Probabilities And Prerequisites

     In my morning ramble around the Web, I’ve encountered several disbelieving voices, all of them wondering “out loud” why any of the Senators who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would call the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford “credible,” or would feel sympathy for her. In all probability Ford, who has been shown to have lied on several counts, made her story up. She might have believed it – a pathological liar can convince himself of anything – but the likelihood that Brett Kavanaugh was involved in an assault on her (or any other woman) is effectively zero. So why all the comments to the contrary, especially from those who chose to believe and support Kavanaugh?

     Simply stated, it’s become a prerequisite of contemporary politics that if a woman claims to have been abused by a man, you must never, ever call her a liar, even if she’s in the very act of telling you that the Sun shines black. Moreover, no matter how convinced you are that she’s lying consciously and with malice aforethought, you must express sympathy for her “pain.” That much perversion of our political culture, the feminists have already achieved.

     The ironies run deep here, but that’s a subject for another day.

     Women were granted the franchise in 1920. Since then, American political tendencies have trended ever more toward the absolute prioritization of women’s emotions: acknowledging them, sympathizing with them, and assuaging them, regardless of the truth or falsity of the underlying claims. This has been the rule even in some cases where a national interest of great importance was at stake – and that interest had to be demoted to second place to pander to the feelings of women.

     There are more women than men registered to vote in these United States. No politician can afford to forget that, even for an instant.

---

     This very morning the great Chris Muir has allowed one of his premier characters – a man, of course – to express the logical conclusion that arises from the above observations:

     This is becoming a widely shared sentiment. That has nothing to do with the love or hatred for women. It’s a statement about the correlation noted in the above segment.

     The Left, being interested in power and nothing else, has made it a guiding principle of its strategy to cultivate and enlist:

1. Women’s groups;
2. Groups dominated by women.

     Special interests that display either of the above characteristics have been fodder for the Left’s political machines. Few such groups concern themselves with some issue fundamental to the health of a Constitutional republic. Nearly all are emotion-dominated. They’ve done considerable harm, most of it through their support for left-liberal political agendas.

     Politicians on the Left are quick to promise you what you seek. They’re not always as quick to deliver. While the Progressives of the early Twentieth Century did make good on their guarantee to the Suffragettes that women would be granted the franchise, that was probably the best they’ve performed on such a promise. Consider the failure of the “Equal Rights” Amendment campaign for contrast.

     Public education is a good case for study. For some time women, being naturally more involved with the nurturance and upbringing of children, have displayed a greater interest than men in the improvement of primary and secondary education. They’re legitimately concerned with the travesty that’s called a “public school,” and have repeatedly backed politicians who’ve claimed to have that as their highest priority. But the connection is plainly an emotional one rather than a rational one, for what have politicians done to improve public education? They’ve increased the funding for public schools. Yet there has been no improvement in such systems. Indeed, the flood of dollars has been a contributing factor in their ongoing deterioration as interest groups squabble over the take, diverting attention and effort from the only legitimate purpose of juvenile education.

     Have women withdrawn their support of the aforementioned politicians? They have not. Quite the contrary: as the problems of public education have ramified and intensified, women’s support for left-wing politicians who promise to prioritize them has only increased. That should tell us something.

---

     There are no panaceas, and we should not imagine otherwise. Removing the franchise from women would not solve many, if any, of America’s persistent political problems. Many of those problems have embedded themselves in our national subconscious, in this fashion: “But we can’t!” That is to say: we can’t even entertain the possibility that this or that “compassionate” government initiative might have worsened the problem it purported to address. It would make us feel bad. Especially the women among us.

     No, today I’m here merely to note the correlations and to murmur “My, my! How strong they are!” About as strong as the correlation between socialism and impoverishment, or Islam and terrorism, or Democrats and the abuse of women. But those, too, are subjects for another day.