The #MeToo Movement and Mike Pence

If women had only known all it took to shatter the glass ceiling was to accuse your boss of sexual harassment, workplace history would have been very different! Of course — much like a frontal assault on a machinegun nest — the first over the top aren’t getting the plum jobs, but their sacrifice makes it possible for rear echelon women to either achieve or guilt their way into the ‘C’ suites.

The bosses were all for wiping out the barriers that produced a serviceable work–life balance if it meant women were handy 24/7. For them, taking work home meant road testing the new intern.

All this is why it was so refreshing to find a man in a powerful position who had strict rules regarding workplace harassment. More important, he followed those rules to the letter. That meant he was permanently immune to Gloria Allred–type ambushes at Groping Gulch.

Those rules keep his reputation intact and, equally important and often overlooked, the rules keep the reputations of the women who work for him equally intact. His is an office run on performance and not pheromones.

In short, this man is nothing short of a paragon workplace ethics and respect for women. So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited the websites of the National Organization of Women, Emily’s List, the Feminist Majority and even Jezebel and found zero recognition for this pioneer in establishing workplace boundaries.

I soon got the impression you’d see Mitch McConnell attend a Roy Moore Victory Party before these feminist organizations would recognize Vice President Mike Pence.

Way back in March of this year, before our current runaway testosterone tempest, the Washington Post breathlessly announced that Pence had strict rules for his office. The commandments banned Lauer Locks on his office door, because he didn’t hold closed–door meetings one–on–one with women. No intimate after–work dinners with single women either and no attendance at functions where alcohol is served if his wife isn’t there with him.

Pence wouldn’t even wear a hotel bathrobe unless there’s a swim suit under it and he’s at the pool with his family.

Think of it. Following these four simple rules would have kept potted plants unmolested by sperm donors and saved the jobs of Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wiesletier, Michael Oreskes, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Halperin, Garrison Keillor, Glenn Thrush, Harold Ford, Jr., Joe Barton, Al Franken, John Conyers and the rules probably would have salvaged Trent Franks, because I doubt he would have popped the surrogate question in a general staff meeting.

Optimist that I am, I even think if Bill Clinton had followed the rules Hillary would be a happier woman and Chelsea might have a sibling.

Think of the relief it would bring to a young woman knowing she could spend time with her boss without being sent an unsolicited souvenir cellphone photo of the star attraction or a brief personal exercise video after she got home.

Maybe the response of women at leftist media institutions was caused by the Stockholm Syndrome for it was uniformly negative. You’d have thought Pence had stated sex was determined at birth, rather than by a family meeting sometime around age five.

The truth is the feminist and sophisticate reaction to Pence’s refusal to sexually harass women or put them in an awkward situation was so extreme you’d have thought Charlie Rose invited them to join him in a three–legged race around his desk.

The LA Times asked, “Mike Pence won’t dine alone with a woman who’s not his wife. Is that sexist?” An angry UCLA gender professor (is there any other kind?) dredged up by the Times thundered, “I believe this is gender discrimination. If you don’t go out to dinner with a woman, it’s hard to have a woman be your campaign manager or your chief of staff or whoever you need to regularly meet with.”

Although I think she’s confusing a caterer with a campaign aide.

What woman in her right mind would want to miss the chance to network with Harvey Weinstein’s hands?

And Aaron Blake, a male at the Post jockeying for the role of feminist fraternizer, sniffed Pence’s rules “reeked of sexism.” Which I would think beats reeking of John Conyers’ cologne, but that’s just me.

And Vox, which is currently conducting an in–house purge of its own sex harassers, was ready for a special persecutor, “Vice President Pence’s ‘never dine alone with a woman’ rule isn’t honorable. It’s probably illegal.”

And I could find no evidence of any OpMedia change of heart.

All this leads me to conclude as far as our leftist cultural arbiters are concerned, when it comes to sexual harassment, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Advertisements

I’m Glad I’m Not an Alabama Voter

More specifically, I’m glad I’m not an Alabama conservative. The choice confronting conservatives in the December 12th special senate election is very difficult. But not so tough that our cultural arbiters aren’t eager to give conservatives and Christians the benefit of their wisdom.

