TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
02.09.2008
What Bristol’s baby tells us about the Christian right

Alan Wolfe is a TNR contributing editor and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College.

When John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, he was thinking only of short-term advantage. In reality, his pick not only increases the chances that he will lose the 2008 presidential election, it also threatens to split American conservatism in half for the foreseeable future.

The conservative triumph in this country is frequently attributed to "fusionism," the ability of a politicians such as Ronald Reagan to bring together traditionalists, libertarians, and cold warriors into one movement. The cold warriors went the way of the cold war, and even if they had not, the neoconservative impetus to which it gave birth has lost all intellectual credibility.  Now Sarah Palin's life has already begun to render asunder the remaining two elements of the coalition.

It may seem like ages ago but during the Clinton administration, conservative traditionalists were everywhere. The nuclear family is sacrosanct. Women should shun the workforce and become full-time moms. Kids should obey their parents and, if they choose not to, discipline, including harsh measures, ought to be applied. Sex outside of marriage is strictly forbidden.  Our culture is spinning wildly out of control, and sexual liberation, the worst byproduct of the God-awful 1960s, is the cause.  And, by the way, abortion is murder and should be forbidden.

All that is left, if the Palin controversy is any indication, is abortion. Palin's defenders, far from being traditionalists, are moral relativists. We should not rush to judgment. It is important to understand the pressures that families face. Love is all you need. Forgive in order to forget. People are entitled to their privacy, even, if not especially, in the bedroom. The state should not be in the business of telling people what to do. It sounds like the language of the left, but it has also had long resonance on the libertarian right. When the McCain campaign said that Bristol Palin had a choice, it was correct. These days we all have choices. The fact that we do has always bothered conservative traditionalists.

Sarah Palin's nomination is a public service. No longer will we hear lectures from the likes of Newt Gingrich telling poor women on welfare how to conduct their sex lives. Focus on the Family will have to focus on a different kind of family.  William Bennett has no virtues left to write about. At long last our national nightmare over sexual hypocrisy has come to an end, and we can all thank John McCain for that.

And that is not all. In rushing to Sarah Palin's defense, the leaders of the Christian right have made it abundantly clear how they define a Christian. We don't care if you sin. We are not bothered if you put your ambition ahead of the needs of your children. If you have lied or broken the law, we will look the other way. It all comes down to your stand on guns and fetuses. Vote the right way, and you have our blessing. If any proof were needed that James Dobson is a political operative rather than a spiritual leader, his jumping on the Palin bandwagon offers it.

I blogged in this space last week that Palin represented the libertarian wing of the evangelical movement rather than the punitive wing. (In doing so, I pointed out that she had named her children after witches; I was wrong to do so, as was the source upon which I relied, and I apologize for my mistake). Now we are learning that the split between libertarians and moral regulators involves far more than a religious movement. It goes to the heart of what once passed for conservatism in the United States. John McCain has shown that he has a wrecking crew approach to politics. Among the things he is wrecking is the movement and ideology that brought him to his station in life.

--Alan Wolfe 

 

Posted: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:06 PM with 22 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

"In doing so, I pointed out that she had named her children after witches; I was wrong to do so, as was the source upon which I relied, and I apologize for my mistake"

Np. I once dated a NYC schoolteacher who revealed herself, on our third date, as a member of a "coven" that met each Moon-day evening near Central Park. (There was no fourth date.)

fwiw she wanted to name her prospective child "Sophie." Ya never know.

September 2, 2008 5:50 PM

emigdio said:

this was a lovely little rant...

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the Bristol-Abstinence Only Education nexus.

I mean, jeez, if those are two obvious dots to join...

September 2, 2008 6:01 PM

GSpinks said:

I have to agree with the wrecking ball analogy; I think the first victim of his wrecking ball approach was his character, and the dominos fell from there.

I'm not so sure that McCain cannot pull together the various factions of conservatives, though. The Republicans have always shown an ability to focus on the issues that bind the party, and despite McCain's wrecking ball they still have the issues of God, Guns, and Gays.

September 2, 2008 6:07 PM

colablease said:

Actually, I think this is wildly off base.  If the Christian Right is celebrating Bristol's "choice," it's not an endorsement of choice, but of a young woman who chose "right."  The notion that traditionalists are uniformly censorious clashes with the reality of many of their lives.  As Garance Franke-Rupa and Ross Douthat [in very different ways], among others, have pointed out social conservatism flourishes most in places where socailly conservative *practice* is most difficult, in working-class or rural America.  In these societies, insistence on a rigidly traditional style of sexual behavior runs up against the reality of teenage sex.  The response has sometimes been to cast the malefactor out, but far more often to do just what the Palins are doing--demand that one face the consequences of a mistake but in return accept the support of a family.  It's hardly a concession to "choice"; rather, it's a reassertion of ties of obligation.  It only looks like a contradiction if you don't look at the lived experience, but at the rhetoric--a mistake I wouldn't think Alan Wolfe would make.

September 2, 2008 6:08 PM

cspencef said:

And I thought I was harsh on the fundamnmentalists...

