Kevin Drum links to this post by Mark Schmitt today in which Schmitt artfully deconstructs the McCain myth.
The most important point is this:
[The] whole analysis is based on the cult of authenticity of which McCain, and to a lesser extent Bush, have been the greatest beneficiaries….But as McCain demonstrates, authenticity is itself a pose, one he adopted and has now discarded.
I think it’s cute that so many political journalists don’t understand this. They so want to believe that the glamorous flyboy manly man is the real deal. But, he just originated the stage role that the second rate George Bush played in the TV series. Like all actors, some are better than others.
And that’s the way to get McCain. As Schmitt says:
I assume that McCain’s gamble is that he has so strongly established the “straight-talk express” brand with the general electorate that he can perform the ritual obsequies of the Republican nominating process and still emerge with his reputation intact. But he can’t. [There are] too many Republican activists who simply aren’t going to stomach his nomination, and he can’t spend two years in his current mode and expect the independent moderate voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere to remember what they kind of liked about him for a period in 2000.
You folks are going to love this. More from World O Crap on the Daddy’s Lil’ Virgin movement. Apparently there is some special chastity jewelry available for man and girl to exhange in the covenant ceremony:
The Heart to Heart™ program, created by jeweler Joe Costello, differs from other abstinence programs in some important, unique ways. […]
First, the “key to her heart.” This beautiful heart has a smaller heart in the front. Behind that heart is a keyhole. When making the covenant with your daughter, you explain that the covenant is between her, you and God. Since God has placed her in your care as a parent, you and only you can hold the “key to her heart.”
God not trusting her enough to let her be responsible for her own heart.
You then explain to the child that you will hold the key to her precious heart until the day of her wedding. On that day, you will give her away like at all weddings, BUT in doing so you will also “give away” the key to her heart to her now husband. The key and lock are actually functional and your son-in-law will place the key in the heart to open it.
Nothing at all Freudian going on here!
Inside will be a small note that had been placed in the heart on the day you made the covenant. That note can say something like, “I do not know your name or what you even look like, but this is my promise to save myself for you this day. Love, Melanie.”
Or, the note could say something like, “I’ve been saving myself for you for many horny years, so the sex tonight had really better be worth it!. Oh, and make sure my Dad gives you the key to my chastity belt too. Love, Melanie.”
Read it all.Doctor assassination advocate Randall Terry, of all people, is peripherally involved in this scam, proving once again the the forced birth movement has less to do with fetuses than with vaginas.
Jane had a great post up today about GOP nepotism and the inevitable decline in quality that always results from second and third generation copies.
This is exactly the kind of second-generation junk thinking being produced on the right by people like Ben Domenech, Jonah Goldberg and George W. Bush — people who vault into to highly paid, influential positions despite a complete and utter lack of talent or skill purely because of who their parents are and their willingness to say just about anything. Badly. A group who have tragically confused the wingnut welfare system for some kind of meritocracy, who think their megaphone comes as the result of skill and don’t acknowledge that both privilege and think tank underwriting are largely responsible for the opportunity to appear on the stage in the first place.
I always like the articles these pissy rich kids write about the welfare state and how it doesn’t encourage people to refine themselves and their ideas by engaging in competition. One need look no further than this article and those by people like Herbert Spencer scholar Jonah Goldberg (oh and let us not forget his work on Upton Sinclair) to see the utter hypocricy involved in this argument by those who are usually making it: nobody would pay for their crap if it wasn’t being underwritten by someone with a political agenda, and there is no need for their work to rise to anything above sub-mediocrity in order to keep getting subsidized.
It turns out that it isn’t only those of us in the fever swamps who’ve noticed. Kevin Drum excerpts a review of “The Making of the Conservative Mind” written by one of the old guard writers from the halcyon days of National Review:
Hart is clearly uneasy about the rise of the younger generation, which, under the editorship of Richard Lowry, has been generally enthusiastic about the Bush administration. “Perhaps surprisingly, none of these now prominent figures at the magazine had been known for books or even important articles on politics or political thought,” he sniffs. “Where they stood on the spectrum of conservative thought — traditionalist, individualist, libertarian, skeptical, Straussian, Burkean, Voegelinian — was completely unknown.”
