Years #35
Still ON TARGET: August 28, 2000
As Professor Higgins maintained in the classic “My Fair Lady”: “Why can’t a woman think like a man?” Higgins understood nothing about how women’s psyches or thought patterns work. He never came to grips with the fact that the deliberations of most women are filtered through their hearts and hormones. Whether it is educated women or the “average” woman, appeals to intellect are about as successful as Jerry Falwell trying to convert Larry Flynt to born-again Christianity.
This broad brush does not apply to all women; there are exceptions, but approximately 65 percent of American women have trouble connecting logical dots. Indeed, they ARE different from men in more ways than one. And some of those differences as applied to government and state policies work against women’s own best interests and those of our Republic.
In the national elections in 1996 Bill Clinton beat Robert Dole by 11 percentage points among women voters. The proverbial “soccer mom” and professional women cast the deciding votes for Clinton knowing full well that he was a liar and a reprobate.
Meanwhile, between 1952 and 1998 the gender gap saw the proportion of men who identified themselves as Democrats fall 10 points while women’s retreat from the Democratic Party declined only from 58 percent to 54 percent. The overwhelming male vote for Reagan in the 1980s also saw a concurrent decrease in the number of women voting Republican.
In the ’98 election a five-point deficit among women was overcome by a 7 percent increase in the number of men voting for Republican candidates. In other words, it seems men are bailing out of the Democratic Party at a higher rate than women are joining. That is one of the little-discussed factors in the political stakes. Nevertheless, women seem inclined to vote for a party that panders to so-called women’s interests.
This year the Washington Post released a study quoting Anna Greenberg, a political scientist who teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Greenberg said, “The Democratic winning margin among women in national elections, in fact, is driven by minority women.” But, as the Post article indicated, 52 percent of all voters were women, making men the minority and women the “typical American voter.”
In 1996 Bill Clinton received eight out of 10 African-American votes, with the split between the sexes small in comparison with the gender gap between white women and men.
Are Women Irrational Voters?
As one analyst put it, “since women generally prefer security over freedom, they consistently vote to expand government.” Women’s issues are education, health care, welfare, gun laws, and the environment; they are seldom if ever national security issues or concern about whether the Bill of Rights is going to remain intact or which economic policy suits a growing economy.
Men’s issues are usually national security issues, gun rights, the military, the economy, and foreign policy.
This last Democratic convention was an “Oprah Winfrey” show with balloons, confetti and Al Gore french-kissing his wife. Predictably, the Dems brought out the usual panoply of victims. The party of the left offers promises to cure whatever ails anybody and everybody and damn the price tag. The last calculation of the cost of Al Gore’s promises was around 2 to 3 trillion dollars.
It is laughable that what the Democrats offer is so dull and predictable. There is no vision in any of these offerings except more government and more cost to the taxpayer. The party of the people could have chosen to reach for the stars and instead they proffer the insane effort to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Why else would they continue to propose worthless and failed solutions to America’s problems? Nevertheless, women continue to fall for it.
Once upon a time women’s song of choice was Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman Hear Me Roar.” After the Democratic convention the song should have been changed to “I Am Victim Hear Me Whine.” Could there have been any more victims paraded before the cameras? Victims were showcased in a manner befitting the boats returning to New York with the survivors of the Titanic.
Nonetheless, the pander parade appealed to many women. After the convention Gore got a significant bounce in the polls from women and undecided voters. As Tony Blankely stated in his recent column, “these are people who should not be allowed the use of sharp instruments.” The whole cheesy affair in Los Angeles was “Oprah Winfrey,” “The View,” “Ricki Lake,” “Jerry Springer,” and “The Young and the Restless” writ large. The cherry on top of this Democratic confection was THE KISS.
As usual, Rush Limbaugh provided his unique perspective following the convention. He offered female jumpers onto the Gore bandwagon a forum for their rationale for deciding to vote for Al Gore.
One woman who had watched the convention stated, “I was going to vote for Bush, but after seeing the way Al Gore felt about his wife with that kiss I think I am going to vote for him.” She was and IS not alone in her “assessment.”
The entire three hours on Rush brought forth a herd of females proclaiming the glories of what a good kisser Al Gore is and how important that fact will be for America. The majority of these women, however, couldn’t come up with any reasons why that will make the United States a better place. There was almost no reference to what the policies he proposed would do for the United States. Women only knew that it FELT so good to see Al and Tipper smooch at length.
Thus, all is forgiven between some women and the Democrats. This new national group hug is coming from the same folks who supported a president whose actions toward women would get most men thrown in jail for sexual harassment or rape.
But women are not thinking logically. They are for the most part not thinking at all.
All too many of them are in the habit of basing their decisions on how it feels rather than if it is logical or how it may affect national policy. There seems to be little rational concern how these policies might affect the country in a detrimental way. Women don’t seem to understand that the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the rule of law are in trouble. They are oblivious to the fact that the United States is drowning in red tape because the jiving dancing sugar daddies in D.C. have been busy doing too much overtime.
The Second Amendment, for instance, seems to be irrelevant to many women in this country. Like so many sponges, they absorb the mainstream media and leftist take on politics and life. They applaud as Rosie O’Donnell trumpets that the Second Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights is “irrelevant.”
Unfortunately, more and more women are basing all their choices on how things appear. On whether or not it makes them laugh or cry or feel good. Is it convenient is more important than whether it is based on logic, science or common sense.
As an example, many women did not react to the tragic events at Columbine with logic. They should have asked, “Hey, what is wrong with parents and a culture that could produce two such screwed-up young men?”
Instead, they chose to become part of a Million Mom March, ask for another program, more gun control, and another chunk of money thrown at the symptoms. Ignore the problem at all costs because that might mean women would have to take responsibility for some of it, which would be the logical course of action.
American women seem incapable of perceiving that most of the expensive programs they so desire end up hurting more people than they help. But women do not look into policy matters very often. It is too difficult to inquire into the consequences of past government programs or to care about numbers or statistics that show the failure of those programs. They prefer Dan Rather’s take on things even though his observations are coming from a leftist ignoramus who elects anything that reeks of central planning.
Women will watch parades on camera of dozens of victims who whine about prescription drugs, or guns, or parental leave, and then weep with Al and Tipper and the Liebermans that “Yes, something must be done.”
We have spent trillions of dollars trying to make society better since the Great Society started in the ’60s. But few if any of those programs have led to a better life for the poor or women or minorities.
Yet women are all too ready to listen to the sugar daddy in D.C. It is easier than attempting to pore through a study that might offer proof that women have power and influence because of the free market rather than costly government central planning.
Government has been no friend of women. Instead it has created a situation where women who do not want to go into the work force have to because they must help pay the taxes, licenses and fees that now consume half of a middle-class income.
When the women’s movement first pushed women into the work force, their mantra was “Well, women should be able to choose to work or stay home.” Only rich women have that choice today. Most women are forced to work outside the home, and America’s children are suffering because of it.
There is no surrogate on the planet as good or as involved as a parent. For millennia that parent has usually been the woman.
Hillary Clinton said, “It takes a village.” That statement is true in the sense that support of the family should be a national effort. That support should include tax policies allowing women to make the only “choice” that really matters in the real world – whether to have children and raise them or not to have children and pursue a career, or pursue a career later in life. Hillary’s way has turned the superwoman of the ’80s into the burned-out drudge of the new century. Hillary’s idea of a village is government care from cradle to grave.
As sugar daddy, the leftist poverty moguls like Hillary and the Democratic Congress furnish programs that often do absolutely nothing to make the lives of women better. Certainly they do precious little to support the family. Yet they successfully use the powerful tools of class envy and fear-mongering while appealing to the emotions of women.
It is an unfortunate fact that most women do not understand the economic consequences of government programs as well as men do. For the most part women’s involvement in politics is limited to voting.
The question one might ask of women is “Whatever happened to the Suffragettes’ insistence that women would take their voting duties seriously?” What happened to feminism’s early promise that women are interested only in self-reliance and a level playing field? Feminist actions fly in the face of their rhetoric. Logic is nowhere to be seen as they promote dependence among women. By encouraging dependency on government they help to create a new master and oppressor. Thus, women led by the feminists have exchanged the hated patriarchy for the Orwellian and uncaring bureaucracy created by elected officials over the last 65 years.
A case in point: Women whine about how concerned they are with education, yet they allow 35 years of inane government educational policies to continue. They demand even more money be thrown down the same rat-hole. This is not logical and shows no common sense.
Education is only one example. In many areas it appears women have an inability to connect the logical dots. This is profoundly disturbing for the future of our country. It supports the notion that in many instances women are the hysterical, emotional, illogical creatures that critics of the suffrage movement and feminism claimed they were.
While the education system is partly to blame for women’s ignorance, it does not explain why so many educated and professional women voted for a man like Bill Clinton – twice.
This blindness to his inept, corrupt and arrogant behavior has got to be more than the fact that Clinton was pro-abortion and therefore worthy of office. Like the other sugar daddies in D.C., he made promises he never kept. In 1992 he promised to make improvements in education; we are worse off than we were before. For most people health care is at best mediocre. The Social Security system is still not fixed, and by the time the boomers reach maturity it will be on the express train to hell. The left cannot overcome its fixation that the only answer to Social Security is pouring more money into government coffers rather than allowing the free market and privatization to work its magic. In the never-ending story of government as sugar daddy, Bill Clinton and Al Gore and the left promise prescription drugs for one and all. It is not logical to have one giant boondoggle like Social Security about to go into the tank while proposing another.
