Kathleen Parker writes in her WaPo column that we should support Hillary Clinton because it will save the world.
I kid you not:
Here’s a thought: She [Hillary Clinton] can save the world…
Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet. This is not so far-fetched a notion. One, men have been at it for thousands of years, resulting in millions and millions of corpses. Two, countries where women are most oppressed and abused are also the least stable.
Three, as women become more empowered, especially financially, countries become more stable…
What does this have to do with Hillary? Quite a bit.
Rewinding the tape to 1995 at the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, then-first lady Hillary Clinton empowered women as never before with just a few words: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”
So, why even wait for Hillary’s election, as the Nobel Committee did with Obama and his Peace Prize? Let’s give Hillary the Peace Prize now—not for her glorious work as Secretary of State, but for the work she will undoubtedly do as president.
Parker has fallen prey to the same fallacy that so many who support Obama keep stating, which is that a politician from some heretofore under-represented demographic group can, by sheer force of rhetoric, change the world. But the world is a great deal more resistant to change than that, as Parker ought to have observed by now.
If Parker actually thinks that the example of the election of Hillary Clinton will help liberate women in third world countries (for example, in the Arab world) well then, I have a bridge to sell Parker. You might say that of course she doesn’t really believe that. But if she’s anything like many of the liberal women I know she really, really does believe it. And she probably also believes that women are somehow morally better and more peaceful than men, a point on which I strongly disagree from personal observation.
Her economic argument is the most interesting one. It is indeed true that “as women become more empowered, especially financially, countries become more stable.” But that’s hardly something that magically comes from the election of a President Hillary Clinton. And which comes first, the stability or the economic empowerment? And do both result from other societal and cultural forces that represent deeper and more profound change within the countries themselves, if such changes are to last? At any rate, Clinton would have no power in those countries—no more than Obama did when he spoke to the Arab world in Cairo—and how’s that going these days?
But Parker isn’t interested in all that; she’s interested in promoting Clinton. And why Parker is considered a conservative, or a sort-of conservative, I’ll never know, except that she’s the type of birdbrained “conservative” that the MSM likes to trot out as an example of the genre.
Parker, by the way, won a Pulitzer Prize in 2010 for her columns. And in 2008 she became famous for calling on Sarah Palin to resign from the Republican ticket because Palin was “clearly out of her league.” I guess Palin as veep would not have led to World Peace in quite the same inexorable way that President Hillary Clinton would, despite Palin’s similar credentials as a female.
[NOTE: On the topic of women in third-world countries and how to change their status, let's look at Egypt. Back in the 50s, Nasser tried to effect just the sort of economic reform that I believe Parker is talking about as part of his imposition of a socialist welfare-state type economy. Same thing was true in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there. Since then, both countries have reverted to their cultural traditions to a large degree, Afghanistan even more than Egypt.]