I don’t think Jonah and K-Lo will want to have a beer with this guy.
There is much to recommend Michael Tomasky’s essay today in The American Prospect. I agree with Atrios that it is important that the Democratic party give people something to believe in. Politics without heart is nothing more than crass deal making.
Tomasky prescribes a Democratic philosophy of the common good and posits that this is the basis of liberalism — sacrifice for larger universalist principles. What’s not to like? Certainly on a rhetorical level it’s a positive philosophical message that serves as an umbrella for Democratic policies. The rub, of course, is in determining what the common good is in the first place.
Perhaps I’m a cynic, but I suspect that for most people, the common good is really the idea that what will be good for me will also be good for others. Very few people knowingly vote against their own self-interests. Tomasky admits this himself, in a way, with his argument (and I think it’s a logical one) that policies are more easily sold when they benefit all rather than a few. FDR made sure that social security was universal for just that reason. He knew very well that while people may believe in the common good, altruistic self-sacrifice is rarely really on the menu. (I’m not talking about fancypants Tragedy of the Commons, Prisoner’s Dilemma stuff here, although it’s quite relevant.) I’m just saying that policies that benefit the most people always go down easier. That’s why Republicans lie about their tax policies, after all.
The problem is that a political party cannot be all things to all people. And here’s where the politics of the common good becomes complicated.
Tomasky charts the history of the New Deal through its dissolution in the late 60’s, which he characterizes as a golden age of liberalism except for all those problems with, well, equality and civil liberties. He praises those who broke down those barriers but throughout the piece betrays a subtle distaste for those who still labor on behalf of civil rights and civil liberties. Like most liberal intellectuals of a certain age (although he’s younger than most) he clearly believes that the New Left pretty much destroyed the party and by 1980 had left a legacy of rapacious, singleminded, special interest groups that have made it impossible for real liberalism to reassert itself.
Yet, without coming out and saying it, he is quite obviously aware of the polarizing racial and cultural politics that were at work in the 1980’s when the realignment truly kicked in:
By 1980, Reagan had seized the idea of the common good. To be sure, it was a harshly conservative variant that quite actively depended on white middle-class resentment. But to its intended audience, his narrative was powerful, a clean punch landed squarely on the Democratic glass jaw. The liberals had come to ask too much of regular people: You, he said to the middle-class (and probably white) American, have to work hard and pay high taxes while welfare cheats lie around the house all day, getting the checks liberal politicians make sure they get; you follow the rules while the criminals go on their sprees and then get sprung by shifty liberal lawyers. For a lot of (white) people, it was powerful. And, let’s face it, manipulative as it was, it wasn’t entirely untrue, either!
Can you have a “common good” comprised of only the interests of resentful “regular” racists? I sure hope not.
I’ve always wondered what the Democrats are supposed to have done differently in light of this? Accede to this racist vision of the common good? Lower the boom on welfare and crime instantly to show how much we resented black people too? Tell Jesse Jackson to STFU?
Considering the huge sociological changes that came about in the post war world, (crescendoing in the 60’s) wasn’t it entirely predictable that there would be a backlash? Democratic special interests are responsible for all that, to be sure. But the alternative would have been to not pursue those goals in the first place. The forces that were pushing for equality were being pulled just as strongly from the other side. There wasn’t just a New Left; there was the New Right too. As Thomas Mann, writing on a different subject today spells out:
The seeds of this partisan era were intially planted in the 1960s, with the counter culture, the war in Vietnam, the rise of conservative activists in the 1964 Goldwater campaign, the Voting Rights Act, and the beginning of the economic development of the South. Roe v. Wade set the stage for the political mobilization of religious conservatives within the Republican party. The tax-limiting Proposition 13 in California and the Reagan presidency lent the Republican party a more distinctive economic and national security platform.
