There’s a good reason the American mass media, and most especially the press, has never been less respected in our country than it is today. Political homogeneity manifesting itself in extreme left-wing bias, patronizing pedantry, sloppy logic, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance has always been with us. But to have the Fourth Estate continually doubling down on such nonsense is a national scandal.
If you want to see a classic illustration of this problem, go back and look at the WTE’s Nov. 3rd staff editorial, “Wyoming Women: We need you to run for office.” It’s a good idea promoted for all the wrong reasons. It starts out with a predictable list of liberal charges: no one encourages women to run; society is too patriarchal; Wyoming is in the bottom five states with female elected officials; not much changes; most of our problems remain unresolved.
Got that? All these outrages are there because there are too many men in elected office. Not only is this unsubstantiated charge a textbook example of a sexist attitude itself, it’s an absurd proposal to eliminate sexism by introducing sexism even more deliberate and explicit than the variety of sexism it proposes to cure.
But such is the way of modern liberalism. Whether it concerns the differences of sex, race, class, nationality or any of the ever-growing wedges of identity politics exploited to divide and conquer the American populace for the further empowerment of the total state, liberal politics is never about eliminating any of the atrocious “isms” it obsesses over. Liberal politics is simply about turning these “isms” around. Not for fairness, not for justice, but to continue and revitalize them in the service of liberal social engineering and its perpetually aggrieved beneficiaries.
Or, as the WTE editorial explains, electing more women to political office would get Wyoming in line with the progressive (and Democrat Party) program by bringing us equal pay for equal work, universal health care, the power to address domestic violence, better protection for sexual assault survivors, and, of course, more education funding. Not that women care more, the editors insist, just that they are more passionate, more willing to have tough conversations and more concerned with social change.
Well, not that conservatives care more, but conservatives (about half of whom are women) have better ideas about those issues because they are based on an understanding of reality and human nature, instead of recycled Marxist social theory. For instance, there’s the fact all human-caused changes have moral polarity: since changes can be good or bad, calling for change merely for its own sake is morally irresponsible.
And here’s a tough conversation. Conservatives have plenty of time-tested methods for dealing with wife-beaters, rapists and sexual predators in general that reduce recidivism quite reliably. But liberals are notorious for opposing such practices in preference to more laws, publicly funded bureaucracy, and, of course, education.
Indeed, if there’s anything unpleasant on God’s Earth liberal politicians say can’t be corrected through more education funding, I’m stumped. It’s not worth the bother looking, though, as education has the same moral polarity as change. No sensible person wants to be taxed for education, unless the educators are teaching that which is true and good, as opposed to that which is false and evil.
Universal health care? Sorry. Not the government’s job. Neither is telling private employers who they must hire and how much to pay them. All that stuff is socialism, and socialism always fails because it rewards the worst elements of human nature and penalizes the best. The old “equal pay for equal work” canard overlooks the fact human beings, most especially women, have different priorities. Women, on average, do not go to work for the same reasons or durations as men.
Nor do women, on average, enter politics for the same reasons or durations as men. The WTE editors need not attribute this to some nefarious patriarchal conspiracy. Throughout human history, women have been far more conservative and protective of social order than men. Even today, women disproportionately value other goods above politics, just as they have for the balance of human history before they demanded suffrage to protect those goods against modern erosions of male reliability and responsibility.
And now that women do have the franchise, what could be more sexist and patronizing than for liberal newspaper editors to suggest that if more women ran for political office, more of our politicians would be socialist liberals? Actually, if women run en masse for political office in Wyoming, it will mainly be the conservative women who win, because conservative representation is what the majority of Wyoming’s voters want.
Not only would this force Wyoming’s liberal minority out from behind the skirts of Wyoming’s women, it could make them more transparent about their radical socialist agenda.