Sponsored Links by Still Think Hillary Clinton Is a Role Model for Your Daughter?
by Dennis Prager / The National Review
Democrats have traded a sense of national identity for allegiance to race, class, and gender identity.
Three months ago, I wrote a column refuting the claim repeatedly made by supporters of Hillary Clinton that having a woman president — specifically, Hillary Clinton — would be a terrific thing for girls and young women. In light of how much more we now know about Clinton’s activities while secretary of state, and given the FBI’s renewal of its investigation of her private e-mail server as well as the revelation, denied months ago by Clinton, that the FBI is also investigating her family-run charities, the notion of Clinton as a role model is a topic worth revisiting. Good and decent men and women who are Democrats ought to stop thinking this way, for America’s sake and for their daughters’ sake. Only those in willful denial can continue to reject the overwhelming evidence that Mrs. Clinton is essentially a crook, a person prone to chronic lying, and, worst of all, one who betrayed America’s best interests for petty personal gain. There is nothing I can say to those people.
But to those Democrats who will vote for Mrs. Clinton but who are nevertheless able to acknowledge Hillary Clinton’s extraordinary ethical defects, I make the following appeal: Do not believe that having her as president, if she is elected, will be a good thing for your daughters. Quite the contrary.
The notion that Hillary Clinton is a role model for young American women is yet another testimony to the moral decline of America — not to mention to the moral state of the American Left and the Democratic party. While many of us who are voting for Donald Trump readily acknowledge our ambivalence over doing so, one almost never hears any moral ambivalence from Democrats, liberals, or anyone else voting for Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Clinton supporters — especially women — speak of the Democrats’ nominee with pride. They actually say that they yearn for her to be president so she can serve as a model for young American women. If Clinton supporters said, “I will support just about any Democrat for president, no matter how personally immoral, because I consider defeating Republicans the most important thing we Americans can do on Election Day,” I could live with that.
The converse, after all, is my position. I will support just about any Republican for president, given the perhaps irreparable damage the Left and the Democrats have wreaked on America — on its universities, its economy, its race relations, its standing in the world, its allies, on free speech and on the moral fabric of American life. But Clinton supporters don’t say that. Rather, they extol the virtues of a profoundly unethical woman who, mounting evidence indicates, sold her country’s interests to enrich and empower herself and her family. And they endlessly repeat the claim that it would be wonderful for girls and young women to see this woman in the White House. In my earlier column, I characterized the argument that it is important for women to vote for a woman president as morally primitive. I feel the same way about blacks voting for blacks, Jews for Jews, Hispanics for Hispanics, and Mormons for Mormons because the candidate is a member of their “tribe.” Such groupthink is the opposite of what America was set up to be — a place where, for once, the individual, not the individual’s group, is what most matters. It is also worth noting that the majority of conservative women would not think this way. Women with conservative values are far less committed to female solidarity than are liberal women.
Why is that? Because conservatives do not think as tribally as liberals do. People on the left think of themselves as worldly, but this is true only regarding national identity. People on the left value national identity far less than people on the right do. But what the Left has done is trade national identity for race, gender, and class identity. Most conservative women are not impressed with the idea of “female solidarity.” And conservatives regard racial solidarity as just another term for racism. Many of us who are voting for Trump acknowledge our ambivalence over doing so, but one almost never hears any moral ambivalence from Democrats voting for Clinton.
Moreover, far more conservative women think that if a woman is going to serve as a model for their daughters, that woman is at least as likely to be a woman whose primary responsibility and achievement is making a healthy and character-building home. They are therefore less likely than liberal women to think in terms of astronaut or president when they think about a female role model for their daughter. Certainly, in terms of America’s well-being, they are right. America needs far more great mothers and wives than it needs more female astronauts and presidents. Any support for Hillary Clinton because she is a female is troubling. It is a statement that gender identity is more important than moral character. That is the message communicated by every parent who asks his or her daughter to look to Hillary Clinton as a model.