The New York Times Endorses Identity Politics in the Race for President

By Denise McAllister Published on January 22, 2020

The New York Times has made a break with tradition by choosing two Democratic candidates to endorse for president. Both are women, setting the stage for the real political fight of 2020. It’s “the patriarchy” versus the feminists.

The board avoided any mention of “The future is female” when it selected Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Instead, they focused on three political choices they say America has to make in the next election.

First, there’s the “white nationalist,” America First populism of Donald Trump. Second is the centrist idealism of the Democratic Party. These moderates see Trump as a mere blip and want to return things to normal with a few tweaks to the system. Third is progressive radicalism that believes America is broken at the core. This “far Left” position claims the nation’s institutions are untrustworthy and need a complete overhaul.

Instead of choosing between the radicals and moderates, the board elected to compromise and select both, leaving America’s destiny up to the voters. Interestingly enough, the board didn’t choose the leading moderate or radical candidates in the current race. That would be moderate Joe Biden, radical Bernie Sanders, and centrist Pete Buttigieg. All three lead in the polls. Biden is the frontrunner with Sanders often a close second. Buttigieg is sometimes beating Warren and always beating Klobuchar. Yet these men were discarded.

Two women were chosen over more qualified and popular men.

The board gives its reasons, from age to lack of voter confidence. But we can’t dismiss the elephant in the room. Two women were chosen over more qualified and popular men. This is a glaring example of the feminist agenda in every sphere of American culture today.

One of the big questions Democratic voters are asking is, “Who can beat Trump?” The New York Times recognizes this, but it dismisses the question with a shrug. “Who can really know at this point?” they say. They’re not entirely wrong, but it’s significant to note that the board isn’t interested in a sensible approach to the election. For them, it’s ideology.

Why Choose Only Women?

But which ideology exactly? Is it socialism, which Sanders and Warren embody? Is it social justice so eloquently expressed by Buttigieg? Is it mere progressivism, which is reflected in a couple of the board’s statements: “There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken.” And “At the dawn of 2020, some of the most compelling ideas are not emerging from the center, but from the left wing of the Democratic Party.”

After you read through the Times’ justification for not choosing the front-running men in the race, you come down to a final comment that reveals the heart of the matter. “There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth.”

Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.

Clinton’s defeat was not about a choice between moderates and radicals. Democrats had made their choice in the candidate of Hillary Clinton who was a mixture of both. The stinging blow was that a man beat a woman who believed it was her time to shine in the sun. This is obvious by Clinton’s own comments and the hordes of women who took to the streets in Women’s Marches to protest Trump’s presidency.

So let’s not pretend that these endorsements are about anything other than sex. This is clear by the many articles written on the topic. In 2016 The Atlantic wrote, “Why It’s So Hard for a Woman to Become President of the United States.” In 2017 Politico asked, “Will America Ever Have a Woman President?” And in 2019, NYMag confidently stated, “America Can Elect a Woman President, Despite Clinton’s Loss.” This election is primarily about one thing for many Democrats. It’s the Revenge of the Woman.

It’s Really about Equal Outcomes

That’s the sentiment at any rate. Fundamentally, it’s the cultural Marxist demand that women who have been perceived as marginalized in America finally get what they think they deserve. A black man rose to become president of the United States. Now it’s a woman’s turn. Clinton lost. Now Warren or Klobuchar must win. The driving force and ideology of the Democratic agenda is what it has been for decades. It’s identity politics.

Over the next several months you will hear a lot about equality and how America’s institutions are rotten at the core. They’ll say too many men succeed while marginalized groups struggle in the shadows. They’ll tell you that if you want to be fair, modern, and an all-around good person, you must vote for the woman. They’ll talk about Trump being corrupt. They’ll say he’s a narcissist, a racist, a sexist, and an anti-globalist who wants to make America White again. But reality doesn’t reflect such bombastic claims. The truth is, they hate that a man won. They hate that he received the support of men across the country who rightly believe they are being railroaded by malcontents who want equality of outcomes despite unequal abilities.

Identity politics are intrinsically unfair. This is why our nation was built on equality before the law and not equal outcomes. This is why fairness and justice are blind to sex, race, and ethnicity. We are supposed to be a nation that honors the character of people and not reduces them to a characteristic. We are supposed to be a nation that values merit and hard work, not entitlement and claims of “social injustice.” The Democratic Party opposes these principles. Instead, they seek to take from those they deem too powerful and give to the undeserving simply because they fit into an identity group.

Choose Merit, Not Sex

Oh, I can hear the wailing of opposition. “But what about unequal pay? What about the fact that there aren’t as many women as men in positions of power, status, and wealth?” This is typically the only recourse they have to support their claim of inequality. But none of these has anything to do with inequality before the law. These inequities have to do with the different choices women make and their different abilities and strengths compared with men’s. Women make less on the whole because they have made professional choices that earn them less. Women don’t fill as many desirable roles as men because an equal number of women don’t want them or they’re simply not qualified.

Despite these facts, we’re being asked to vote for a woman because she’s a female. Never mind that her policies will bankrupt America, and that individual earnings will diminish as wealth is redistributed. Never mind that our nation’s borders will be opened to a flood of immigrants who will saturate the market and overwhelm public services, and our nation will be weakened in international conflicts as appeasement instead of strength becomes our foreign policy. Never mind that abortion on demand will continue to be upheld as a public good, and equal outcomes will be enforced in the name of equality for all.

The New York Times editorial board concludes its endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar with “May the best woman win.” This statement extends far beyond the primary between two Democratic candidates. It’s a call to action for the general and for our society as a whole. If we answer that call and select a woman simply because of her sex, simply because she is perceived as a victim in the greatest nation on earth where liberty is attained by all, then we will have failed in our calling to be a shining light on the hill. Our only choice is to choose the best candidate who will defend our Constitution, honor America as founded, and conserve our principles of liberty. In that race, may the best person win.


Author of What Men Want to Say to Women (But Can’t), co-author of New York Times bestseller Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump, Christian apologist and theologian.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Military Photo of the Day: Through the Smoke
Tom Sileo
More from The Stream
Connect with Us