After weeks of sagging approval ratings, President Barack Obama recently
courted some positive press by unveiling a new White House Council on Women and
Girls. Critics have mocked the council as a meaningless public relations stunt,
since the council has no permanent staff and the cabinet secretaries who
constitute most of its membership probably will be too preoccupied by other
duties to focus on the council’s amorphous mandate “to ensure that American
women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy.”

The council itself may not prove consequential, but women seeking to understand
how Obama views them and their concerns could learn a lot from the White House
signing ceremony that he hosted to celebrate the council’s inception. Such
ceremonies — and, more important, the guests who attend them — can be deeply
revealing of a president’s priorities.

At first glance, the more than 120 accomplished women of all ages and
ethnicities who clustered around Obama at last week’s ceremony appeared to be
the very picture of diversity. But a closer look at their affiliations revealed
a breathtaking conformity of thought that undercuts a central theme of Obama’s
presidency: his claim to be a post-partisan conciliator who eagerly seeks input
from those with whom he disagrees.

Obama’s guest list for his East Room soiree showed little evidence of his
campaign promise to transcend partisan divisions. Only four of the 27 women
senators and congresswomen in attendance were Republicans, and two of those
four were pro-choice, socially liberal Republicans whose views make them
outliers in their own party.

Even less ideological diversity could be found among the 80 private citizens
Obama invited, a lopsidedly leftist group composed mostly of feminist
theorists, abortion-rights advocates, gay-rights activists and Democratic
political operatives. Nearly half were outspoken crusaders for abortion rights
or representatives of organizations that have made abortion advocacy a defining
plank of their policy platforms. Not a single pro-life organization was
represented.

Similarly, nearly half a dozen gay-rights activists and representatives of
gay-rights organizations were in attendance, but there were no representatives
of organizations dedicated to defending traditional marriage or to combating
the epidemic of fatherlessness that is the leading cause of poverty among
American women and girls today. There were, in fact, no conservative or
libertarian organizations represented at the ceremony and few moderate ones. As
for faith-based organizations represented, a generous estimate would include
three — and that’s if you count the Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice, more accurately categorized as an abortion advocacy group than a
religious one.

Although Obama’s remarks emphasized the council’s role in promoting the
economic well-being of women, fewer than a dozen of the private citizens on the
guest list had an economic, business or labor affiliation. The overwhelming
number of abortion activists in attendance suggested that the council’s true
mandate is less about expanding economic opportunity than expanding abortion
access.

No one would expect Obama to pack his signing ceremony with conservative women.
Yet his refusal to make even a symbolic stab at inclusiveness was stunning,
given his campaign promise to promote compromise on social issues and the fact
that most American women do not identify with the extreme agenda pushed by the
radical feminists who dominated last week’s guest list.

Obama’s stubborn ideological streak may cost him with women voters. It’s tough
to woo women with claims of broad-mindedness when you clearly consider only one
kind of woman worth listening to — the kind who agrees with you. Back in the
early days of the women’s movement, feminists had a name for that sort of man:
chauvinist.

Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television and radio host and St.
Louis-based fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is
www.colleen-campbell.com.