Letters to the Editor
-
Bashing? How about speaking truth to power.
Clinton has always had to count on the white male vote to win (see Pennsylvania). The outrage from white feminists that white men (and women) might vote for a black man has been voiced by Stenem and Walsh and others since Iowa.
The outrage has not shamed men into consistently voting for Clinton. Men (and women) of conscience have not bought into the inherently racist logic that they owe a white woman their vote, or that the black candidate should get in line behind the white.
People, including men, who "bash" Clinton feel that they are doing something profoundly different: They feel they are speaking truth to power. The Clintons are powerful in every way imaginable. He was President for eight years, she is a Senator. They are rich beyond the wildest dreams of any of us. They are connected with the worlds elites, and have used those connections not only to enrich themselves, but to swat down critics in the press and elsewhere. Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful people in the world by far.
Some feminists (not all) have simply not understood a world where women have gained some share of real power, and with it, responsibility for the consequences of their actions. These in-denial feminists engage in a double-think, where Clinton gets credit for any positive exercise of her power, but all of her mistakes result from victimization from men. The logic holds that Clinton cannot victimize people, because she herself is victimized by virtue of her gender status. But Clinton's exercise of real power has had real world negative consequences for others.
People know that a we-victims-can-do-no-harm philosophy would be trouble in a President. Voters have tried to determine the extent to which either candidate believes their gender or racial identity exempts them from accountability while exercising the immense powers of the American presidency. For most of us, Clinton fails the accountability test miserably.