Democrats Grope Female Gender Gap
Despite Hillary Clinton's decades-long war on women, female voters may hand her a victory in 2016.
“If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?” —John Adams (1775)
A few years back, I wrote a column entitled “Women Voters Are Ignorant Dupes,” which might have been deemed overly provocative if not for the subtitle, “According to the Democrat Party.”
Of course, my column was a reference to the fact that the majority of votes to elect Democrat presidents in recent decades have been cast by women. Apparently, some women prefer their candidates to be misogynistic sexual predators like Bill Clinton, effeminate socialists like Barack Obama, or, in the current election cycle, Hillary Clinton, a relentless defender of the two previous categories of arrested development narcissists.
According to a Pew Research study published in July, “Over the last nine presidential elections, women have consistently voted for Democratic presidential candidates at higher rates than men.”
I know plenty of women — binders full of them! — who are strongly predisposed to vote against liberal statists like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. (For the record, I’ve been married to one of them for 25 years — an articulate, conservative woman who long ago managed to cast off her liberal Duke University indoctrination.) However, I remain perplexed as to why substantial majorities of women consistently vote for the Democrat in presidential elections.
Allow me to broad-brush the gender gap question in search of some cause-and-effect conclusions.
Perhaps one explanation is revealed by the largest gender gap vote in any presidential election ever. As noted in the Pew study, in 2012 Obama received 55% of his votes from women, enabling him to defeat a far better man and a far more accomplished candidate, Mitt Romney. I suggest this was “revealing” because Obama comes from the most bizarre and distressed family background of any president in history. (To be kind, perhaps the record support he received from women was a reflection of a gender gap in the capacity for sympathy.)
But what about Bill Clinton? Yes, he was also the product of a badly broken family. But unlike Obama, Clinton was and remains a prolific adulterer and serial sexual assailant. The common denominator between Clinton and Obama was that they were both abandoned by their fathers — with similar resulting pathological consequences. So maybe another factor in this gender gap is the underlying anger associated with that shared pathology, given the growing number of women who also come from broken homes, and most often, as with Clinton and Obama, homes that the father abandoned.
I have researched and written in detail on the irrevocable link between fatherhood and freedom, and how ineffective or absentee fathering can result in lifelong anger and insecurity, particularly for daughters. That now-generational insecurity may explain some of the attraction to political authority figures advocating statist policies and protection by the state.
Now, I know some conservative women from broken homes who have largely overcome the insecurities associated with abandonment and who have become outspoken advocates for Liberty. But the most vociferously liberal females I know all come from homes with ineffective or absent fathers.
Setting aside my own assumptions about the propensity for women to vote Democrat, undoubtedly, women voters will again this year be Clinton’s largest voting bloc. Thus, she and her media outlets are spending all their waking moments accusing Donald Trump of inappropriate and lewd behavior toward women. Of course, Trump is an easy mark because he’s guilty of that behavior, albeit not guilty of the rape and sexual assaults perpetrated by Bill Clinton — and, by extension, his enabling wife.
Let’s review the Clintons’ “war on women.”
At the end of his second presidential term (again, elected by female majorities), after a first term replete with sexual assault charges, Clinton was impeached and disbarred for perjury and obstruction of justice. He was charged with “providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury” and for making “corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence” concerning his sexual relationship — in short, for insisting he “did not have sexual relations” with a 22-year-old female White House intern.
That was a lie, like all the others before it, and the case exemplified workplace sexual predation by a superior on a subordinate. But unlike Richard Nixon, who had the decency to resign instead of putting the nation through an impeachment proceeding after he was caught in a lie, the Clintons knew that Senate Democrats would never join with Republicans to achieve the two-thirds majority vote required to convict Clinton — so it all played out in the national media.
Americans learned a lot about DNA “evidence,” and the Clintons should be credited with the popularity of all the cold case and forensic file TV series and the reality TV shows that followed.
What we also learned is how ruthless Hillary Clinton could be in her condemnation of Bill’s rape and sexual assault victims in order to protect her own political aspirations. She had established a long record of defending Bill Clinton against assault charges, including the most serious and credible claims brought by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones.
When running for president in 1992, Clinton denied his 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers, and that began Hillary Clinton’s role as his attack dog — systematically and viciously destroying the character of any woman who claimed to have had an affair with Bill. With the help of her “bimbo eruption” aides Betsy Wright and Diane Blaire, Hillary perfected her practice of “blaming the victim,” claiming they were all pawns of a “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against [her] husband since the day he announced for president.”
But in his 1998 impeachment testimony, Bill Clinton admitted under oath that the affair with Flowers occurred. No apology from Hillary…
After his impeachment trial, Clinton reached an $850,000 out-of-court settlement for the sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones. (Perhaps that was why Hillary claimed they were “dead broke” when leaving the White House.)
As for the rape and assault charges brought by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and others, there will be no justice for them; just a constant campaign by Hillary Clinton to undermine their credibility.
Indeed, deflecting attention from her well-documented record of malfeasance and her growing list of criminal conspiracies and cover-ups, Hillary’s war on women emerged again this year as she renewed her attacks against Bill’s assault victims.
