I am continuing all this in the spirit of thinking out loud. It should be obvious — even though I still have not made up my mind finally — that I really like Sarah Palin and believe that she might be uniquely positioned (in just a couple months) to really do something about Roe. Here are some of the reasons for thinking that to be a possibility.
I am a Calvinist and believe that God draws straight with crooked lines. I also believe that God is a storyteller who loves to use quirky characters. At the same time, His law remains His law, and His order for the home remains His order for the home — which incidentally is not the same thing as saying that His order for the home remains what every pious fusser and eisegete thinks it is.
So as we make our way through this complicated novel, we need to master two things. The first is what we are supposed to do — what role are we to fulfill as a character in the story? The second is how to respond to other characters, especially when they are characters. In responding well and positively to others it is not necessary to maintain that you ought to be doing the same thing. On some issues it is — Ten Commandments stuff, say. With other decisions, wisdom and discernment is required. You might believe that wisdom would bar a course of action, while this other character obviously does not believe the same. But when that happens, one good exercise is to avoid getting drawn into a detailed argument over the gnats’ eyebrows, and step back and consider the big picture. Is something larger going on? In this case, I think that is likely.
John McCain is a man I do not trust, period end. Nothing about this has changed my opinions of his character, philosophy of life, and likely courses of action. I believe that he made this move as a calculated move to shore up his conservative base because that is something that he knew he had to do. He didn’t want to do it, and would have picked Lieberman if he thought he could get away with it. But he knew the pro-life deal was a deal-breaker within the party ranks. At the same time, thought he, speculate I, “I should be able to shore up my base in a way they can’t complain about, and at the same time, poke them in the eye. There’s a pleasant thought. Romney’s Mormonism would do it, I suppose . . . I know, I’ll pick a woman, one who describes herself as a feminist-for-life. That’ll frost their shorts. I’ll have their support, which I need, but at the same time, I’ll remain my very own maverick-man.” So he made his choice, and instead of making faces and trying to thaw out their shorts, every evangelical voter in America jumped up on his or her chair and started waving an article of clothing around his or her head, heliocopter style. And John McCain stood there blinking. And then the crowd started chanting, “John has slain his thousands, Sarah her tens of thousands.”
He meant to shore up his base, but he wound up galvanizing his base in a way that was not entirely wise for a man in his position.
Now, to the life issue. Roe is a legal issue, of course, to the extent that all legal travesties are legal issues. And to overturn it, it is certainly necessary to get judges on the Supreme Court who know how to read the Constitution. But in order to do that, it is necessary to deal with the zeitgeist first. Politicians (with certain rare exceptions) are not risk takers. They have their positions, and will articulate them in public (if that is not too risky), but very rarely will you find a solitary voice way out in front. Since Roe, a dithering Congress, and the bloodied Supreme Court, and the rhetorically pro-life but impotent White House have all represented the consensus of the American people well. Our leaders are not aliens — they come from us, they represent us, we pick them. They will change on this issue when it becomes dangerous for them politically not to change.
An illustration of this principle in action can be readily seen in the domestic oil drilling issue. “Drill, baby, drill,” can now be chanted at conventions, and politicians who oppose it can be rocked back on their heels. Twenty years ago that was impossible, but gas is now four dollars a gallon and lots of people have opinions about that. And politicians who feel the heat always see the light.
Now consider Sarah Palin’s position — both her story and her gifts. Her story demolishes, in a way no syllogism could, the central appeals of the pro-aborts. And they love to play the violin with this question — remember that Obama was asked the question earlier in this election cycle. This is a staple in our campaigns: “What if your daughter . . .” “What if your wife . . .”
Suppose you were a middle-aged woman with a bright political career ahead of you, perhaps even at the national level. You and your husband are surprised by a pregnancy, and then on top of that you discover that your baby is a Down’s child. We live in a culture that has been prepared in countless ways to accept the story that “we had to make a tough choice.” And we are then astonished when someone, instead of making the “tough choice,” makes a tough choice instead — in the full confidence that it is the right choice. Sarah Palin is a “no exceptions” pro-lifer and apparently she believes that the law of God includes her.
So the question, somewhat bewildered, retreats. “All right. You and your husband wanted to keep your baby. But suppose your political career, and the goals you had worked so hard to achieve, were all threatened because your seventeen-year-old daughter got pregnant. And this will disrupt her life also — wouldn’t the compassionate thing be to . . . oh, never mind.” Think of this as a novel. Think of it as a story. What is being foreshadowed? What is coming?
