I predicted Obamas victory back in 2007 and Hillary’s popular vote majority (but not her loss; did not budget for Democrats clustering themselves into group hugs in a few cities). As with famous Wall Street prophets, I will now predict a market phenomenon but not the date on which it will occur…. Kara McCullough will be elected President of the United States.
I became aware of Ms. McCullough, the current Miss USA, because Facebook friends kept posting derisively about her while linking, e.g., to “New Miss USA Kara McCullough Sounds an Awful Lot Like Donald Trump” (Glamour). Apparently it is okay for older white women who self-identify as “feminists”, “liberals”, and “friends of African-Americans”, to heap scorn on a young black woman if the young black woman has committed thoughtcrimes. McCullough’s worst crime seems to be refusal to adopt “feminism”:
When asked if she identifies as a feminist during an earlier question, McCullough replied that the term feminism is too polarizing and she prefers to describe herself through a lens of “equalism.”
The Glamour journalist, Maggie Mallon, tries to make McCullough look stupid by citing an obsolete dictionary definition of feminism: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”.
[Why obsolete? For example, women’s organizations that self-identify as “feminist” currently lobby against equal treatment for men and women in many situations. We wrote about one category in the Rationale chapter:
Legislators and attorneys told us that women’s groups and people identifying themselves as “feminists” were proponents of laws favoring the award of sole custody of children to mothers and more profitable child support guidelines. Is that a recognizably feminist goal? For a woman to be at home with children living off a man’s income? Here’s how one attorney summarized 50 years of feminist progress: “In the 1960s a father might tell a daughter ‘Get pregnant with a rich guy and then marry him’ while in the 2010s a mother might tell a daughter ‘Get pregnant with a rich guy and then collect child support.'” Why is that superior from the perspective of feminism? A professor of English at Harvard said “Because the woman collecting child support is not subject to the power and control of the man.”
We interviewed Janice Fiamengo, a literature professor at the University of Ottawa and a scholar of modern feminism, about the apparent contradiction of feminists promoting stay-at-home motherhood. “It is a contradiction if you define feminism as being about equality and women’s autonomy,” she responded. “But feminism today can be instead about women having power and getting state support.”]
As a proponent of “equalism” (her own coinage?), Ms. McCullough has the potential to appeal to a broad category of voters on a broad range of issues. The Glamour journalist laughs at McCullough for responding to a question about health care being a “privilege or right” with “for one to have health care, you need to have jobs. So therefore we need to continue to cultivate this environment that we’re given the opportunity to have health care, as well as jobs, to all the American citizens worldwide.” I think that’s a good answer for a 25-year-old. Zimbabwe can declare that Swiss-grade health care is a “right” but if they don’t have the economy and jobs to support it, the term “right” will be meaningless because they won’t be able to deliver on it. By contrast, anyone with a good job can, if necessary, fly to France, Israel, or Switzerland and get some decent health care at a price that is bearable.
Our centrally planned economy produces some stark inequalities (e.g., a free house worth $100,000 per year pre-tax or $0 and a position on a waiting list). There are a lot more losers than winners in this unequal government-created world. So a politician claiming adherence to “equalism” should get votes from the unfortunates (not to say Deplorables) on the waiting list, thus prevailing over a status quo politician who gets votes from the fortunates who are actually occupying free housing.
Other advantages: McCullough is tall and Americans like to vote for tall Presidents.
Readers: What do you think? Is this gal on track to be a future President?
A scientifically trained and employed person elected POTUS? Never!
Oh man, Zapiens said almost exactly what I was going to say. A physical scientist? What are we, German? Scott Adams is right, it’s all persuasion. Also: a significant proportion of women will not vote for an attractive woman. If she’s smart, she’ll do your “two kids with rich fathers” deal and lead an enjoyable life instead.