×
Well here's an interesting question, from Libby Copeland at Slate:
In a speech at a mega-church in the Minneapolis area back in 2006, Michele Bachmann explained her decision to pursue tax law. It wasn't her choice, exactly. God had already told her to go to law school; God had also told her to marry a fellow named Marcus Bachmann. Now Marcus told her "to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law." This was not a particular desire of Michele's ("Tax law? I hate taxes!"), but she was certain God was speaking through her husband.State dinners aren't really the point (I'm sure Mr. Bachmann would happily recuse himself from that kind of decision-making), but it is reasonable to ask whether the potential First Gentleman would have veto power over any substantive decisions. Before anyone cries religious bigotry, let's consider why this kind of question is perfectly legitimate. It's legitimate because Michele Bachmann will happily tell you that her religious faith, and her particular interpretation of what that faith demands, are not only a central (perhaps the central) part of her identity, but an enormous influence on how she views the world, including questions of public policy. That being the case, voters have a right to know all they can about what the substance of that faith is. If she's an advocate of "wifely submission," then that absolutely bears on what kind of a job she'd do as president. Imagine that a different candidate said, "I've got this mentor, who was my economics professor in college, and I pretty much do whatever he tells me. In fact, I feel that God demands that I do whatever he tells me." We'd naturally want to know who this professor is, what his views are, and whether it's really appropriate to be giving him such a large role in the functions of our government. In other words, you can't have it both ways (as many candidates try to). You can't say that religious faith is incredibly important to you and to what kind of president you'd be, and expect religious voters to support you in part because of your strong faith, but simultaneously say that people shouldn't ask questions about exactly how that faith will operate as you do the job of president. In fairness, Bachmann hasn't refused to answer that kind of question. But it's only because she hasn't yet been asked."Why should I go and do something like that?" she recalled thinking. "But the Lord says, 'Be submissive wives; you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"
For non-evangelical Christians, this sounds ludicrous: How can a woman who believes in submitting to her husband's will aspire to be president of the United States? Is she going to have to ask Marcus' permission every time she wants to throw a state dinner?
