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.