Party realignment in the South, fueled by these developments associted with race, religion, economic development and patriotism, radically altered the ideological and regional composition of the two parties. That process was extended to the rest of the country by the increasingly distinctive positions taken by the national parties and their presidential candidates on a number of salient social and economic issues. As these developments played out over time, party platforms became more distinctive, those recruited to Congress were more ideologically in tune with their fellow partisans, congressional leaders worked aggressively to promote their party’s agenda and message, and voters sorted themselves into the two parties based on their ideological views.
Action, reaction.
But Tomasky’s view that the “special interests” overreached is not an uncommon view and it isn’t new; it’s partly what spawned the DLC. And that’s why in some ways, I feel a sense of deja vu. If I didn’t have this herniated disc and an aversion to tequila I’d think I was still in my 20’s and I was reading the New Republic. Or pieces of it anyway. Tomasky admits as much and condemns the DLC’s failure to follow through with its “responsibility” agenda by settling for welfare reform and failing to go after the corporate big spenders. (I don’t remember that last part of the DLC agenda, to be perfectly honest, but then again, I hadn’t given up tequila, so maybe I forgot.) In any case, he sees the DLC’s failure as one of too much faith in markets and not enough in government, which I think it quite right. But from where I sit, the DLC’s failure also stems from its insistence that instead of working with the embarrassing coalition that forms the heart of the Democratic party, they needed to marginalize them. It didn’t work then, and I don’t think it’s going to work now.
Tomasky admiringly mentions “Crashing the Gate” in this context and I too like Markos and Jerome’s book very much. I think it’s one of the most important books in the last decade about Democratic politics. But I think the weakest part is its condemnation of the special interest groups and not because I have any particular affinity for them as institutions. It’s just that I’ve heard it all before. Democratic “special interests” have been the bête noire of every Democratic strategist since 1980. The Republicans have made a fetish of them, and the Democrats have seen them as being stubbornly unwilling to “sacrifice.” (This is not to say that I don’t endorse pressuring them to stop with the outdated “bipartisan” tactics, as with the Sierra Club and Naral endorsing Chaffee. They might as well be wearing a mullet and singing “Power of Love” with that nonsense.)
But it’s very easy to say you believe in the common good until you are told that your particular needs must be sacrificed, postponed, deferred to benefit everyone else. Promises to pick them up later are not very compelling — as two great thinkers (John Maynard Keynes and George W. Bush) have both observed, “in the long run we’ll all be dead.” These are the contentious issues that make people uncomfortable and are therefore the most likely to be shunted aside by timid politicians if given half a chance. It’s a lot to ask.
Tomasky asks:
So where does this leave today’s Democrats? A more precise way to ask the question is this: What principle or principles unites them all, from Max Baucus to Maxine Waters and everyone in between, and what do they demand that citizens believe?
As I’ve said, they no longer ask them to believe in the moral basis of liberal governance, in demanding that citizens look beyond their own self-interest. They, or many of them, don’t really ask citizens to believe in government anymore. Or taxes, or regulation — oh, sort of on regulation, but only some of them, and only occasionally, when something happens like the mining disasters in my home state earlier this year. They do ask Americans to believe that middle-income people should get a fair shake, but they lack the courage to take that demand to the places it should logically go, like universal health coverage. And, of course, on many issues the party is ideologically all over the place; if you were asked to paint the party’s belief system, the result would resemble a Pollock.
At bottom, today’s Democrats from Baucus to Waters are united in only two beliefs, and they demand that American citizens believe in only two things: diversity and rights.
I’m not sure that Baucus and Waters actually agree on those things, but whatever. Let’s suppose that Waters and Baucus simply agree that the common good is good government. They both sign on to universal health care. They agree on taxes and regulation. They agree to get the money out of politics. They agree that the future of the country depends upon all children getting good educations and they commit to devoting the time and energy to doing that. They go to the people and say, “this is the common good, and it’s what we both believe we should fight for.” Huzzah.
But then somebody (a Republican, no doubt) says, what about affirmative action? What about abortion? What about the ten commandments? What about wiretapping? Immigration? The war? And lets assume that Waters and Baucus, being from different regions with very different constituencies, have different views on those things? Who is asked to look behyond his or her special interests on those things? Who decides what is the common good?
Tomasky has an answer for that. He says that the special interest groups must justify their goals in universalist terms or not be taken seriously by anyone. He uses the example of an affirmative action argument, saying that it is a good thing that even corporate America embraces. I suppose one can make a similar argument about immigration. I’m not sure these arguments have much salience, but you can make them, saying that in a globalized economy we are all in this together and we need to be able to compete. (Or something like that — Clinton used to say “we don’t have a person to waste.”) If that’s all it takes, then I guess most special interest groups shouldn’t have any problems complying. It’s “framing” in service of an argument that lends itself very well to economic issues.
But how do you frame abortion as being for the common good? Or religion? How do you parse the fourth amendment? The war? These are huge issues — represented I might add, by special interest groups that can’t easily trust Max or Maxine to do whatever they think is right for “the common good.” How do we construct arguments that will quell these contentious controversies with appeals to a common good when people can’t find common ground? (And at what point are we talking about the common good of the party vs the common good of the country?)
Tomasky offers no compelling examples of “common good” rhetoric pertaining to these questions, so I think it’s fair to assume that this is where the sacrifice comes in.
I don’t mean to be dismissive. I think it’s important to embrace big ideas and big philosophy and reach for some inspiration. The Democrats have been issuing stultifying laundry lists for as long as I can remember and I couldn’t be happier that people are thinking in these terms. But I can’t help but feel that we always end up back at the same spot somehow. The unions, the womens groups, the civil rights groups, trial lawyers, consumer advocates — the whole array of narrow special interests being held responsible for the fact that half of this country really resents the hell out of minorities, women and working people getting a fair shake. And the Democrats continue to pay the political price for that resentment.
I’m all for finding our way out of it. Tomasky’s message has real resonance; I like it very much. But I think that if the party stopped trying to figure out ways to get the “special interests” to shut up and started giving them some respectful assurances that they aren’t going to be the sacrificial lambs in whatever the new paradigm turns out to be, they might find a little bit more cooperation.
I believe in the common good and I agree that it expresses the essence of the liberal philosophy. But the heart and soul of the Democratic party lies in its committment to freedom and equality for all Americans. I think we need to find a way to convince a majority of Americans that the common good is best served by not compromising those principles.
I noticed yesterday that the “military analysts” employed by the networks were not only helping the administration spin on Rumsfeld, but actually admitted on the air that they were giving the pentagon advice on how to handle the problem.
This post at TPM by Larry Johnson fills in the details of an ongoing propaganda effort that must be well known among the networks. Johnson prints a letter from his friend Pat Lang, who had been part of the arrangement for a while:
Over several months (this was in ’04) I attended meetings in the Pentagon and participated in conference calls with very senior officials (both military and civilian). The Pentagon meetings were well attended by a variety of retired generals, colonels, Navy captains and a few retired NCOs, all of whom were familiar faces from TV news. Most of them were cable people, and there was a disproportionate representation from Fox News as well as people who were both TV commentators and think tankers, mostly from AEI and Heritage. There were several retired four star generals present whom I had never seen on the tube, but who may have been off camera consultants.
The Defense staff always made their case for the correctness of the policies followed by the administration and handed out “talking points” as suggestions. The retired officers listened politely with clear skepticism on the part of quite a few. There was always an opportunity for Q&A and a lot of the questions were both polite and very pointed. Some of the questions were not well answered. This was the period of the emerging Abu Ghraib mess, and many of the officers attending were bitter and unhappy over what had been happening in that matter.
[…]
My impression was that the media consultant officers at these events wanted and needed the access provided in order to be secure in their retirement employment. The media companies obviously valued that. After all, most of them are commercial enterprises and cannot afford to have their rival companies granted such access if they are not. This creates a certain pressure on the retired military people involved to stay “on the reservation.”
Lang concludes that on the whole these retired officers try to do the right thing. Perhaps. But after the performance of General Shepperd on CNN yesterday, I think it’s pretty clear that some of them, at least, believe they are full members of the administration’s tribe — and if they were critical it was because they were having a rough time making Rummy’s case for him.
It would be very helpful if the public knew about these special briefings and knew especially that the pentagon was sponsoring these military analysts’ “fact-finding” trips to Iraq. Why isn’t this disclosed?
In recent years many states and cities have moved to overhaul lineups, as DNA evidence has exposed nearly 200 wrongful convictions, three-quarters of them resulting primarily from bad eyewitness identification.
In the new method, the police show witnesses one person at a time, instead of several at once, and the lineup is overseen by someone not connected to the case, to avoid anything that could steer the witness to the suspect the police believe is guilty.
But now, the long-awaited results of an experiment in Illinois have raised serious questions about the changes. The study, the first to do a real-life comparison of the old and new methods, found that the new lineups made witnesses less likely to choose anyone. When they did pick a suspect, they were more likely to choose an innocent person.
Witnesses in traditional lineups, by contrast, were more likely to identify a suspect and less likely to choose a face put in the lineup as filler.
Advocates of the new method said the Illinois study, conducted by the Chicago Police Department, was flawed, because officers supervised the traditional lineups and could have swayed witnesses.
But the results have empowered many critics who had worried that states and cities were caving in to advocacy groups in adopting the new lineups without solid evidence that they improved on the old ones.
“There are people who’d say it’s better to let 10 guilty persons free to protect against one innocent person being wrongfully convicted,” said Roy S. Malpass, a professor at the University of Texas at El Paso and an analyst for the Illinois study, who served on a research group on eyewitness identification for the National Institute of Justice in 1999.
“I’m fine with that when we’re dealing with juvenile shoplifters,” Dr. Malpass said. “I’m not fine with that for terrorists. We haven’t figured out the risk there.”
Setting aside the efficacy or non-efficacy of the ID method being discussed, which I cannot assess, I can’t help but be struck at how confident this Doctor is that he’s not going to be that one innocent person. How I wish people like him would be wrongfully accused so they could see how it might feel. Like so many law and order types it’s apparently too abstract for him to understand otherwise so he needs to personally experience it.
Blackstone’s ratio is not some silly bleeding heart notion — it’s a recognition that while the system cannot be perfect, you must make a moral decision as to which side it will err on. For crying out loud, terrorism is not some magic word that changes every tenet of western civilization.
But maybe we aren’t really about western civilization at all anymore. Maybe we are becoming more like Singapore, the wingnut dream:
If, in the event of effective crime prevention, a few innocent people are punished or a few guilty ones are over-punished, that would be a price worth paying.
And it’s so nice and clean, too. With good prices.
Nobody wants to let the guilty go free. But the state imprisoning innocent people belongs in a special circle of hell and it taints us all. Terrorism certainly does not excuse it. When a state gives up that principle and simply accepts that a certain percentage of innocent people will be imprisoned because it’s too difficult to sort them out from the guilty ones, it has lost its civilized moorings. Guantanamo says it all about where the US is on that.
In case anyone ever had the mistaken impression that the network “military analysts,” are any more neutral or non-partisan than the retired generals who have stepped forward to ask for Rumsefeld’s resignation, think again:
BLITZER: And this is just coming in to CNN right now. The Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has just wrapped up his meeting with retired U.S. generals who now serve as military analysts for the news media. Our own military analyst, retired U.S. Air Force Major General Don Shepperd, is fresh out of the meeting. He’s joining us now live from the Pentagon.
General Shepperd, thanks very much. How did it go? Tell our viewers how the defense secretary specifically responded to all these suggestions from other retired military generals that he stepped down?
MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Yes, very little, Wolf. Everybody expected the headlines out of this to be that the secretary says the following things and the focus of the meeting was very little on that. It came up from time to time, mainly from our own questions, but basically the focus was on how the war in Iraq is going, how it would have been different in the past if, and that type of thing. It was not about the retired generals’ controversy although the secretary is clearly distracted by and it worried about and it concerned about it. And he listened to a lot of things from the group.
BLITZER: Well, did anyone — any of the retired generals and admirals who were there, did any of them step up and offer criticism of the secretary of defense?
SHEPPERD: No, it wasn’t criticism of the secretary of defense. We basically offered our ideas about the fact of, look, the message is not getting out. If you say that we’re doing well in the war, what is the message for the American people? What is the next thing the American people are going to see in the way of an event they can see some progress?
And the answer was unanimous from both the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and also the secretary. It’s the formation of the Iraqi government. That’s the next important event and from there, the continuing training of the Iraqi forces. That’s the message, Wolf.
BLITZER: When you say that it was clear these calls from these retired generals for him to step down, including the commander of — the former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, former commander of the First Infantry Division, both of whom served in Iraq, it’s weighing heavily on him, what does that mean? How could you tell?
SHEPPERD: Look, he has got to be concerned about this. His words — evidence concern, no question about that. But, basically, General Pace kind of picked up the ball on this and said, look, I don’t know where these guys are coming from. We had regular sessions.
The big generals, the combatant commanders, General Franks and the others, two chiefs of staff of the Air Force, two commandants of the Marine Corps, two chiefs of staff of the Army, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs — all of these people made their inputs, voiced their concerns, we talked it out.
Then we all agreed on General Franks plan, that it was a good one. We all had a hand in this. The fact that people say they weren’t consulted was simply not true. They may not have had their own ideas accepted but they definitely were consulted and a lot of people had a voice on this.
BLITZER: How many general did he invite to this session today?
SHEPPERD: They weren’t all generals by any means. It’s the normal — the usual suspects you see on TV as analysts and read in the print media, as well, and hear on radio. There were 15 of us there. I think probably a group of 30 or 40 was invited. Just about the same size group we usually had. It’s been as low as 15 and as high as 30.
BLITZER: Was there any moment that really was a poignant or dramatic moment that stands out in your mind, General Shepherd? A moment of some tension or some humor, if you will?
SHEPPERD: Well, you know the secretary was really in a good mood, so was the chairman. These people are not troubled people. They are concerned people and they are concerned about what is going on. But our message to them as analysts was, look, you have got to get the importance of this war out to the American people.
The importance message is that this is a forward strategy. It’s better to fight the war in Iraq than it is the war on American soil. And further, the message needs to be imagine an Iraq, imagine Iraq under the control of Zarqawi with another conveyor belt combined for tourists, combined with oil, water and land and resources, imagine the effect of that. That’s a message that has to get out to the American people because the American people do not feel they are at war.
Both General Pace and also Secretary Rumsfeld basically said we have got to improve our message and improve our communication. We want to do that. This is a tough war. It’s going to be a long war in many places. It’s not going to be something that’s going to come out with a bow in the next year or two years.
I’m awfully glad the network “analysts” told the Secretary what he needs to do to “get the message out.” He certainly needs some professional advice. It just seems kind of funny that the analysts were retired Generals — who we are told ad nauseeum are not supposed to have opinions.
I’m actually surprised CNN was invited. Usually this administration just checks in with Roger Ailes and he passes the word to the relevant people.
If you didn’t get to see Little Lord Fauntleroy have a temper tantrum in front of the press today, do yourself a favor and check it out.
HENRY: Mr. President, you make it a practice of not commenting on potential personnel move.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Of course, I did.
HENRY: Calling it speculation.
BUSH: And you can understand why. Because we’ve got people’s reputations at stake. And on Friday I stood up and said I don’t appreciate the speculation about Don Rumsfeld. He’s doing a fine job. I strongly support him.
HENRY: But what do you say to critics who believe that you’re ignoring the advice of retired generals, military commanders, who say that there needs to be a change?
BUSH: I say I listen to all voices, but mine’s the final decision and Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror. He’s helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices and I read the front page and I know the speculation, but I’m the decider and I decide what is best and what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense. I want to thank you all very much.
At which point he stomped off in a huff. Seriously.
This is particularly interesting in light of this amazing article in this week’s Prospect about the Cheney cabal:
Says one insider deeply involved in U.S. policy toward North Korea: “The president is given only the most basic notions about the Korea issue. They tell him, ‘Above South Korea is a country called North Korea. It is an evil regime.’ … So that translates into a presidential decision: Why enter into any agreement with an evil regime?”
I’m the decider! I yam, I yam! Evil, evil, evil.
Once again, I am stunned that the Republicans had the gall to foist this manchild on the United States of America — and that so many Americans accepted it for so long. There’s a lot of talk in the wingnutsphere about “Bush Derangement Syndrome” which says that we are all suffering form irrational hatred of Dear Leader. But it’s not accurate. Bush is just a spoiled, deluded little boy, pushed into a job that was obvious to any sentient being would be too much for him. My righteous anger is for the big money pooh bahs like Dick Cheney who would gamble with this country’s future by choosing a brand name in an empty suit for president. They proved that they can sell anything, I’ll give them that. But as with their other colossal marketing success and business failure, Enron, the sales job couldn’t cover the corruption and poor planning forever. Therefore, I blame the Republican Party more than little Junior. He’s just a pathetic loser who believed his own hype — responsible for his actions, of course, but not the mastermind.
From his little tirade today, it appears that he’s feeling like his authority is being questioned. That’s just funny. It took his this long to figure out that he’s not really in charge?
Responding to the odd, disturbing nature of the Father-Daughter Purity Ball, about which I posted below, PZ Myers says:
“Daddies of the world, keep your hands off your daughter’s sexuality, OK? Raise them to be independent and thoughtful and informed and able to make their own decisions, and then just trust them.”
That sounds like common sense to me. Girls pledging to their dads to stay virginal in ritualistic ceremonies just doesn’t seem like a healthy thing to do.
One of the commenters in the post below found pictures from one of the Balls. It’s striking how young many of these girls are, some look to be no more than seven.
Apparently, this is common. Here’s a testimonial from Generations of Light magazine:
“How can you measure the value of your eleven year old looking up into your eyes (as you clumsily learn the fox-trot together) with innocent, uncontainable joy, saying, ‘Daddy, I’m so excited!’ wrote Wesley Tullis in a letter describing his grateful participation. ‘I have been involved with the Father-Daughter Ball for two years with my daughters, Sarah and Anna. It is impossible to convey what I have seen in their sweet spirits, their delicate, forming souls, as their daddy takes them out for their first, big dance. Their whole being absorbs my loving attention, resulting in a radiant sense of self-worth and identity. Think of it from their perspective: My daddy thinks I’m beautiful in my own unique way. My daddy is treating me with respect and honor. My daddy has taken time to be silly, and even made a fool of himself, learning how to dance. My daddy really loves me!”
I can understand why the little girls would want to do this. It’s a chance to dress up and spend time with their father. If it were for another purpose, it might be sweet. But this is what that little girl is reading to her father from that card:
I pledge to remain sexually pure…until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. … I know that God requires this of me.. that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.
And this is what Daddy says in turn:
I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.
He’s the “high priest” in his home. Are we getting the picture?
I wondered in the earlier post about the lack of mother-son purity pledges. Commenter Llamajockey hits the nail on the head with this:
The truth is is that in most Red-State/Fundy households the Dad is just as obsessed if not more so with the possiblity of his young son being gay as with his daughter’s virginity. Therefore teenage males feel an acute pressure beyond their already out of control hormones to prove their heterosexuality. That is why athletic over anything resembling academic or intellectual, acheivement is so highly prized. It improves the young man’s standing in the eyes of the young females and reassures Dad his son can not be gay. However, with it comes a double edge, for the young man is now supposed to act the role of stud.
Virgin girls and studly boys. Can we all see the problem with this?
