For pure political chutzpah alone, Dana Nessel’s recent campaign commercial is about as perfect as it gets.
The Democratic candidate for attorney general in Michigan took a page out of Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst’s “Make ’Em Squeal” book and played the genitalia card. But whereas Ernst’s was a tongue-in-cheek attack on flaccid politicians in general, Nessel flat-out went after men as a whole.
Following week after surreal week of American politics, media, and entertainment being dominated by sex scandals, she told voters in her ad that they should vote for her for one simple reason: She doesn't have manly parts.
“Who can you trust most not to show you their penis in a professional setting?” Nessel asks. “Is it the candidate who doesn’t have a penis? I’d say so.”
Like I said, that’s some quality theater right there. She clearly woke up one morning and said to herself, “I’m not going to bring a knife to a gun fight.”
But here’s the thing. That’s actually what she did. When you set aside the “shock” factor and break it down philosophically, how can this woman expect us to take her seriously, based on the arguments her very progressive worldview has foisted on the culture in recent years?
Nessel’s legal career includes work on behalf of so-called LGBT rights, including challenges to Michigan's bans against same-sex adoption and marriage.
So traditional gender roles be damned then, right? Because they said so, bigot. Fine. Why then should I believe the exclusive addition of women to the political mix will right any wrongs?
I mean, if Bruce Jenner can be Woman of the Year, it seems silly, counter-productive, or flat-out offensive to insist that women are the sole answer to anything based on nothing more than anatomy. After all, aren't we taught that not all women have vaginas, and not all men have penises, according to the likes of Nessel? So which is it? Is gender a predetermined binary exercise, or a fluid social construct? Progressives like Nessel can't have it both ways, although they often try.
Shouldn’t Nessel be expected and willing to follow her worldview all the way through to its logical conclusions if she expects Michigander votes? Oh, I’m a bigot for asking that question, too? I see how this works.
Two legs good, four legs bigot. But what the heck, I’ll just have to take that risk, because I’m not done yet.
Along with Nessel’s philosophical musings running afoul of the transgendered “principle,” they are also guilty of breaking the egalitarian ethos that has driven feminism for decades.
Women were said to be capable of doing anything a man could do — and, in many but not all cases, that was correct. And so it was that a whole new world of career options and lifestyle opportunities were made available to women.
But what Nessel suggests is to replace misogyny, whether real or imagined, with its female doppelganger. Or to paraphrase President Donald Trump, “Women alone can solve” what ails us.
Um, no. It seems that hardly a week has gone by for decades now without a new story about a female schoolteacher charged with having sexual relations with her underage students. So why doesn’t this string of scandal cause Nessel to say that women should no longer be hired as teachers?
Progressivism is nothing without its hypocrisies.
Women are broken and in need of redemption every bit as much as men are. Which the hypocrisy and self-refuting logic of Nessel's pagan worldview proves.