Just Deal Her Out

This week, Hillary Clinton, the former first lady who is running for president, was spoken of by Donald Trump, the businessman who appears to be on his way to being the Republican nominee for president. She was, in his words, running primarily by "playing the woman card", meaning that if she were a male she would not even be thought of as a candidate even by Democrats.

She naturally replied.  Her reply included this rejoinder -- "If fighting for women's health, paid [family] leave and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal me in."

Now, Hillary's campaign features a slogan "fighting for us", although it doesn't exactly indicate who "us" is.  I have heard exactly nothing that she has said during the campaign that sounds like it would be good for me, so I can presume to be excluded from the "us", and I can suggest she redo all the signs to read "Hillary: Fighting for Some of Us."

I would have really liked to have seen Carly Fiorina take Hillary on one-on-one in a debate.  Mrs. Fiorina is every bit as smart, and understands the actual impact of policies on the economy -- the economy Mrs. Clinton has not been a part of since back in the old Rose Law Firm days, unless you include the speechifying for which she was paid enough for me to retire on -- each speech.  Oh, yeah, and whatever she paid to the people who quietly squelched all her husband Bill's bimbo eruptions.

But Mrs. Fiorina will not be the candidate, so it remains the province of others to point out the oddities in Mrs. Clinton's words.

For example ...

What does Mrs. Clinton mean by "fighting for women's health"?  Specifically, if we break that down, we have to assume that there is some component of Federal health care policy that affects women differently from the way it affects men, right?  If she is "fighting for public health", well, that would mean something -- presumably relative to providing insurance and expanding or at least improving Obamacare.

But what part of that does she need to fight for separately?  Are there situations that only affect women that are not appropriately part of the law?  Screenings?  Treatments?  Research?  What is she referring to, and what exactly does she feel needs to be changed at the Federal level that is not already available and covered?  Last I looked, there certainly was nothing in any Federally-mandated insurance that would treat female conditions poorly.

OK, earth to world: she meant fighting for the right to abort the unborn.  We knew that.  Fight away, Hillary, unless you are in prison by then.  But at least stop the euphemisms and call the issue what it is.

And then there is "paid family leave."  She is fighting for that, too.  Hillary, who has not been responsible for a business since the old Rose Law Firm days, displays about zero understanding of business and how to run one.  Employee benefits are a competitive attribute offered by employers as an inducement to people who are good, to come work for them.  Certain positions require no skill and are easy to hire.  It is not necessary to offer a high salary; if an employee doesn't feel like working hard, there is someone else willing to, preferably with at least a green card.

In other cases, skilled, trained labor is scarce.  High salaries and large benefit structures are needed to attract and keep employees.  Need four weeks vacation to work for us?  Cool -- you got it.  It is a negotiation driven by supply and demand.  It is not something the government should be poking its nose into.  Poor, risk-laden treatment of employees or employee environments?  That's a different case; a reined-in OSHA is not innately a terrible idea.  But benefits are not, not, not the province of the Federal government.

But they are, in Hillary's world.  She'll "fight" for that paid family leave much like for the mandated sick leave that I tried to explain, in an earlier piece, was a terrible idea as a mandate.  Gee thanks.  Glad I don't own a small business any more.

That leaves "equal pay."  Mrs. Clinton subscribes to the idea that the laws on the books that ban discrimination in pay by gender are inadequate.  Discrimination of that kind is illegal now.  What does she have to "fight" for exactly?  That we need even more laws somehow, to affect something that is already illegal?

In reality, it would really help Mrs. Clinton in the general election if she simply made her own gender irrelevant and pretended she was running to be president of all of us.  If her being female is a handicap, it is specifically and conversely because it is she, herself, who keeps trying to make it an asset.  It is neither an asset nor a handicap.  If she continues to act and say things that suggest she will focus more on one group than another -- and Lord, it is obviously hard for a liberal not to do so -- she will lose the rest.

If, of course, she is not in prison by then.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.