The same Opposition Media—Pundit—Celebrity nexus that didn’t condemn Teen Vogue for its recent issue introducing young girls to the “joys” of anal sex, is now urging Christians to vote “their convictions.” This is certainly a welcome change from being characterized as figures of fun who dabble in hate, but I’m still skeptical of the OpMedia’s sudden admiration for our sterling character.

Particularly when they urge us to choose a candidate based on moral beliefs the OpMedia routinely mocks and derides. Our media betters want Christian voters to pick an ideal candidate. Someone who would look good in a Baptist pulpit, instead of the left’s hotel bathrobe.

Naturally, their choice is Democrat Doug Jones instead of hands–on Republican Roy Moore. The argument isn’t all that compelling, particularly when one recalls all of Roy Moore’s alleged victims survived, whereas Democrat Ted Kennedy’s didn’t.

This election is also noteworthy in that it reverses the usual nose–holding option conservatives confront. I recently wrote how I was tired of being told to hold my nose and vote for country club conservatives. The Republican establishment would patiently explain that even though this spineless weathervane could never be depended upon to fight for bedrock conservative issues, he would be marginally better in office than his leftist opponent, since he’s a sure vote for Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader.

This year conservatives have a chance to vote for a somewhat tarnished candidate that will fight tooth and toenail for conservative causes and the establishment tells us to forget about that nose thing and just vote Democrat.

From the beginning I was suspicious of the alleged underage abuse allegations against Moore. I’ve worked in campaigns for over 40 years and timing is a key factor in the negative side of the campaign. I’ve been the media consultant for races where we had devastating information regarding the opponent and we sat on it for weeks or months until such a time as the information could be released and the opposing campaign would not have time to recover.

I suppose I could accept the Washington Post’s claim that their scoop on Moore was generated in–house and not handed to them on a platter like the Russian Dossier. Only, if the stories about Moore’s alleged behavior were “common knowledge,” why did the knowledge only become common nationwide after Moore defeated Luther Strange and it was too late to put someone else on the ballot?

That convenient timing looks like a premeditated decision to hold the story and thereby influence the election. Then there’s the yearbook signature that’s an exact copy of the Judge Moore signature on the woman’s divorce decree from years later, but bears no relation to his unofficial personal signature at the time the yearbook was supposedly signed.

The OpMedia is doing its part to make voting Democrat less painful for wavering conservatives and Christians. Why Democrat Doug Jones’ middle name is ‘Moderate’ according to his glowing press clippings. He’s going to focus on jobs, education and infrastructure. There’s zero mention of Jones being the frontman for a George Soros–funded effort to politicize US Attorneys.

According to Breitbart, the Soros–funded effort supported ‘ending mass incarceration’ and its report — authored by Jones — used language similar to the Obama Justice Dept. effort to grant de facto amnesty to illegal aliens.

Running in the middle and governing from the left is common for Democrats. Last election Virginia had its first transvestite candidate for the House of Delegates. This man in woman’s clothing assured voters that he also intended to focus on meat–and–potatoes issues like transportation.

You can imagine voter’s shock after he won when they learned his first issue in Richmond would be forcing insurance companies to cover ‘gender transition’ and ‘gender reassignment’ surgery. Evidently, the road our shift–shifter was most interested in improving was the one between his house and the gender–bending clinic.

Alabama voters will see the same transition when Jones gets to Washington, absent the pronoun switch.

As far as I’m concerned, the voting decision for Christians comes down to a single comparison. Roy Moore may or may not have fondled babies 40 years ago, but if Doug Jones gets to Washington he’ll be voting to kill babies and fund Planned Parenthood from day one.

That’s why if I were an Alabama voter I’d choose Roy Moore now and support a conservative opponent in the 2020 Republican primary.

Any Chance Conservatives Will Finally Fight Back?

(This column was written before the deluge of sexual assault accusations hit the Roy Moore campaign in Alabama. At the time Codevilla’s advice was spot on, now I suppose now all conservatives are left is hope.)

