At a July 4th party last night I made the
comment, half in jest, that I thought giving women the vote was a mistake … to
the startled gasps of most in the room. I say half in jest because, even though
I know this is a losing cause, there are arguments that might still be made on
both sides of this “settled law.”
Nothing has 100% positive results and I believe that the 19th
amendment is recently exhibiting its downside … in particular a relatively
recent and persistent gender gap ... see: New York Times Article.
Yes, I know that many of you now have steam coming from your
ears … and are vowing never to read another thing I write … including the rest
of this blog. But bear with me, please.
Clearly there were many excellent presidents who were
elected because of the female vote; FDR, and JFK come to mind. But then again,
I believe that females were also instrumental in electing Jimmy Carter and Barack
Obama (twice) … and, to my mind, as a result of knee-jerk feminism. One can
also make the argument that Bill Clinton’s bad-boy image helped many females
pull the voting lever for him two times too. Whether he was a good or bad
president is still open for debate … but he clearly was better than the other
two I have mentioned. And let us not forget that an all-male voting
population did elect quite a number of presidential lemons before 1920 … Andrew Jackson,
Woodrow Wilson, James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce … to name just a few.
I know making generalizations is dangerous, but I believe
that many … but clearly not all … women vote with their hearts and not with
their heads. And I believe that politicians try to take advantage of this
propensity when they callously put forward issues like “the war on women.”
Perhaps I can be (wrongly) accused of being a misogynist, but no sane
Republican politician cares to be tarred with that brush. If a female were
to vote for a Democrat purely because she believes that she will have her birth
control pills paid for by the government, then she is a silly and willing
victim of this demagogy.
And I also know that, if Hillary Clinton runs for president
in 2016, millions of voters, including a number of males, will vote for her
just because she is a woman. And, if she doesn’t run, which name comes up next
most often? … the female Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, that
woman with Amerind cheekbones … a double whammy for the emotional voter. Does
this not prove that savvy political operatives feel that gender is now a bigger
vote getter than experience and qualifications? (Just as race was, I firmly
believe, a big political plus to the voters in 2008 and 2012 … and we see what
a mare’s nest that this voter naiveté has caused.)
Does this mean that I would never vote for a woman? Of
course not. I can name many woman politicians whom I have admired … Maggie
Thatcher, Barbara Jordan, Golda Meir, Condoleezza Rice … probably just as many
as I can name outstanding male solons.
But this does beg the question: Have we now a population of callow
voters who do not know … nor care to know the issues confronting this country …
and will let their emotions govern how they vote? And I do believe that a
statistically significant higher percentage of this voting bloc is likely comprised
of women? This is my point regarding women's suffrage.
Perhaps, a 28th amendment? Just kidding …
