I woke up this morning with heartburn.
I've had it pretty bad this whole election season. I never quite expected heartburn to be a side effect of living in the final days of the Republic, but I suppose we're all learning about this process as we go along. In any case, it's worse today than it's ever been because I'm anticipating all of the fawning absurdities that will be spewed forth by the media should Hillary win on Tuesday.
"History has been made!"
"A historic day for women!"
"The glass ceiling is broken!"
"This is a victory for all women!"
And on and on.
The New York Times just gave us a preview of what's to come with an editorial (not that I can really tell the difference between their editorials and their news articles) titled "The Men Feminists Left Behind." A typical feminist screed, full of bitterness, loneliness, and misandry, it explains how Hillary's victory will be both an achievement for women and a long-deserved punishment of men.
We men, the author Jill Filipovic explains, have not "evolved nearly as rapidly as women." Hillary Clinton proves that "women changed" and feminism "transformed the culture," but men, especially white men, are still stuck in the past, chomping on our cigars and clinging to our sexism. And this is just the kind of idiocy they're writing today. One can only imagine what they'll say when and if she actually wins.
Of course, the idea that women — or any other group of Americans — are "exhilarated" by Hillary Clinton is plainly delusional. She may be leading among women, but most of them will vote for her simply because they find Trump slightly more detestable, just as most Trump voters will vote for him simply because they hate her a bit more. In both cases, the voters are far from "exhilarated." No two general election candidates have been more roundly despised than these two, which means neither can do much gloating if they pull this thing off.
But that won't stop them, obviously, and in Hillary's case we already know what form the gloating will take. Not satisfied to merely win the presidency, she will demand that we all faint over the historic nature of her accomplishment. She will insist that, even if we disagree with her politics, we still stop to "appreciate" what an incredible moment it is "for women." And, naturally, the slobbering sycophants in the media will be happy to comply.
That's why I think this must be said now again, finally, once and for all: a Hillary Clinton victory will not be a victory for women. It will be a victory for the Democrats, for liberal elites, for the multiple foreign governments who've hacked her emails, for Wall Street bankers, for the media, for whoever stitches together her sci-fi pantsuits, for fans of spirit cooking, for her SNL impersonator; it will be a victory for all sorts of nefarious people, none more so than Hillary herself, but the average American woman will lose as much from her reign as we unevolved men.
But more than anything or anyone else, a Hillary Clinton victory will be a victory for corruption. The most corrupt and distrusted nominee in the history of the country will have ascended all the way to the pinnacle of power, proving not that the American people are progressive forward thinkers, but that we have a virtually unlimited tolerance for tyranny and corruption. Many aspiring despots in the future -- men and women alike -- will surely take advantage of this tolerance, but that can no more be considered a victory for the female gender than it can be considered a victory for the male gender or for any of the mythological genders in between the two.
I, for one, would never defame women in such a way as to make Hillary Rodham Clinton into their crowning achievement. Indeed, calling Hillary's potential presidency a triumph for women is like calling Anthony Weiner's career a triumph for Jews. Neither the Jewish people nor the women of America deserve to be defined by the most pitiful and degenerate among them.
Hillary Clinton clearly wants to be seen as the George Washington of women presidents simply because she would be the first. But what set Washington apart was his courage and his integrity, not just his place in the presidential chronology. It is clear that Hillary lacks courage and integrity to the same degree that Washington possessed those qualities. In fact, it is exactly this, which makes her remarkable — and also unremarkable.
Unremarkable because she is just another deceitful, crooked politician in a long line of deceitful, crooked politicians. But remarkable because, despite her being potentially the first woman president, she rose to that position precisely by renouncing all of the beautiful and admirable characteristics of womanhood.
Just as men are meant to be strong, protective, and courageous, women are meant to be kind, gracious, compassionate, upright, and honest. Hillary Clinton demonstrates none of these virtues. It's not accurate to say that she "acts like a man" because she repudiates her womanhood, but rather that she acts like a shallow, empty husk of a human being whose only motivation is her self-serving lust for power. In this way, she is neither a worthy example for women or an accurate example of them. She is an example of greed and corruption, and greed and corruption have no gender.
Now, if Hillary Clinton had risen to this lofty state by being an honorable woman, a woman of feminine virtue, a woman of grace and moral strength, a woman much like all of the great women I've known in my life or read about in history books and Scripture, then it would be true that her victory could be seen as a victory for women, in a sense. Or maybe it would be more true to say that it's a victory for womanness and femininity. But that is not the case, sadly.
Hillary Clinton is a narcissist, a tyrant, and a cold, callous, pathological liar. Her victory — should she achieve a victory at all — will not therefore show that our culture has embraced femininity. On the contrary, it will show yet again that we have rejected it.