But colablease, L'affaire Palin still points out how harshly the rhetoric of the "traditionalists" contrasts with the practice, does it not?  Their rhetoric still insists that Bristol Palin should have had no choice but to bear the child, no matter what accommodations may come after.  

September 2, 2008 6:22 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Sarah Palin's nomination is a public service. No longer will we hear lectures from the likes of Newt Gingrich telling poor women on welfare how to conduct their sex lives. Focus on the Family will have to focus on a different kind of family.  William Bennett has no virtues left to write about. At long last our national nightmare over sexual hypocrisy has come to an end, and we can all thank John McCain for that."

You are dreaming Alan.

A standard Conservative libertarian answer would be that people on welfare take money from taxpayers ergo the taxpayer has a right to tell them how to behave.

You have done a great job illuminating the difference between different kinds of Christian fundamentalists in the country. To someone like me, though,  who has been in the Armed Forces and met people from all walks of life and different religions you inforemation isn't news.

You should also, Alan, acquaint yourself with the different kinds of conservatives out there. You write as if they were all the same.

September 2, 2008 6:58 PM

jacksondyer said:

colablease, you are all speculating wildly.

No one knows what Bristol's own views on the issue are.

Being brought up within and environment that says that abortion "is murder" I very much doubt that she would take naturally to the idea of aborting the fetus in her womb.

We are all products to an extent of our environment and culture.

September 2, 2008 7:01 PM

kevincollins said:

Alan,

Your second-to-last paragraph is a keeper, and it's what I've basically been saying all these years -- thinking that you can knowingly and willfully sin just so long as you're against abortion. Cheat, steal, judge, all of this is forgiven as long as you're non-choice. If there is a God, I don't think he'll be giving these moral hypocrites the Get Out of Jail card they think he will.

September 2, 2008 7:34 PM

psantillana said:

She is hardly a libertarian. Go watch this: gregransom.com/.../sarah-palin-debates-tony-knowl.html

The two other candidates are much more so - see their answers on whether assisted suicide should be legal - the other two said yes, on civil liberty grounds, and she tried to SOUND libertarian by saying that the government shouldn't be in the business of endorsing the ending of life. In other words - to not criminalize something, the government is getting all up in our business.

I hate her and I am so proud that I voted against her in that race. But if her winning it led to her being chosen by McIdiot, and helping to lose him this race, well, then AK just had to take one for the team.

September 2, 2008 7:54 PM

heppner52 said:

They've always been willing to make exceptions for themselves.  That's what hypocrisy is all about.

September 3, 2008 10:56 AM

The Plank said:

Look Who's Running On Biography Now by Jonathan Cohn No Manufacturing. No New Ideas. What's Our

September 3, 2008 11:11 AM

moran@sbc.edu said:

McCain surely intended to bring the Religious Right into the political fray  ---so---, he's entitled to expand his base---but at what cost ?  By his ill-advised choice (or independent, personal choice)  he has truly created a fire-storm. He thrives on conflict. He loves a fight. What does this tell us about how he will handle international affairs?  Just count the victims already lined up. This whole scenario smacks of those TV shows where the "guests" humiliate themselves for their 15 minutes of fame. To be charitable to Gov. Palin, I can only assume that she was duped into believing that her god had ordained this opportunity.

And, btw, his or his staff's objection to liberal bloggers expressing their opinions is specious and out of touch with the nature of the internet.  McCain will only self-destruct.

September 3, 2008 11:53 AM

dhauck said:

I think "what it says" is that the Christian faith is quite amenable to forgiveness, *if* you recognize your error, accept responsibility for your mistakes, and try to make amends.  I realize, however, that this may be hard to understand for someone who thinks humans can't make moral errors, just different "choices".  And is her mother pressuring her - hard - to do what she (her mother) thinks is right?  Probably.  I thought that was a mother's job?

As to "[They] are not bothered if you put your ambition ahead of the needs of your children," do you honestly expect me to believe any Dem-aligned columnist cares one whit about that girl or her situation as anything other than a missile to aim at her mother?  Please.

Hypocrisy is an occupational hazard for leaders of movements, and those who have declared themselves the leaders of the Christian traditionalist right are certainly guilty of bouts of it, as are those of the free-thinking left.  But this is not one of them.  Find something else to attack Palin on.  Or, here's a thought, why don't you talk about Obama for a change?  I'm pretty sure he's got more going for him than just not being John McCain, but you'd never know it from reading TNRO for the past month.

September 3, 2008 1:39 PM

jwl2672 said:

No.  Christians believe in doing the right thing RIGHT NOW, from this moment forth.  That you made an error and had pre-marital sex and subsequently are pregnant means that you do the RIGHT THING, RIGHT NOW.  You marry (if possible) and raise the child.  You don't take the coward's way out and compound your sin with another more grievous one (killing the unborn child).

That's why Christians support Palin and her daughter.  Who are we to cast stones? We've all sinned.  As long as their mindset is correct (raising the child right) and they're going to do the right thing, we cheer them on.  I'd rather cheer on a conservative unwed pregnant woman than a non-pregnant, liberal pro-abortion woman.  The liberal may not have sinned with pre-marital sex, but we know that the liberal is pre-inclined to abortion and would have every intention to do wrong.