Clinton has demonstrated the height of hypocrisy by rallying her prime campaign constituency — women — with faux indignation about Trump’s lewd opinions and expressions toward women. But her own assault on women began years ago in Little Rock, with her vigorous defense of a man who raped then-12-year-old Kathy Shelton. Clinton was later caught on tape laughing about the case — about a defendant whom she believed was guilty having passed a lie detector test. Shelton says, “Hillary put me through something that you would never put a 12-year-old through. And she says she’s for women and children.”
That notwithstanding, given her reputation as a “congenital liar,” Clinton now claims, “To every survivor of sexual assault … you have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you.”
Really? Ask Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and other Clinton victims if Hillary is “with” them.
Of course, Hillary’s faux indignation was matched by that of Michelle Obama, who feigned shock and horror at Trump’s lewd comments about women. She claimed, “Even a six-year-old knows better. A six-year-old knows that this is not how adults behave. This is not how decent human beings behave.” As one of my female colleagues observed, “I wonder how many six-year-olds are influenced by Michelle’s celebrity friends Jay-Z and Beyoncé, and their ubiquitous broadcasts of lewd, lurid and vile perspectives on women.”
It’s clear why Hillary Clinton has defended Bill’s criminal assaults for all these years: He’s her meal ticket and her stepping stone. Indeed, there is rich irony in the fact that Hillary’s own lofty ambitions would never have gained traction had she not been married to Bill Clinton. Where her husband is charismatic and politically astute, Hillary is wooden and talentless.
It’s notable here that Hillary’s closest confidante, Huma Mahmood Abedin, has for many years mirrored her marriage model. Abedin, a Muslim who is Clinton’s vice campaign chairperson and was her deputy chief of staff when Clinton was secretary of state, is married to Democrat serial sexting offender Anthony Weiner. He was formerly a House member from New York until 2011, when he was caught sending lewd photos of himself to female admirers. Give that Clinton is Abedin’s stepping stone to success, she finally dispensed with Anthony.
But I digress…
In search of answers to the political gender gap question, I asked some of the women I admire most why they think the gap exists. I received many responses, but these were most representative:
The most obvious reason many women across political lines will vote for Clinton this year is Donald Trump. Just how low does the GOP have to reach to find someone who can’t defeat Clinton?
The traditional family model has disintegrated in recent decades, thus the GOP focus on the family means less to women.
Democrat women don’t care about Benghazi cover-ups and the myriad of other scandals. That requires too much knowledge about current events and consequences of lawless behavior.
Democrats throw tremendous resources behind female candidates, as Emily’s List’s success indicates. There isn’t a conservative organization that rivals it in terms of financial resources.
Tens of millions of women have had abortions — and most will never acknowledge that the child they aborted had value, or was a life worth saving. They completely reject the conservative view which affirms life, because that directly challenges a deep conviction that their abortion did not take a life.
Clinton and Obama had charisma — for too many women, integrity and leadership are overshadowed by charisma!
Democrats have told women for years that they are victims and need the party in order to succeed — or just survive. Women, in greater numbers, are drinking that Kool-Aid.
There are a lot of angry women in America — for some reason, Democrats attract angry people.
Single moms are worried about kids imprisoned in terrible schools in collapsed neighborhoods, and are assured by Democrats that the only way out is to support Demos.
Republicans tend to project that self-sufficiency and upward mobility are “white things” rather than colorblind objectives for all Americans. As you have written often, Liberty is colorblind, but Republicans don’t make that case.
Most conservative women are married with families — most women are not. Those who aren’t married are more likely to vote Democrat.
The liberal left appeals to the hearts of women. We want to help everybody out, don’t let anybody suffer — we are sort of wired this way — and the Democrat Party projects itself as the savior of the impoverished, even though its policies keep people in material and spiritual poverty.
There are not enough GOP women in leadership and role models, though some of the strongest members of the Republican caucus are women — Sen. Joni Ernst.
Democrats offer more “quick fix” patches rather than long-term solutions. Quick fixes are appealing!
Republican campaigns focus on issues that “thinking people” understand, including the complexities of Clinton’s lies and deceptions, but too many people don’t care about honesty and integrity.
Democrats do a better job of presenting a hopeless story and promising a fairy tale ending.
Increasing numbers of women are responsible for family finances and carrying the load alone while men are absent from their families.
Women love “justice” and the Democrat Party, with all of its racial, gender and class “divide and conquer” campaigns, rallies a lot of support projecting that it’s the party of “justice.”
Republicans have a long history of supporting women. The 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote was introduced in 1878 by a Republican. In 1916, the first woman elected to Congress was a Republican. The GOP seems to have forsaken its early advocacy for women, instead focusing on families, which have, largely as a result of Democrat policies, disintegrated.
OK, honestly, a whole lot of women will support Clinton in this election cycle because she is, well, a “she.”
It is notable that many of these observations fall into line with two lists I previously compiled — “You Might Be a Liberal If…” and “You Might Be a Conservative If….” Many women might reconsider where they stand if they contemplated these lists.
Bottom line: Hillary Clinton is the grand master of the BIG lie, who learned her craft from the greatest of presidential prevaricators. Despite her decades-long war on women, and the fact that she and her Democrat Party elite despise “We, the [Deplorable] People,” the female voter gender gap will likely set a new record this November.
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis