Hillary Lost Because of Sexism... And Muslim Immigrants in Europe

There's stretching a point, there's stretching so far that Reed Richards would gasp in awe, and then there's conservative spit-slinger Mark Steyn.  Steyn, anxious to queue up with the rest of the conservative commentators suddenly overcome with Clinton sympathy, apparently racked his mind to come up with some reason why Hillary's defeat was a bad sign for Democrats.  And since the contents of that rack are severely limited, Steyn returned to the same reason he uses for explaining everything from rainy days to burnt toast -- evil immigrants.

Canada and Europe are in steep demographic decline and dependent on immigration to sustain their populations. And – as those Anglo-Welsh statistics suggest – many of the available immigrants are already from male-dominated cultures and will eventually be male-dominated numbers-wise, too: circa 2020, the personal ads in the Shanghai classifieds seeking "SWF with good sense of humor" will be defining "must live locally" as any ZIP code this side of Mars.

If you're wondering how that has anything to do with Hillary Clinton's loss in a series of Democratic contents in all of which female voters were the majority, you obviously haven't read Steyn's detailed argument that includes China's one child policy, demographics of women of Indian origin in Wales, in-vitro fertilization among elderly couples, sex ratios in the Punjab, and how abortion is the tool of the new patriarchy.  Really.  More conspiracy theories per second than a season of Chris Carter shows run back at 10x speed.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that sexism has played a role in Hillary's loss, just as racism has also played its unfortunate role in this year's contests.  But Steyn's essay is in the early running for a 2009 Opprobrium Award.

If summer is the silly season for political news, Steyn is already in August.