Democrats have long relied on a brand of identity politics that reduces women to their biology while insisting that only progressive women are fit to lead.
According to RedState, this patronizing approach did not emerge in a vacuum but was fueled in large part by the 1960s and 1970s-era Second Wave feminists, whose fixation on abortion and hostility toward the traditional family helped redefine womanhood in purely ideological terms. Those activists pushed the notion that a woman needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle, and in doing so, they helped detach female identity from marriage, motherhood, and faith, replacing it with a politics of grievance and victimhood that the modern Democratic Party has eagerly embraced.
Over time, the message was refined into a familiar talking point: America supposedly needs more women in positions of governmental authority because men have allegedly made such a mess of things, and women, by virtue of their sex, would govern more wisely. This claim has been made with a straight face even as the very women being courted are often driven by a singular political prioritypreserving the right to end the lives of unborn childrenhardly a moral high ground from which to lecture the nation on compassion and good judgment.
Former President Barack Obama has repeatedly echoed this narrative, most recently during a public appearance at Salem State University in Salem, Massachusetts. Even when I was president, I sometimes fantasized about if you put uh women in charge of every government for like two years and then just kind of saw, all right, how how how are things going? I have a strong belief that things would they wouldn't be perfect, but they'd be better, Obama told the audience, presenting his musings as a kind of enlightened thought experiment rather than the crude gender stereotyping it actually represents.
In a clip shared online, Obama doubled down on his confidence in this hypothetical female-led world. Former President Obama on hypothetical of women in charge of every government for two years: I have a strong belief that things would... they wouldn't be perfect, but they'd be better. I'm confident about that, the post read, capturing his unshakable faith in the supposed moral superiority of women in powerso long as they are the right kind of women ideologically.
This was not a one-off remark; Obama has been making variations of this argument for years, including during a 2019 event in Singapore. There, he added another layer of age-based and gender-based blame, declaring, If you look at the world and look at the problems, its usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way.
In light of recent events, that rhetoric has not aged well. From the controversy over the predominantly female jury in the Clancy case, to the disturbing abuse allegations against Alaska Democrat Senate nominee Mary Peltola, to the ongoing ideological theatrics in the WNBA, many Americans have begun to question the simplistic assumption that putting more women in charge automatically yields better outcomes.
Critics on social media were quick to point out the glaring inconsistencies in Obamas posture. One commentator asked pointedly, If he truly believed this to be the case, why did he run against Hillary in 2008? Everything with this guy is a con game. Hes the biggest con artist of the 21st century, highlighting the fact that Obama had no qualms about sidelining a woman when it served his own ambitions.
Others cited recent examples that undermine the rosy narrative of female governance. We put nine women in charge of a jury for two weeks and they tried to let a mom get away with strangling her kids. Then they launched a vicious smear campaign against the one black man who stood in their way. So Im confident Obama is full of shit here, one critic wrote, arguing that the Clancy jury saga is a real-world counterpoint to Obamas fantasy.
Some observers noted that progressive cities already serve as laboratories for this experiment in gendered leadership. We're actively running this experiment in L.A. and Seattle in case you want to follow along in real time, another user remarked, alluding to the chaos, crime, and dysfunction that have flourished under left-wing, often female, leadership in those jurisdictions.
Others pushed back on the romanticized view of women as inherently more peaceful or cooperative. He must not know any women. Wed have twice as many wars. My wife refused to work for other women because of the drama and cattiness. This is a feel good thing for progs to say, but the reality is the world would be more prone to outbursts, one critic observed, puncturing the myth that women, as a class, are naturally more virtuous or less prone to abuse power.
History shows that America has had outstanding presidents, mediocre ones, and deeply flawed ones, and every single one thus far has been male. If the country had elected female presidents over the decades, the record would almost certainly be similarly mixed, because leadership quality is not determined by chromosomes, and not every woman is a Kathy Hochul, Stacey Abrams, Katie Wilson, or a perpetually aggrieved WNBA coach.
The deeper issue is that when Democrats like Obama extol the virtues of women in power, they are not talking about conservative women who respect the Constitution, cherish life, and value limited government. They are talking about progressive womenthose who share the partys radical social agenda and are often celebrated precisely because they are willing to weaponize identity politics and grievance to advance it.
These are the women most likely to display the very traits the left claims to abhor: temper tantrums from Hillary Clinton, public meltdowns from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, theatrical drama from Jennifer Siebel Newsom, vulture-like political opportunism from Katie Porter, and the policy nitwittery of Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Add to that the intentional deception of Abigail Spanberger and the chronic sense of grievance and offense projected by Michelle Obama, and the picture that emerges is not one of calm, principled leadership but of brittle, ideological activism, often directed most viciously at other women.
As many conservative women have observed, women can truly be their own worst enemies, especially when they embrace a worldview that pits them against family, faith, and each other. The lefts insistence on elevating women based on ideology and identity rather than character and competence only deepens those divisions and leaves ordinary womenespecially those who are pro-life, pro-family, and pro-freedomout in the cold.
The real question facing the country is not whether a female president would be inherently better than a male one, but which kind of woman, if the office must be held by a woman, would best serve the nation. Given the choice between a Constitution-abiding, America-loving Republican and a woketivist, America-trashing Democrat that has increasingly become the norm in the Democrat Party, the answer, for those who value traditional principles and national strength, is unmistakably clear.
Login