When Democrat Jerry Brown was running for governor of California in 2010, an accidentally open telephone connection revealed that someone on his staff called Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate, a “whore.” The sound quality was poor, but apparently it was not Brown himself. Reportedly it was his wife, the one person on his staff who could not be fired. How convenient.
The liberal media treated the incident as a minor gaffe – if it was mentioned at all. NOW, the National Organization for Women, at first condemned the insult and called for the firing of the person who uttered it. But within a day, the position was reversed, and the head of the California chapter of NOW declared that the word “whore” was accurate as a description of Whitman. Leftism trumps feminism every time.
But this is but one of many examples of calling conservative women terrible names. The cover of the leftist magazine The Nation caricatured conservative female politicians as scantily clad, seductively posed sex objects − in short, as whores. The use of the word by someone on Jerry Brown’s staff was not a slip of the tongue. It reflects how leftists see conservative women. How sad, but how revealing of the leftist mindset.

Recall the nasty things David Letterman and other media personalities said about Sarah Palin, her daughters, and her husband – going so far as to call Palin a “slut” and her daughter a “prostitute,” while others accused her husband of committing “incest” with their daughters (plural). Move over, Lincoln and Kennedy; we’ve reached a new level of political discourse.
When liberal talker Ed Schultz called conservative Laura Ingraham a “slut,” not only was there no negative fallout, but participants on “The View” laughed. And when Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was introduced on “Late Night,” Jimmy Fallon’s band played “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.” Move over, Mozart and Beethoven; we’ve reached a new level of musical sensitivity.
Meanwhile, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was called a “Manila whore,” insulting both her gender and her ethnic background. Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was called a “female impersonator,” as was commentator Ann Coulter. And what did feminist or gay activists say about these gross insults? Perhaps I missed it.
So now, when Democrats castigate Donald Trump as “anti-woman” for his relatively mild retort to Megyn Kelly’s hostile question, their feigned outrage rings hollow. Did they protest when much more vile insults were hurled at Republican women? Perhaps I missed that, too.
Clearly, NOW is NOLW, the National Organization for Liberal Women. Like many other organizations, it was taken over by leftists. Regrettably, this includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Psychological Association, the National Education Association, and the American Association of University Professors − of which I used to be a member.
Rather than being concerned with women, or civil liberties, or psychology, or schools, or universities, these and similar organizations are now concerned with leftist causes. We need organizations dedicated to the causes for which these organizations were founded. It’s too bad we no longer have them. When leftists take over organizations, the problem is not only that leftism is advanced, but also that many good causes are neglected.
Thus it is no surprise that NOW did not stand up for women who were subjected to sexist insults. But can you imagine what would happen if the situation were reversed?
Suppose these loud-mouths were Republicans and the objects of their insults were Democrats. The liberal media would scream about the disgusting sexism of Neanderthal Republicans. NOW would bleat about how women would be forced to wear burqas if Republicans won the election. Psychologists would appear on TV, opining that Republicans are misogynists who probably hated their mothers, or conversely, who wanted to have sex with their mothers.
Strong, intelligent, successful women are admired by leftists, unless they are even mildly conservative − in which case you can throw any filth you like at them.
Don’t follow a bad example. Don’t call politicians you dislike “whores.” It would be unfair to prostitutes the world over. Prostitution is a sin, and also a crime − except in parts of Nevada. Prostitution should be condemned, but prostitutes should also be pitied.
Many prostitutes were sexually abused as children, and hence came to see sex as the only thing they had to offer. Others were addicted to drugs, often by pimps, and then held as virtual captives. Often they are subjected to violence or the threat of violence, both by their pimps and by their clients. Their work is degrading in all senses of that word. Even the “high class” ones are looked down upon, and street hookers are held in contempt. Their own low opinion of themselves often matches the opinion of others. Some make a good living, while most barely get by and can hardly feed their families. No one goes into prostitution to get rich, to gain power, or to become famous. Much the same holds for male prostitutes.
None of these problems applies to politicians. One may speculate on what kind of childhood gives rise to those who seek political power, but sexual or other abuse is not a factor. Politicians live their lives in pleasant surroundings, free of physical danger, unless they are in narco-states like Mexico, or authoritarian states like the former Soviet Union. (Remember Ushenko and Litvinenko?) They often retire rich, sometimes very rich. They enjoy pushing people around.
True, there are honest politicians who are dedicated to the public good. Such people founded and preserved our nation. We owe them our freedom. There are also kindhearted prostitutes who do degrading work to feed their children. But there are not enough of them to mask the bad aroma of the others.

If you put a cup of water into a barrel of sewage, you get a barrel of sewage. But if you put a cup of sewage into a barrel of water, you still get a barrel of sewage. The rotten fraction contaminates the whole thing.
– Murphy’s Law of Dilution

Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.
– Henry Kissinger

Politicians may sell themselves in the sense of abandoning their principles, assuming they had any in the first place. But in no way does their selling themselves in this way approach the physical and moral degradation of prostitution. Politicians seek power or adulation, and often both − and if they are successful, they get both.
In some vague sense, we may pity politicians for their unrealized potential. They could have done the world some good, rather than merely enriching and empowering themselves. They could have seen themselves as stewards of a sacred trust, rather than as potentates entitled to impose their impractical theories on everyone. But in no way does this compare to the real pity with which we view the life of the average prostitute.
From the point of view of the individual, the most important difference between politicians and prostitutes is freedom of choice. Politicians choose the course of their lives, while most prostitutes have little choice − or at least see themselves as having little choice. Moral culpability is proportional to the amount of choice a person has.
From the point of view of society, the most important difference is the amount of damage that can be done. A prostitute can give you a variety of diseases, and the pimp can beat you up and steal your money. But a politician can do real damage. He or she can disrupt the most effective health-care system in the world, hobble the most effective economy in the world, weaken the most effective military in the world, and disunite the greatest nation in the world. And they’re just getting started.
So please, don’t use the word “whore” to describe politicians. It’s unfair to prostitutes. And please, if you condemn Trump for insulting a woman, also be sure to condemn liberals for saying much worse things about women.

●

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com