Explaining the Liberal Cesspool

Why is it, Glenn Reynolds likes to ask, that liberal-run cities and institutions all seem to be hotbeds of sexism and racism? To adapt this slightly, maybe there’s a reason the left is so obsessed with sexual harassment and racism, because it is practiced so much in their communities and institutions.

These thoughts come to mind in looking over the peculiar Cosmopolitan magazine (yes, Power Line’s research staff reads Cosmo so that you don’t have to) interview with actress Amber Tamblyn, in which she makes the startling claim that the Harvey Weinstein scandal would likely never have come to light if Hillary Clinton had won the election.

Let that claim sit there and sink in for a moment.

Here’s how Tamblyn actually puts the argument:

Honestly, I trace everything back to the election of Donald Trump. I think that without him being elected, if it had been Hillary Clinton, this would’ve never happened to Harvey Weinstein. I feel like the election of Donald Trump was a singular pointed message at women telling us that our lives don’t matter, and that our safety doesn’t matter, and that our physical health doesn’t matter, our reproductive rights don’t matter, that our gender just doesn’t matter, and that we are somehow owned by the country. I think within that one move, it was a giant gesture, and Donald Trump symbolizes, for most women—not all of them—he symbolizes and epitomizes everything that is deeply wrong with masculinity and with the objectification of women. And so within that single vote, it sort of was like a switch was flipped on and every woman just went, I’m done. It’s as simple as that: I’m done.

Tamblyn is trying to give the matter a left-wing spin, suggesting that Trump’s infamous Access Hollywood tape and its aftermath was a tipping point that launched p—y hats and a thousand wymyn’s marches.

But slow down a moment: why would Weinstein—and the culture of sexual harassment apparently widespread in Democrat-run institutions (like the California state legislature, according to the New York Times this morning)—have remained unchallenged if Hillary was in the White House? Probably for the same reason that Bill Clinton got a pass for his relentless behavior 20 years ago: power is the most important thing to liberals. And if the dignity and safety of a few women have to be sacrificed, well, broken omelets and all that. After all, as we now know, everyone knew about Weinstein. But did nothing about it. And according to Tamblyn, still wouldn’t today if their person was in power.

Feminists like to say that “conservatives don’t get it” about sexual harassment. Hypothesis: maybe that’s because conservative-leaning people generally don’t harass women like liberals do. (As someone somewhere asked recently: where would you like your daughter to intern: Vice President Mike Pence’s office, or the Weinstein Company?) Maybe the left complains about “objectifying women” because it is routine behavior for leftists.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.