A social justice paradox.

Not an especially artful opinion but raising an interesting issue which I think is under-discussed. From Democratic women, stop your whining by Ingrid Jacques.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar wants you to think her struggles to gain momentum in her presidential bid are due to her sex — and the bias of the American public.

The Democrat took a swipe at fellow White House contender Pete Buttigieg, who leads her, by saying the South Bend mayor likely wouldn’t have garnered the support he has — given his light resume (in her opinion) — if he were a woman.

Last weekend, Klobuchar doubled down on her thesis in an interview with CNN.

“I’m focusing here on my fellow women senators — Senator Harris, Senator Warren and myself,” Klobuchar said. “Do I think that we would be standing on that stage if we had the experience that he had? No, I don’t. Maybe we’re held to a different standard.”

OK, boomer. Maybe you're behind in the polls because you’re boring and have failed to inspire the country.

Klobuchar, 59, is making herself sound dated with her whining over the rise of millennial Buttigieg, 37.

Yet she has plenty of company in making these sorts of excuses.

California Sen. Kamala Harris raised similar claims to explain her single digit showings in the polls, questioning whether Americans are ready to elect a woman as their commander in chief.

“Essentially, is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States?” Harris posited in an Axios interview in late October. “There is a lack of ability or a difficulty in imagining that someone whom we have never seen can do a job that has been done 45 times by someone who is not that person.”

Yes identity victimhood complaining is real and common with Democratic candidates, seeking the intersectional sweetspot of being enough of a perceived victim to be legitimate but not so much as to seem dysfunctional/crackpot. A balancing act which few achieve.

Women can complain all they want about misogyny and sexism, but Buttigieg faces an even more pronounced barrier: He’s gay.

A recent Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 50% of respondents said they were either definitely or probably ready to have an openly gay president, while 37% had reservations. When registered voters were asked if the country as a whole was ready, those numbers dropped to 40% — 45% weren’t optimistic.

Morning Consult Vice President Tyler Sinclair told Politico that women fared better than gay candidates. And a poll by LeanIn.org found 77% of Americans are moderately to extremely ready to elect a woman president, and 55% believe their fellow citizens feel the same way.

Given his higher ranking on the hierarchy of victimhood, it’s even more impressive that Buttigieg is doing so well in the polls. For a while he was leading in Iowa, but Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has edged past him, 20% to 19.7%, according to the latest numbers from RealClearPolitics. In national polls, he’s trailing at 8%, but is still several points ahead of Klobuchar (2.3%) and Harris (5.3%). Warren — a woman — is second nationally only to former Vice President Joe Biden.

Ignoring Jacques' sharp elbows, the underlying issue is intriguing.

The social justice postmodernist ethos of the Democratic insiders drive them towards identifying as a victim and yet they also want to project power and accomplishment.

"I am justified by being a victim" is hardly reconcilable with "Vote for me because I am strong, accomplished, and effective." Are you going to go for the sympathy vote or the admiration vote?

The irony is that the allure and option for playing the victimhood card is powerful and only available to those within a victimhood class even if they have not themselves been a victim. And it is toxic to the point of suicidal. Taking Kamala Harris as an example, she had a choice of presenting as an accomplished and experienced Attorney General for California or as victim of latent racism.

It is hard to reconcile those two brands. Hard to claim racial discrimination while sleeping to the top of the insider political pool in the most liberal state of the Union and while slamming other minorities into prison. Victim? No.

But the claim is so alluring, she makes it anyway and then is open to charges of hypocrisy as well as sabotaging her own candidacy. Winners of the sympathy vote are rarely winners of the election. People want leaders, not victims.

Playing the social justice victim identity card is actually a double-dose of toxicity to a campaign. Not only do you cast yourself as weak, but you display your own toxic bigotry. Claiming victimhood for misogyny or race without specifying who was the particular oppressor reveals a bigotry against the other. Men oppressed me is patently false. Some men, perhaps. But not all, or even the majority, or even very many. Making a category accusation of "men oppressed me" is a bigoted statement. You are morally condemning a group of people based on an inherent condition over which they have no control. When done based on gender, that is indisputably sexist. When done based on race, it is indisputably racist. When done based on class, it is indisputably classist.

What Jaques is pointing towards is that every candidate has a choice. They can justify themselves based on accomplishment and strength or they can justify themselves based on bigoted victimhood.

White males cannot play those cards. They don't have that choice. They can't get stuck in that quicksand of failure.

The social justice postmodernist mindset encourages all others to take that route. It is a poisoned chalice being offered, increasing the odds of white male success. It is a philosophical auto-destruct mechanism.

Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have both suffered for having attempted to unjustifiably claim social justice victimhood status. An appeal which works on ideological grounds for some small segment of the Democratic Party. In the opposite camp is Tulsi Gabbard. I am not aware of her ever playing the victim card. She just gets out there and fights her battles. Clearly that isn't working for her particularly well among the 20% or so of the population who identify as solid Democrats. But the dynamic is different outside of the inner circle. Gabbard is in many ways philosophically much more antithetical to any Republican position but a lot of Republicans admire her behaviors and achievements. They respect her service. They respect that she fights for what she believes in. Regrettably they would never vote for her unless the only choice was among Democrats but you can see why she appeals to a broader audience.

Similarly with Marianne Williamson. No victim there either. She argues her points with vigor and passion. I know plenty of Republicans who think she is crazy as a loon and yet admire her strength of conviction.

Harris and Warren - I am unaware of any admirers among independents, libertarians, conservatives or Republicans. There is no admiration, merely disdain. They are seen as weak system manipulators.

The main, though unstated, point I see in Jacques' column is that social justice postmodernism encourages its acolytes to adopt the personae of a victim and demeanor of a bigot. Social justice encourages them to do this and then they lose because of encouragement.