KLAVAN: Joe Biden Is Not Intersectional Enough For The Democrats

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” the host breaks down a New York Times op-ed that claims it is not the accusations of sexual misconduct that will sink former Vice President Joe Biden’s proposed 2020 presidential run, it is a lack of intersectionality politics.

If you want to find out what the Left is thinking, there is only one place to go, and that is the op-ed page of The New York Times, or as we call it Knucklehead Row. Michelle Goldberg, one of the chief knuckleheads on Knucklehead Row has a column called "The Wrong Time for Joe Biden.”

"He's not a sexual predator", she says "he's just out of touch. I don't think Biden's avuncular pawing is a 'Me Too' story" she writes. "But if Biden was more oblivious than predatory his history still puts him out of step with the mores of an increasingly progressive Democratic Party.” So, she's telling you it's not about the hands. It's about the mind. It's about the philosophy.

"On Sunday the New York Times reported that some Democrats are bracing for an extended reckoning about Mr. Biden and gender if he enters the race. The inevitability of such a reckoning should make Biden reconsider getting in. Biden's issues with gender after all, go far beyond chronic handedness. His waffling on reproductive choice troubles many feminists, as the Times reported last week. Biden's back and forth over abortion would become a hallmark of his political career. He was the chairman of the hearings on Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination where Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of sexual harassment, was demeaned and dismissed" — which isn't true by the way. She was not demeaned and dismissed, she was questioned as if she were making an accusation against somebody and she never got corroborating evidence for anything she said. And again, I've said this before but if you go back and look the things, she was charging Clarence Thomas with during his Supreme Court hearings we're not even very serious. I mean they were nothing compared to the kinds of things people are talking about now.

So, she goes on to say that Biden may seem like a safe choice. I mean, we talk about this on the right too. You put up a guy like Mitt Romney. He seems like a safe choice, but really he's kind of leader he can't get people excited, he can't reach those people who are in between or leaning Obama who voted Obama last time, like Trump did, who got those people to come over. So, she's saying he's safe but he's just out of touch with the leftism, the socialism, that the Democrat Party now basically supports.

"He says in response to Flores, the first woman who accused him, Biden could have told her that he was sorry for making her uneasy. Instead, he focused on his intentions rather than her experience. A faint echo of the way he ignored Hill's experiences decades ago."

I want you to follow the logic about this. What's important is the woman's experience of the touch, not what you were actually trying to do or what you actually did. It's her experience if she says she's uncomfortable. That's the thing that matters and you should apologize. "No one should judge the whole span of Biden's career by the standards of 2019 but if he's going to run for president, it’s fair to ask whether he's the right leader for this moment. He is a product of his time, but that time is up." So, if that's the problem, first of all why are you talking about sex in the first place? Why not just talk about philosophy, why not just talk about policy? But since they do, since they've got the whole "Me Too" thing ginned up to take down Biden, let's think about what they're saying.

What matters here is this woman's experience of being touched, hugged, nuzzled whatever. I don't like this either. I don't like being hugged. I don't like the fact that people hug me all the time when I see them. I don't, I really don't. Men hug me, women hug me. I don't like it, you know. I mean they do it all the time. I'm a private person. I like to shake hands, say hello but I do it. Whenever I go places people want to take pictures with me, they put their arms around me you know, I do it right. I don't talk about my experience. Why not? Why not? Because it's different for a man. It's different for a man.

Women's experience of being touched is different than a man's experience of being touched right? Why? Women's bodies play different roles in our sexual experience and our sexual exchange. A woman's body has a different role than a man's body. Maybe it's the role of being a … you know Thomas Mann talks about this in the Magic Mountain. He talks about the fact that if you think about it it's kind of strange that women use parts of their body as part of their clothes. Men don't do that right. Women you know expose arms cleavage all kinds of things as part of their clothing. It's part of their decoration because they realize they are attractive to men and men are attracted to women, right? That is the way it works. So, what about men. If women's role is to be attractive, if women have a different role in the sexual mating experience. And part of that role is to attract, and men are being attracted by the law divine, if that's the machinery of the law divine. And if women want men to respect them as well, they should, shouldn't women respect the feelings of men as well if men have this kind of supercharged feeling of attraction? Wouldn't it be nice if women would just be a little bit careful about that? Have a little bit of respect for that so that men would have a different experience walking around than they do.

Watch more of "The Andrew Klavan Show" here.

Listen to more of "The Andrew Klavan Show" on iTunes here.


What's Your Reaction?