I jsut finished reading two articles, one written by Tammy Bruce, the other by Michelle Cottle. To say that the difference in their perspectives is stark is understatement. Here’s a telling sample of Ms. Cottle’s column:

Of course, these days, the feminist mantle is claimed by pro-life conservatives and pro-choice progressives alike. Palin herself is a proud member of Feminists for Life. Feminism seems no longer to denote a particular set of values or ideological agenda; it is merely a label appropriated to proclaim that one is committed to the best interests of women, whatever one believes those to be. Thus far, there’s no reason to doubt that Palin devoutly believes her hard-core conservatism is right for women. A McCain-Palin White House, however, would spell only trouble for women’s rights.

Ms. Cottle never explains why she thinks that a McCain-Palin administration “would spell only trouble for women’s rights.” She just says that it would. The ‘feminist agenda’ is the only thing that seems to matter with Ms. Cottle. I can’t criticize Ms. Cottle’s passion for her principles. I can just say that her reaction is a little panicked.

Compare that with the central point in Ms. Bruce’s article:

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it’s about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It’s that simple.

With Ms. Bruce, it isn’t all about the ‘feminist agenda’. It’s about a bigger picture. Ms. Bruce’s pro choice credentials are indisputable to thinking people. That isn’t what drives Ms. Bruce, though. It’s apparent that liberty and maximizing options is the main thing for her.

It’s apparent that these ladies come from two different schools of thought: Ms. Cottle belongs to the so-called Feminist Movement; Ms. Bruce is from the old-schooled Women’s Liberation Movement. The Feminist Movement is centered on a specific political agenda. The Women’s Liberation Movement is based more on liberty and choices than on a political agenda.

I’m betting that, at least in this election, liberty will trump ideology. Here’s why that’s important. A specific, narrow ideological perspective potentially limits freedom and mandates strict adherence. That’s what’s fueling the Left’s criticism of Sarah Palin. Conversely, liberty tells women that they’re accepted regardless of political ideology. Acceptance that’s judgment-free is appealing. One might think of women’s liberation as the libertarian movement for women.

The Democrats’ insistence on ideological purity is what’s causing this backlash. All people, whether man or woman, want to make their own decisions free of criticism. That’s mankind’s predisposition. Now that women see the difference in the two parties’ perspective, don’t be surprised if more women give the Republican Party serious consideration.

There’s another problem Democrats will have to deal with. Democrats, like Sen. Obama, have talked the talk. Now that John McCain has picked Sarah Palin, real competition for the women’s vote will start in earnest. The minute that the Democrats can’t count on dominating that vote is the day that they start losing consistently.

The last thing that Democrats want to do is have to justify their policies.

Technorati Tags: Tammy Bruce, Liberty, Libertarian, Michelle Cottle, Pro Choice, Liberalism, Dogma, Feminism, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog