That’s supposed to be funny. Palin/Paladin — get it? No? Never mind, then. Since everyone seems to be excited — positively or negatively — over John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, I thought I might as well get excited, too. The trouble is, I can’t, either way. I am not distraught that a woman, wife, and mother is playing second fiddle on the Republican presidential ticket. I am also not thrilled that said fiddle is exceedingly pro-life. It’s not that I don’t care about those issues. It’s just that, in a way, the former point doesn’t matter at all, and in another way, it matters very much; and the latter point, while truly a wonderful thing, could surely have been found in someone less maternal. All this leaves me with mixed feelings; not the kind that upset my stomach, but the kind that balance out to a disinterested ambivalence.
Only under the most unfortunate circumstances do I approve of a married woman, with or without children, being employed outside her home. My reasons — which are not germane to this article, so won’t elaborate on them — are two-fold: 1) she ought not submit to the authority of anyone but her husband and 2) it is virtually impossible for her to do so without in some way, however small, neglecting her home. However, it would be hypocritical of me to object to Palin’s candidacy on those grounds as long as I continue to patronize businesses that employ married women, many of whom are mothers.
Marital status aside, the fact that she is a woman does not bother me. Just as I don’t mind paying a woman to pour my coffee at the café, I don’t mind paying a woman to be Vice President, or even President. Well, I suppose it bothers me a little. I am convinced that women, by design, are not ideal for such positions. But then there was Margaret Thatcher; and considering the performance of our last two male Presidents, I don’t think I’ll push that point at this time.
While the Bible does say a wife is to be a keeper at home, it does not say that a woman can’t have a job — and that’s what this is: a job. I know, many will say this is different. This is a really big job, much different from the average job that the average woman might have. Well, yes, it is; but that only presents a difference of degree, not kind. Others will point out that this is a position of authority. I would suggest that those people do two things: get a copy of the Constitution and learn what the job of President (since the Vice President could conceivably be thrust into that office) actually entails, and read the Bible and learn exactly what kind of authority a woman is forbidden.
First, the Bible: Scripture bars women from exercising authority over their husbands and in the church, nowhere else. Unless you believe the church should be joined to the state, there is no biblical impediment to women holding public office.
Second, the law: Presidents (or senators, etc.) are not authorities. This is a republic. We have, as John Adams said, “a government of laws, not men.” Elected officials are merely administrators of the law. The Constitution is King (Lex Rex). I have been disappointed to see some slandering Mr. Palin, implying, or stating outright, that he must not be the head of his home, and by allowing his wife to be Governor and now Vice President, he is subjecting himself further to her authority. That is an unfounded charge. We don’t know how things are in their home, and her public service has no bearing on that. There is no elected position that would place her in authority over him.
So, I’m not excited about this candidacy. I think it’s just a reflection of the sad state of the culture we live in, and no more than that. I’m sorry that the Palin’s have chosen to order their family as they have; but I’ll say the same for many of the ladies who work in the stores around town. I’m glad that Mrs. Palin is very pro-life, but I find it sadly ironic that a woman who has pursued a demanding career away from home is billed as pro-family.
There is a tendency for conservative Christians to become indignant and hit the outrage button when the world behaves worldly and insist that, if they can’t have things as they ought to be, they won’t have it at all. That’s foolish. Sometimes — often, actually — we have to take the cards we’re dealt and make the best of it.
I will vote for McCain-Palin in November. As I do, I will be sorry we can’t do better, but happy to be voting against Obama for a candidate that might actually defeat him. I will do that because there is a difference, and it does matter.
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/740
Share this post:
Posted in: Politics
Link · 14 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
14 Comments:
#1 || 08·09·03··09:54 || Daniel
I most definitely will NOT be voting for McCain-Palin in November... as I am a Canadian.
Many have voiced concern over Obama's lack of experience. Some (even from the McCain camp) have even used it as a criticism of his fitness for the presidency. Which is why, as an outside observer, I found it rather stunning that the McCain camp would find someone even less qualified to back-fill the same role.
Palin is a younger, reasonably attractive, change minded new-comer (like Obama), but she is also a woman (like Hillary). She is more conservative than McCain, and even seems to have a better back bone; In short, she seems a good gamble for the republican party; as she can appeal to the disgruntled "Hillary '08" democrats, and the disgruntled conservative Republicans who find McCain's liberalism a little too left...
I can understand the ambivalence. It is not unlike having a dish that is distasteful, be reheated with some new seasoning, so that, while it is still distasteful, it is edible, if only marginally - but nothing to get excited about.
#2 || 08·09·03··10:28 || David
I disagree with the experience issue.
Obama is a Jr. Senator. He has, to my knowledge, held no executive positions. Governors are (generally) better qualified than Senators. Palin is a Governor, though not a well-seasoned Governor. I’d say neither can claim an experience advantage.
Anyway, for a Presidential candidate to compare his experience to a Vice Presidential candidate’s experience ought to be embarrassing. “Vote for me because I’m more experienced than my opponents underling.”
So I don’t see any irony in McCane’s appeal to his experience due to Palin’s lack thereof. I know the VP could conceivably become President on the second day of the new administration, but I hardly expect that to happen. The VP position is more often OJT for the Oval Office. Furthermore, in this present case, I’ll take an inexperienced Palin over an experienced Biden any day.
As for McCain-Palin being a distasteful, though edible dish, that is quite right. It becomes more appetizing, though, when set next to the dish that has been sitting in the back of the refrigerator for several months and is covered with mold or full of salmonella.
#3 || 08·09·03··11:44 || daniel
Don't get me wrong, Palin clearly has -more- experience than Obama, I meant that both are relative "new comers" to the national scene, or at least to the Canadian News Media. I hadn't heard about Obama until several months prior to the democratic race, where certain pundits were suggesting Obama as a hypothetical "man of color" candidate this time around, since he was clearly educated, charming, and, above all else, blacker than Clinton tried to be. (Did I say that with enough political correctness?). And Palin was off my radar until the announcement the other day. So I speak from an (excusable I hope) ignorance, in part because we don't get a lot of US political coverage up here until campaign season, and, like hockey, I don't start to pay too close attention until the play-offs.
Either way, I think Palin makes McCain more palatable. I must admit, for the spectator, the US race just got far more interesting.
#4 || 08·09·03··15:16 || David
Daniel, I think you should move south. We could use your vote.
I’m not sure if Palin makes McCain more palatable to me or not. Vice Presidents are mostly irrelevant, having been referred to as “political eunuchs” (I suppose that metaphor doesn’t work as well in this case).
#5 || 08·09·04··06:21 || Daniel
David, I agree, it isn't that Palin makes McCain any more palatable, she just adds the (not so distant) possibility to the ticket, that the aged (and periodically cancer ridden) McCain not live out his full term, and the possibility of Palin succeeding McCain, gruesome as it is, makes the McCain-Palin ticket more palatable (Palintable?).
That may sound a little maccabre so, while I know that you know me well enough to get my gist, I will add for your readership that I wish no illness or sudden calamity to McCain - it isn't that I am saying, "Boy, I sure hope he dies in office!" - rather it is saying, "McCain is so liberal that I wouldn't want to vote for him personally, though since he has picked a running mate who is more conservative, I would vote for the ticket just because even the gamble a conservative president succeeding him, is better than the alternatives" - if that makes any sense.
#6 || 08·09·04··08:55 || David
Well, I feel much better now that I know that.
#7 || 08·09·04··10:21 || Daniel
I was just thinking that if the liberals hold both the senate and the whitehouse, we can start calling the US the "new" France.
#8 || 08·09·04··12:03 || David
Sacrebleu! You are a provocateur! That would certainly dampen my joie de vivre. It could very well be the coup de grâce to our Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. But I will not stand by idly and allow that to happen. Vive la Résistance!
#9 || 08·09·04··14:34 || Shamgar
I'm afraid I have to take issue with your analysis here.
First, there is a big difference between a woman working a few hours a week - or even 40 hours a week - a few minutes from home pouring coffee or what-have-you and being the vice president.
There are large numbers of circumstances that make even that more or less acceptable. Does she have kids at home? Is her family depending on that income? Is that because they have to - or because of the lifestyle they choose to live? Are the kids she has at home teenagers who are gone when she's at work anyway - or are they small children? Is her husband working? Does she have a husband?
Hence, in my opinion you're really comparing apples to oranges. More or less so depending on the circumstances of the job. Now, if that woman works 80 hours a week, her husband stays home, and she has 5 young children then perhaps we can talk comparisons. And in that case I'd say it's just as wrong.
But it's particularly wrong here because of the nature of the job. Women were not created to bear that type of pressure. They were not created to handle that type of role. Not that somehow men are better - but that we were just created for it. This is part of the problem imo. We've lost the respect we should have for what a woman contributes to a home. Something which is truly invaluable. This insistence that there is no difference between the genders is starkly unbiblical - as I'm sure you'd agree.
She is going to be exposed to a kind of harassment and temptation that she should never be forced to undergo. She will be pulled in all directions, and will be made to endure intense pressure to capitulate to the policies of John McCain and others of his ilk which stand in such a stark contrast to her.
And what will her husband do about this? Make her step down? And when she's flying all over creation and unable to spend any time with her family, what will happen to them? What will the long-term cost to her children be to be without their mother? Are you, as a Christian, willing to bear partial responsibility for that? (as a result of your vote of support for that action)
You rightly point out we have no idea what her home is like - that for all we know he definitely is still the head of the household. That brings up an interesting question. If that is the case, what do we know about her husband? Because ultimately, the decisions she makes will be impacted by his wishes. Shouldn't we then know more about him? And if he's sufficient for the job enough that we can trust her in that manner, why is he not doing it?
I also wonder at your willingness to vote for this ticket in light of what it means to your credibility - and by extension the credibility of the so-called "christian right". Once you have supported this, on what grounds will you - or anyone else for that matter - stand in order to argue against the erosion of the biblical model for the family? Are you prepared to give an account for participation in undermining this very important battle?
God is in control, yes. But it is not to us to determine the means by which His ends are brought about. We may not choose whatever means we find to be appropriate, but must obey the Scriptural commands. From where I sit, supporting this ticket would be a severe violation of that.
There is a tendency for conservative Christians to become indignant and hit the outrage button when the world behaves worldly and insist that, if they can’t have things as they ought to be, they won’t have it at all. That’s foolish. Sometimes — often, actually — we have to take the cards we’re dealt and make the best of it.
Yes...that is true. We must not let perfect be the enemy of good. Yet this is not that situation. This is not someone with a few flaws that isn't quite what we'd like. McCain is not conservative, he is not a good leader, he does not have good policy, he does not care a whit for anything that we hold dear beyond what it takes to get elected.
When you vote McCain you've moved from being realistic about living in a fallen world to being willing to compromise principle because of a lack of Faith in God's sovereignty and God's goodness. We do not need to support what is wrong in some misguided attempt to prevent something we see as evil. If God does not want Obama to be president, he won't be. We don't have to do wrong to keep it from happening. If he does want Obama to be president, it doesn't matter how many times you vote for McCain, it isn't going to change a thing.
I will be...happy to be voting against Obama for a candidate that might actually defeat him. I will do that because there is a difference, and it does matter.
There's no such thing as voting against a candidate in the american electoral process. You need to admit to yourself that what you're doing is voting FOR McCain, and you'll be called to give an account for that choice one day. I hope you have something better to say than "I wasn't voting FOR McCain I was voting AGAINST Obama.".
When you vote for McCain - you perpetuate the problem out of a misguided sense of responsibility for something that is really out of your hands.
#10 || 08·09·04··15:08 || steve martin
I love Palin!
She is actually better than the other three guys put together!
I would rather have a Margaret Thatcher than a Bill Clinton any day of the week!
#11 || 08·09·04··17:01 || David
Shamgar, I couldn’t disagree more.
I do not believe I am comparing apples to oranges. I am comparing little apples to big apples. The difference, as I said is one of degree, not kind. By refusing to make that distinction, I’m not easing up on the Palin’s, I’m coming down on the part-timers equally.
And no, I am not willing to take responsibility for the consequences of the Palin’s choices, any more than I take responsibility for the fact that the waitress at the café or the clerk at the grocery store have their children in daycare or public school so they can hold a job.
On the idea that women aren’t naturally suited for such positions, yes, that’s true; I did make that point; but seriously, look around you. Men are rare. We live in a world full of women and boys. And our last two presidents have not been models of competency. Of the last three, only Bush père, though not exceptional himself, has been worthy of the office. I have no reason to believe that a woman can’t deliver every bit as well as we’ve become accustomed to from our male presidents.
I agree that Mrs. Palin should not be in this position. I’ve said as much already. But neither should thousands of other women that we tacitly accept in the workplace.
I will not venture to speculate, nor entertain speculation, about the situation in the Palin’s home. I won’t ask why Mr. Palin isn’t running, nor will I ask why you aren’t running. I won’t make any judgments at all about that. It’s not my place.
As a matter of fact, McCain does “care a whit” for some of what I hold dear. Not nearly as much as I would like, but it’s not nothing. Obama, on the other hand, as it concerns the job of President, is vehemently opposed to everything good, and enthusiastically in favor of all that is evil. He will do all he can to destroy the Constitution — and that is the key to all I hold dear. If he appoints any Supreme Court justices, they will be enemies of this republic. They will despise the Constitution and we will not be safe. McCain will, as far as it is possible to know, appoint strict constructionist Justices — and that is the most important thing any President ever does.
Anyway, what makes this election so different than any other? We are always left to choose less than ideal candidates. What is it that puts McCain over the line between less than ideal and utterly unacceptable? And why should I accept you as the arbiter of what that line is?
You’re right, of course, that if God wants McCain to win, I don’t have to vote for him. If he wants Obama to win, my vote will make no difference. It is also true that if he wants my children to starve to death, feeding them will not prevent it. If he wants them to get run over in the street, telling them to watch for traffic will do no good. If they are elect, they will be saved whether I teach them the gospel or not. So, where should I stop? Che sarà, sarà. Whatever will be, will be.
I think you know what is meant by voting against a candidate, so I’m not going to entertain your objection to that. For the reasons stated above I am happy to say that I’m voting for McCain. I am very willing to give an account for my decision, and for encouraging others to do the same. What I am not willing to do is explain why I said, “Oh, well, it’s out of my hands. There’s nothing I can do.”
As for my credibility, if it’s in any way connected with the “Christian right,” the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, or any other religious/political organization or movement, I’ve lost it already. And if something I do is damaging to their credibility, well, I couldn’t be happier. In any case, I’m not concerned with being credible, only right. Being right will not damage my credibility with anyone that matters.
#12 || 08·09·04··18:36 || Victoria Lynch
Very well said David.
As far as the issues you have all discussed about women, it is very late into the debate and it seems to me that we have lost the war.
Our culture has gone so far down the slippery slope of feminism that I see no way that it can ever recover. The sad fact is that even the Church refuses in this day and time to recognize the biblical role of women.
Women in this society need to be rescued from an 80 hour workweek; shoved down their throat by an elitist, feminist, godless worldview that demands all women be employed outside the home. And the Church is woefully silent, at least most churches are.
As for me: I am really hoping to get a Maggie Thatcher out of this mess we are all in!
#13 || 08·09·04··21:50 || David
Victoria, I’d call that optimistic. I’m just happy to not be getting a Hillary Clinton.
#14 || 08·09·05··07:50 || Victoria Lynch
I too am very happy not to be getting a Hillary Clinton, but if we get an Obama will we be much better off?
It is very frightening to think that if not now, sometime in the future we WILL get an Obama or a Hillary.
It is so grave and foreboding an issue because I believe that America as we have known it will probably cease to exist when that day comes.
It is so sad to see this country on a path to suicide.
With all the supposed resurgence and political power of conservatism it makes one wonder.
To me it just proves Who is really in control of the rise and demise of nations.
I am so glad that He sovereignly rules-- that I am His-- and that our future as believers is in His trustworthy hands.
That is the only Good news for the heart of the people of God in these times.