Are Democrats More Sexist Then Republicans?

Donald Bordreaux has an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal which shows the absurdity of accepting Hillary Clinton’s claim that she is losing due to sexism. First he questions her argument:

So a woman who holds degrees from Wellesley and Yale – who has earned millions in the private sector, won two terms in the U.S. Senate, and gathered many more votes than John Edwards, Bill Richardson and several other middle-aged white guys in their respective bids for the 2008 Democratic nomination – feels cheated because she’s a woman.

For the sake of discussion, and making an interesting point, he goes on to look at what it would mean if Clinton was right:

This fact (if it be a fact) reveals a hitherto unknown, ugly truth about the Democratic Party. The alleged bastion of modern liberalism, toleration and diversity is full of (to use Mrs. Clinton’s own phrase) “people who are nothing but misogynists.” Large numbers of Democratic voters are sexists. Who knew?

But here’s another revelation. If Mrs. Clinton is correct that she is more likely than Barack Obama to defeat John McCain in November, that implies Republicans and independents are less sexist than Democrats.

It must be so. If American voters of all parties are as sexist as the Democrats, Mr. Obama would have a better chance than Mrs. Clinton of defeating Mr. McCain. The same misogyny that thwarted her in the Democratic primaries would thwart her in the general election. Only if registered Republicans and independents are more open-minded than registered Democrats – only if people who lean GOP or who have no party affiliation are more willing than Democrats to overlook a candidate’s sex and vote on the issues – could Mrs. Clinton be a stronger candidate.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. But if I ever become convinced that Mrs. Clinton is correct that sexism played a role in her disappointing showing in the Democratic primaries – and that she truly is her party’s strongest candidate to take on John McCain – I might finally join a party: the GOP. At least it’s not infested with sexists.

Of course it is untrue that Clinton is winning due to sexism in the Democratic Party and it is untrue that Clinton would be the stronger candidate against John McCain. Therefore the above conclusion is not valid. However there are many Clinton supporters who are making both of these fallacious arguments. They should consider the logical conclusion which comes from these arguments. The absurdity of this conclusion, that Republicans are less sexist than Democrats, also helps demonstrate that there is something seriously wrong with the logic of the Clinton camp.

Update: I forgot two important “facts” in the writing of this post. First of all, Donald Bordreaux is an economist. Therefore to the Clinton camp he is an elitist whose views don’t matter. Secondly, to some Clinton supporters pointing out that their views are illogical is sexist, emphasizing the stereotype of females being illogical. Therefore even though Bordeaux’s logic shows that the Clinton supporters are wrong, they can feel secure in ignoring the argument.

Please Share

5 Comments

  1. 1
    absent observer says:

    If Hillary Clinton is any indicator, Democrats are much sexier than Republicans. Wait, you were hoping to stay on topic?!

  2. 2
    autoegocrat says:

    Ancient Observer, the Governor of Alaska would like to have a word with you. No one political party corners the market on good looks.

  3. 3
    Christopher says:

    The Hillbots have hurled “ites” and “isms” and “ists” at Hillary Clinton’s critics from the day she declared her intention to run for president.
    Hillary Clinton is, after all, entitled to be the next president and just who is this young, charismatic, junior senator from Illinois who dares to rob Clinton (and her supporters) of what she’s entitled to?
    Criticize Hillary Clinton’s pro-Iraq war vote and her refusal to take responsibility for it and the Hillbots brand you “sexist.” Question Hillary Clinton’s early support for NAFTA and the Hillbots call you a “misogynist.” They’re trapped in a type of circular thinking that is wound so tight that it won’t let in any air or logic.
    The last straw in a terrible campaign was Hillary Clinton invoking political assassination as her reason for remaining in the race. Every major newspaper across the country as well as several foreign newspapers took her to task for this. Yet, throughout the blogoshere, Hillbots continue to defend her and claim any and all criticism amounts to “sexism.”
    It’s as if they’re been brainwashed.

  4. 4
    Italian Revolutionary says:

    Ron:

    You have an interesting point, but I don’t think Ms. Clinton’s rhetoric is really indicative of her beliefs. It seems to me that she wants to win…at virtually any price. Now. How’s THAT for sexist?

    It’s up to the electorate to determine whether or not her personal ethics and campaign tactics are reasonable and proper. I don’t need to rehash the litany of questionable endeavors, close shaves, and dustups that have hung around her neck like a dead albatross for the past 35 years, but the one I like best is the accusation by her boss on the Watergate committee that she tried to stack the deck against Tricky Dick (did HE need any help?):
    According to Dan Calabrese of the North Star Writers’ Group:
    “Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee….When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation…Why?”
    “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

    Yeeow.

    Garibaldi
     

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    Garibaldi,

    That is a good point, even if not favorable to Clinton. On the one hand the logic of Clinton’s statements lead to X. However we can ignore X because of the fact that Clinton doesn’t really believe the premises which lead to X but is merely saying what she believes will help her win at the time, knowing that what she is saying is not true.

Leave a comment