Some conservatives have seen rightly that Sarah Palin is not exactly devoted 24-7 to the domestic arts. She has been doing other things also, like running a state, and so they wonder if that’s entirely okay. In her case, this may or may not represent a setting aside of God’s calling for a wife and a mother — we have been discussing that — but it is a reasonable question for conservatives to wonder about and ask.
Jonah Goldberg at National Review exulted that Sarah Palin was put on earth for two reasons — to kill caribou and kick butt. And she’s “all out of caribou.” Allowing for how much fun such exuberant hyperbole is, social conservatives might still wonder if she presents something of a challenge to their ideals of social order. And she might. She might not. Let’s talk about that.
But in the meantime, we must not overlook the fact that she presents an absolutely devastating challenge to the feminist narrative for women, and there are no mights involved. Here is a woman who (for the sake of principle) has refused to sacrifice those things which feminists insist (in principle) must be sacrificed so that women can reach their “full potential.” As a result of refusing the central dogma of their feminism, she might well become the first woman president. That’ll do something to your little leftist narrative. Feminism has never been about advancing the cause of women. This reveals, as few other things could, that it has been about advancing the cause of commie women.
Granting that Sarah Palin does not look like June Cleaver, she looks a lot less like Hillary or Gloria Steinem. And, despite the differences, I can imagine Sarah and June having a very pleasant lunch together. If she tried to take Hillary or Gloria out shopping (for motorcyles, say) and a spot of lunch afterwards, all I can envision is stoney silences and a lot of glaring . . . and not from Sarah, who would be chatting happily. Sarah Palin ruffles the hair of some conservatives, but they can always comb it again. Doug Phillips will be all right in a couple days. In contrast, when it comes to the vampirism of the feminist left, let’s just call her Buffy. They won’t be all right in a couple of days.
And this is where her gifts come in. Ronald Reagan became a national political player on the strength of one convention speech. The same thing has happened to Sarah Palin, only in a more electrifying way, in my opinion. And in that speech, she demonstrated two things. The first is that she has the ability to have the most awful things said about her, and simply brush them away. She is genial, pleasant, attractive, likeable, smart, and all the rest of it. The more her adversaries froth and bubble like the cauldron in Macbeth, the more her genial good humor, coupled with strength of conviction, make her even more appealing. The Left is desperate and because of their desperation is playing this exactly wrong. But don’t tell them — I like how they are playing it wrong. At the same time, it is all right to tell them because it won’t matter — they are out of control and are beyond listening.
The second thing is that she clearly has the ability to speak over the bobble-heads of the anointed media darlings, and take her business straight to the American people. And this is where the really potent threat to Roe lies. If she speaks on this subject, she does do in a way consistent with the Word of God, and she does so with personal authority. She obviously cannot speak with authority on the subject of how to keep your daughters from becoming pregnant out of wedlock. But she can speak with authority on how difficult circumstances of our own making do not ever justify componding the mess with a murder.
She can say that having made a sinful or foolish choice as a woman is not a foundation for striking at womanhood itself. The establishment feminists have gone one step beyond Lady Macbeth. When she cried out, “Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts! unsex me here,” she at least knew what her rebellion was and called it by its right name. In their high impudence, feminists have rebelled against the life-giving nature of woman, and have done so in the name of women. Sarah Palin blows all of that away, and she does not do it by means of a law or a court decision. That, God willing, will follow — but it cannot come first.
Jim Jordan has pointed out that the task of man was the protect and guard the Garden (Gen. 2:15). The task of woman was to bear, protect and guard the Child (Gen. 3:15). Independent of legislation, we now have someone of the national stage who is capable of addressing American women directly, and inviting them to return to something fundamental. Lady Wisdom says that all who hate her love death (Prov. 8:32-36). Sarah Palin is now in a position to say to the American people that to be a woman of death is to deny being a woman at all, and that repentance means turning around. Before Roe can die in the courts, the Abimelech in the hearts of the people will have to die. And before he can die there, a woman will have to throw a millstone from the top of the tower.
I believe that this may well be what is happening. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe so. And if it plays out this way, I will bless the name of the Lord — the God of Eve, the God of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel, the God of Tamar, the God of Deborah and Jael, the God of a nameless woman at the top of a tower, may her descendents be forever blessed, the God of Rahab, the God of Ruth, the God of Bathsheba, and the God of Mary. And I will honor the God who gave us Sarah.