The best moment for conservatives during the Claremont Institute’s panel discussion on “The Resistance and the Violent New Left” came at the end during the question period. An appeaser popped up and asked the panel how can “we” encourage more “leaders” like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Lisa Murkowski to run for office instead of “embarrassing” candidates like Alabama’s Roy Moore?

His question was met with dead silence from the panel of William Voegeli and Angelo Codevilla (of the Claremont Institute), Michael Walsh (author and media critic) and Henry Olsen (Ethics & Public Policy Center).

After a lengthy pause Codevilla leaned over toward the microphone and observed Moore “hasn’t lost yet” and we can “vote and hope,” which was the conclusion of the optimism portion of the event.

In a single anecdote the audience saw the problem confronting conservatives today. We are assailed from without by, in Codevilla’s words, “a compact ruling class,” — where establishment Republicans are full participants — along with bike–lock swinging members of Antifa functioning as storm troops. While inside the GOP accommodationists and other Quislings want to restore tranquility by electing more politicians whose first instinct is preemptive surrender.

The situation doesn’t appear to hold much possibility for improvement in the panel’s view, in spite of or possibly because of the election of Donald Trump. Codevilla’s opinion is, “The Resistance has convinced itself Trump is a passing phenomenon.” And a brief one at that. “Trump was elected to be revolutionary against the ruling class and GOP establishment, but in office he has equivocated.”

It’s his belief that what he terms the Cold Civil War will continue to heat up.

Live–and–let–live conservatives are confused by the left’s increasing rhetorical and physical violence in what appears to be a Whittaker Chambers’ moment for the right. In sports, when one side appears to completely outclass its opponent, it’s not uncommon for the victor to display good sportsmanship and ease up rather than pad the margin of victory.

Conservatives see a cultural landscape where their moral positions have been routed. And an indifferent Big Government appears impervious to influence by average voters or election results.

Naturally, many conservatives assume they’ve lost. So why all the leftist violence? Isn’t it time to put the all–conference agitators on the bench?

As Mr. Dooley, not on the panel, said, “Politics ain’t bean–bag.”

“Cultural Marxists are sensing a win and it’s a fact movements get more violent the closer they get to ultimate victory,” explains Walsh. Voegeli posits that when a faction thinks it’s only a matter of time before total victory and the assumption of power in a permanent majority, any display of inhibition is a betrayal of the cause.

Furthermore, the left’s violence and the ideology isn’t likely to be coherent. “A [movement] united by impulse is likely to be impulsive,” Voegeli wryly observes.

The bad news for accommodationist Republicans, like the questioner, is when the left wins there aren’t likely to be many prisoners taken, ideological or otherwise. Academia’s cultural Marxists are marinated in aggressive outrage and moral arrogance. “The Left is taught they’re inherently superior,” Codevilla said.  And as ideologically superior beings, those who disagree are by default intellectual sub–humans with all the tender care and feeding the sub–human label encompasses.

Adapting to the left’s views is going to be difficult if not impossible for principled conservatives, although Lindsay Graham and John McCain may offer conversion therapy.

Olsen says the left defines America as “individual freedom. Anything that stands between desire and its fulfillment is null and void.” This leftist definition of America is intensely personal and subject to abrupt change (Voegeli’s “impulse”), while for conservatives the definition is institutional and relatively fixed. Olsen and Codevilla are united in their belief the differences between left and right are “intractable.”

Consequently, there’s no room for compromise in this ideological fight to the finish. Codevilla warns there are real consequences, “The Resistance expresses the evolving framework of ruling class thought.” The absurd and aggressive ideology one can read with distaste in the HuffPost is a harbinger of the next Democrat administration’s policy. Even Hillary Clinton, according to Codevilla, planned to “crush the deplorables and buy off the pitiables” on her way to victory.

With the exception of Olsen, the panel is united in a belief the left must be confronted and defeated in the street and in the voting booth. Conservatives need leadership, like Trump, that will get in the faces of the left and, not like Trump, be consistent in their opposition.

Walsh in particular has had it, “I can’t emphasize enough what miserable sods these people are. The left is an insane cargo cult of fascists. Until baby boomers are dead you will have no justice and no peace.”