September 3, 2008 1:54 PM

jwl2672 said:

Dhauck said exactly what I meant to say but more eloquently.  If I had read his post first, I'd have saved myself the effort.

September 3, 2008 2:03 PM

jwl2672 said:

Forgiveness is a key tenet of the Christian faith.  

If you belonged to the muslim cult, you'd lash the girl 50 times, and give the guy a lollipop.  Is that what you want the Christian right to do? Stone her to show "true adherence to the faith? "

September 3, 2008 2:06 PM

CAM2 said:

If you just tuned in Monday, you'd think floor delegates were glorifying another prominant pregnancy of a young, unwed teenager:  Mary, (later) wife of Joseph, 1 AD  

September 3, 2008 2:51 PM

bigfish said:

"I'd rather cheer on a conservative unwed pregnant woman than a non-pregnant, liberal pro-abortion woman."

So, you're of the "do what I say, not what I do" school of thought?

September 3, 2008 4:04 PM

sdemuth said:

"Forgiveness is a key tenet of the Christian faith."

Particularly, for the evangelical right, if the person to be forgiven looks like and talks like and thinks like you,or like you wish you were.  But if the pregnant teenager in question is, say a young black woman in a crappy school surrounded by crack dealers, and with no economic prospects, then she's part of a social malady and guilty not so much of a forgivable sin, as some sort of moral dystocia justifying much hand wringing and commentary about the declining state of public morals.

The people on the right now so publicly forgiving of Ms  Palin's situation are very largely hypocrites on the subject.  I would myself happily forgive her, if I thought she required my forgiveness, but she doesn't.  That she can get from her own family and neighbors.  For everyone else, if teenage pregnancy is a bad thing, and a social problem, then the she is inherently part of that problem - another wayward young lady (and man - she didn't get pregnant on her own, unless the Palin's are really special) whose parents didn't teach them right, or control them, or whatever in heck parents are supposed to do in the hand wringers world view to prevent their children from contributing to the general social malaise.

September 3, 2008 4:43 PM

swaterman said:

I do not agree with Mr. Wolfe. I don't think that just because there is logic to an argument that the argument will either be used or will succeed. It just doesn't work that way, especially when talking about sex and government. Although one could argue that Palin's daughter's pregnancy is just one more proof that preaching abstinence is relatively futile, what else can you argue? This story will die in short order. She's marrying the guy and having the baby - possibly not wise choices, but certainly choices sanctioned by conservatives and also certainly none of our business. And just because evangelical conservatives like to suggest that the government should intervene in people's lives in all sorts of ways (no gay love or marriage), they also argue that the government should butt out (no sex education). So, how does the fact of Palin's grandchild-to-be make these very old arguments more effective? The same hypocracies will be visited upon us Democrats, the same inconsistencies, the same illogical arguments. I really doubt that this will even make it to mainstream conversation for more than the week, let alone change things. Democrats should not be so happy at unfortunate pregnancies, nor should we think that we've won any arguments.

September 3, 2008 7:22 PM

yayfrogs said:

This is proof of how much the Christian right detests Obama. In my opinion, had the Obama camp had announced something this damning, fundamentalist Christians would have roasted them on the spit. It would have been another example of morally bankrupt liberals pushing their free-love views on our holy Christian nation. If our leaders can't keep their families in line, how can we trust them to lead our nation?

Understand, fellow readers, that when we discuss fundamentalist Christianity's views on politics, we're talking about theology that descends from the Christian Identity view that God has blessed the United States. It's not quite a divine right of kings, but it's close. America is a Christian nation, and if Americans look to God to do so, God will provide the proper ruler.

The Christian right, therefore, will look for the ruler with this framework in mind. They pray for a godly ruler, so when election season comes, they seek out the one God has chosen. When two bad choices arise, they pick one that's closer to their ideal. It's similar to how any voter would pick a candidate, but with scripture as the 10,000-pound gorilla. It's bad theology, and it's pervasive, and it obviously impacts American politics.

I'll agree with the author that much of this boils down to abortion. I have friends and family who have said that their primary goal in voting is keeping a conservative slant in the Supreme Court in order to challenge Roe v. Wade. Neither candidate appears to be God's chosen one, so they'll pick based on that issue.

Let me field another: Why is the Christian right OK with a woman as the vice president in the first place?

September 3, 2008 7:37 PM

Lundell said:

Very insightful as always Mr. Wolfe.  I have always admired your work and feel honored in an "aw shucks" kind of way to be able to compliment you in this forum.

I've been around politics for a long time and I can attest that there is this fusion of libertarian economics (and some aspects of personal behavior) being fused with a strong (and punitive) moral fervor.  I realize that this has existed in segments of the American populace before, but it always seemed to be more on the edge of things than it is right now.  It's like somebody shuffled segments of "The Road to Serfdom" into the middle of the Pentateuch.

September 4, 2008 9:59 AM