The truth is that Bill Clinton and the Democrats and the leftist media spare women the difficult mind exercises of logical thought. Instead women are offered the choice to immerse themselves in a charismatic figure with bad-boy charm, offering them a surrogate provider. That, in and of itself, was enough for women to overlook his criminal behavior, his inept foreign policy, administrative totalitarianism, and total lack of concern for the Rule of Law.
In their hearts women know that most likely he raped more than one woman, abused many, and used most of those he has ever come in contact with for his own selfish purposes. For Bill Clinton to claim he is a “woman’s issues” president borders on the insane. In reality Bill Clinton is nothing but the Sugar Daddy in Chief.
Educated women should know better. They have more opportunities to look into policy and its consequences. Yet like herd animals they head over the cliff and vote for Clinton and his Democratic cohorts.
But then again most educated women have been shortchanged by the educational system. The last 30 years or so, universities have given America’s daughters senseless women’s studies and diversity courses masquerading as an education.
What the university should have given women was an outstanding background based on Western culture. It should have taught women to think logically and critically while rooting them in superior knowledge of history, philosophy, economics and the humanities.
Instead it gives us Al Gore’s image guru, Naomi Wolf, who knows how an alpha male should dress but not how to think logically and coherently. Feminist and iconoclast Camille Paglia had this to say about Ms. Wolf: “This is a woman who graduated from Yale magna cum laude, is a Rhodes scholar, and cannot write a coherent paragraph – she has been ill served by her education. In her book “Sex, Art and the American Culture,” Paglia calls the modern feminist movement “The fascism of the contemporary women’s movement.”
Professor, writer and critic Christina Hoff-Summers has written several books on modern culture especially in relation to sexual or gender issues. She said she would like to see some of the more extreme institutions (e.g., Wellesley, Mt. Holyoke, Smith, Mills, and the University of Minnesota) put warning labels on the first page of their bulletins: “After she has completed her education with us, you will certainly be out tens of thousands of dollars and very possibly your daughter as well.”
Robert Bork says in his book, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah”: “When later in life the products of radical feminist education fail to achieve as they had hoped, they will undoubtedly blame the patriarchal system by which they have been taught … women’s studies programs offer their victims a ready-made, all purpose alibi. They, and we, will be paying the price for years to come.”
As a student at the University of Minnesota in the early ’60s, I received an education that was one of the best in the United States. Some of my economic professors were internationally known, as were many professors of history and political science.
The U of M catalogue was replete with course work that required a background in the basics. Course work was demanding and nearly everyone took five three-credit courses per quarter. There were no women’s studies programs. Rather, there were courses in the history of civilization and American history, as well as language, math, science, plus one’s personal field of study. For some reason I never “felt” like a second-class citizen, even though at one point one professor indicated to me that I was taking up a “man’s place.” But that was one professor out of many. Most of them were extremely helpful, encouraging and very happy to have a woman in their class.
In today’s world not enough women are taking courses in statistics or international economics or American history. Too many of them instead, in foolish diversity studies, are learning that the world is unfair to women. Or they are being indoctrinated with propaganda such as environmentalism being taught as science. Lots of young women are still dying on the vine in the schools of education, which teach pap. What a tragedy for them as they become the next episode for Oprah’s weep of the week.
Not long ago on “Larry King Live,” Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson appeared with senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California. King asked Hutchinson whether or not she would campaign against the two women if a Republican ran against them. To her eternal shame, and a setback for all conservative women, Hutchinson said she would not be able to campaign for a man against a woman, any woman, simply because there were not enough women in the Senate.
What a disappointment to realize that among conservative women in government today, conservative and constitutional values mean less than sharing the same physical attributes. Hutchinson’s statement was sexist in the worst way, but more importantly it describes to a “T” what is wrong with far too many women in and out of politics. They can’t see beyond their own gender to understand that there is more at stake than increasing the number of women in power.
Professor Higgins’ words, “why can’t a woman think like a man,” may have indicated the typical male viewpoint in the 19th century. Perhaps there is a bit of truth in it, however. Women need to start thinking in some of the same terms that men do about the same issues. Their voting and political agenda should be grounded in philosophy and logic and the cornerstones of our Republic, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
Otherwise they deserve the pandering and condescension that they are receiving from the big bad jivin sugar daddies in D.C. The consequences of this dependent and mindless behavior will be the likely recurrence of another Bill or Hillary Clinton in the White House. In the long run it will lead to a big brother state from which no divorce will be possible.
First published at NewsMax.com on August 28, 2000. Copyright © 2000-2011 Diane Alden
The Moral Liberal Senior Editor, Diane Alden, was one of NewsMax.com’s most popular and outspoken pundits ( 1999–2008), and before that, a wonk for The Nevada Policy Institute. A former DJ in Georgia, Diane of late has been a weekly guest on the East Coast hit program, The Marc Bernier Show. Diane is loved for her quick sense of humor, creative vocabulary, independence of mind, and her penetrating analysis of a wide range of political, economic, and cultural issues.