There are seventy-four million good reasons to vote for Kamala Harris. That’s the number of people who voted for Donald Trump in 2020.
But there’s one bad reason—that she’s a woman.
It would be equally foolish to vote for Trump or Biden or FDR because they’re men.
Now there are people who WON’T vote for Harris because she’s a woman. That’s ridiculous, of course. But it would be equally stupid to vote against Trump because he’s a man. “Women” and “men” are both totally heterogeneous categories. In America, knowing someone is male or female doesn’t predict much, except perhaps how they usually pee.
Sarah Palin is a woman, and she wanted to start World War III if elected. Pete Buttigieg is a man, and he’s gay. George Bush is a man, and he almost did start World War III, but it was because he’s a simpleton who couldn’t find Iraq on a map, not because he was a testosterone-fueled maniac. Mother Theresa was a woman, and I wouldn’t want her for President. Joan of Arc was an accomplished military leader until she was captured and burned at the stake at age 19.
Some people say they’re going to vote for Kamala Harris “because she’s a woman.” It’s about time, they say. It’ll be exciting, they say. Sure, America needs all the votes for Harris it can get. But maybe such people need a course in how democracy is supposed to work.
Take Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan. Elections there are meaningless because tribal and ethnic loyalty outranks any other consideration. Given the chance to vote, Sunnis “vote” for the Sunni candidate, Shias “vote” for the Shia candidate, and so on. It’s the same in the regressive parts of the Balkans: Ethnic Albanians voting for ethnic Albanians, ethnic Serbs voting for ethnic Serbs, etc.. No consideration of candidates’ strengths or what they stand for. In such societies you don’t need an election, just a census.
The second Harris takes office, she won’t be a “woman”—she’ll be an ideology, whether it’s pro-war, pro-choice, or pro-chocolate. She’ll be a philosophy. She’ll be beholden to her major donors. It won’t matter if she’s a woman, a man, or some other gender. Ditto Donald Trump: if elected, he won’t be a “man,” he’ll be a cynical hate-monger and a cult of personality—indistinguishable from Lauren Boebert, except for the hair and guns (she has more of both).
People who imagine that any candidate will be loyal to some concept of gender are simply naive.
There is no consensus among American women about what they want from a President, anyway. Whether it’s about abortion, education, or the right to nurse in public, American women are divided. There is no “women’s issue” on which a “woman” president can confidently depend.
Hillary Clinton? Marjorie Taylor Greene? Ovaries?
Of course, there were plenty of people who wanted Hillary Clinton for president because she’s a woman. That was equally wrong-headed. Politically, Clinton is no more a “woman” than Marjorie Taylor Greene—her presidency would have been driven by ideology rather than ovaries, albeit a different ideology.
America is in bad enough shape without using the tribal allegiances of a Kosovo, a Rwanda, Macedonia, Yemen, or South Ossetia to choose our leaders. I don’t care if the finger on the nuclear button sports nail polish or calluses; I want the finger attached to someone who will defend the Constitution rather than shred it. I don’t care if that finger is from Mississippi or Beverly Hills; I care about the bills it’s signing or vetoing.
People who vote for a candidate’s gender, race, or ethnicity don’t understand democracy. If America is having trouble exporting democracy, perhaps it’s because we don’t have nearly enough of our own.
~~~~~
Like short videos about sexuality? www.youtube.com/@Marty_Klein
Like your Sexual Intelligence in just one line? www.instagram.com/doctormartyklein