GOP candidates under fire for signing family pledge

I can see why too.
Here are the first two bullet points which are designed to make the case for the pledge that Michele Bachman and Rick Santorum signed (Pawlenty, please, step away from the pledge):

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA?s first African-American President.
LBJ? 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity.

The first bullet point is causing all kinds of trouble for the pledge, as it should. What is with the word, “yet?” Do you really want to compare days when masters physically and sexually degraded parents of children; when masters owned families and separated children from them, two parents or not, to now? Any point that might be made about the advantages of two parent families is lost. I’ll take the single-parent version now if my  alternative is the two-parent type under slavery.
I am aware that the writers of the pledge probably meant that both slavery and the decline of the two-parent home are bad. However, the juxtaposition is insensitive and misleading to the max.   
There are other problems with the pledge, namely the clause which insinuates sexual orientation is a choice and changeable. Overall, this is the kind of thing that should be ignored by any candidate who wants to appeal to the rest of the country and GOP, outside of a small group in Iowa.

44 thoughts on “GOP candidates under fire for signing family pledge”

  1. Emily, I can tell you didn’t live through the Sixites even if you had never mentioned that fact. I think I probably have the same feeling as I read your words that my father had when he asked me at the dinner table each night, “What did you learn in school today?” While he was always interested as I struggled to find the energy or the interest to tell him, he was especially interested in hearing what I told him I learned about the Depression and WW11, events both he and my mother lived through.
    Your understanding of the 60s is limited to what you have read and what you have gleaned in talking to others, just as my understanding of the 30s and 40s is limited to what I have read and discussed with those who lived through those years. I think it fair to say that “limited” is a proper word choice. From a limited perch, conclusions are often. well, “limited,” for all of us.
    American society, unlike say Japanese society, doesn’t stress that those who’ve lived through an era have attained some wisdom that those who come later cannot possibly have. All anyone can hope to do is listen to those who’ve lived something and attach some worth to what they say.
    There was much good about the 60s, much bad. We have reaped both. I hope you don’t fall for the glorification of that era, and I hope that you understand that even the good can turn bad.
    New marketing techniques and the growing sway of television had elevated youth to great heights and these media had found a way of extracting money from a huge group of Boomers who had grown very heady about our new powers, with all the attention given us, and who had grown convinced of our moral superiority to our parents, convinced of our greater wisdom than our parents and grandparents, convinced our of destiny in building a better society.
    While historically the attention to Youth had a precursor for a short time, the 20s, I think it fair to say that never before had a young, a very young generation, considered itself so in possession of knowledge and wisdom that their parents didn’t have, and never before had a young generation which had not proved itself in any great way by sacrificing had so much power. (Only certain guys had to go Viet Nam).
    I don’t mean to suggest that you are wrong in suggesting that every generation feels, to some degree, that the society in which they grew up was superior to the one supplanting it, but it’s true that not all that is new is good, and it is true that that which is good can be perverted into bad.
    The Sixties were about empowering as well as enslaving (talk to the working mother who tried to balance work, marriage, children and managed to find unhappiness in trying to have it all and talk to the kids); about independence that led to a growing dependency; about working for the benefit of others yet glorifying the self; about seeking health and enlightenment and finding neither; about demanding greater liberties and shirking greater responsibilities.
    Unfortunately, it seems to be in our national character to mix up moving forward with moving. It would be nice if we could criticize ourselves as much as we praise ourselves. It would be helpful if we could concentrate as much on what was left behind that was good as much as identifying what might be good.

  2. Following is a quote most often attributed to Andrew Frazer Tytler; however, it’s never been verified to be such. It is commonly called the Tytler Cycle. It seems to fit quite nicely with our current situation:

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
    Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

  3. I said nothing to glorify the sixties, nor do i think any decade has some aura of greatness that surrounds it – not the 80s, not the 90s, not the 2000s, not this decade. I simply stated what I learned happened then, something that people conflate with “sexual anarchy as caused by those dirty hippies,” as opposed to the pristine and perfect 50s. neither era actually existed.
    by the way, don’t forget to check out http://www.encyclopediadramatica.ch. their page on the term “offensive” is like nothing i’ve ever seen before, even on the internet.

  4. Carol,

    The Sixties were about empowering as well as enslaving (talk to the working mother who tried to balance work, marriage, children and managed to find unhappiness in trying to have it all and talk to the kids); about independence that led to a growing dependency; about working for the benefit of others yet glorifying the self; about seeking health and enlightenment and finding neither; about demanding greater liberties and shirking greater responsibilities.

    You make it sound as if these things are unique to this generation and they are not. Women tried to “have it all” as you say before this decade. YOu are right in saying there has been good and bad which has come from your generation, but that is true for all generations – and *sometimes*, what is good and what is bad is in the eye of the beholder!

  5. by the way, by “non-existent” I meant that this utopian age never existed – indeed, and unfortunately, the negative consequences of a repressive post-war American society did exist.

  6. As I see it, politicians who sign “pledges” are seldom really showing their commitment to the words of the pledge. Rather, they are publicly identifying with an ideology that is held by the sponsor. They are saying, in effect, we are in the same camp and your views are shared by me.
    It is no surprise the Bachmann and Santorum would affiliate with this group. They have long been Culture Warriors and have actively sought to advance the political goals of theocratic social conservatives (ie seeking social conservative policies because of their religion rather than due to beliefs about the effectiveness of certain social policies).

  7. Dave, my goodness, what history are you reading? What’s the definition of a conscientious Christian? The South, the very place that had minister after minister, be it Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Catholic used Scripture to validate the ‘peculiar institution’, you’re depicting as ‘conscientious Christian’. There was a split in the Protestant Churches between North and South over the slavery issue; and, part of the reasoning at the time was the very one you’ve cited: they’re better off here without freedom, than back home. Nothing new with that argument. It just a shame we must refute it again and again, a 150 years later.
    Dave, I would argue most slaveholders in the South were not conscientious Christians in the true meaning of that word. The African end of enslavement that you mention was simply a holding place on the Western Coast of Africa. The European, Brazilian, and American desire for slaves initiated that whole cycle. The infamous Middle Passage was the awful piece of the journey to Brazil or America.
    And, no, Dave, these ‘conscientious Christians’ you talk about were not afraid of freeing their slaves because they’d end up at slave auctions. Again, what history are you reading? The slaveholders were afraid of losing their livelihood. These ‘conscientious Christians’ bred slaves to sell at slave auctions. They bought at slave auctions. These ‘conscientious Christians’ kept the slave auctions in business, and some of them owned and operated many of these slave auctions.
    I can do no better than cite Abraham Lincoln on slavery:

    This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.
    –April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce

    “So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Fragment on Slavery” (April 1, 1854?), p. 222.

    Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, “Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment” (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

  8. From what I’ve seen of this pledge, it seems more like it was written by a democrat trying to embarrass republicans, rather than by a republican.
    If someone who signs this pledge were to win the primary, Obama would have a field day using it against that person in the general election.

  9. Following is a quote most often attributed to Andrew Frazer Tytler; however, it’s never been verified to be such. It is commonly called the Tytler Cycle. It seems to fit quite nicely with our current situation:

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
    Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

  10. Carol,

    The Sixties were about empowering as well as enslaving (talk to the working mother who tried to balance work, marriage, children and managed to find unhappiness in trying to have it all and talk to the kids); about independence that led to a growing dependency; about working for the benefit of others yet glorifying the self; about seeking health and enlightenment and finding neither; about demanding greater liberties and shirking greater responsibilities.

    You make it sound as if these things are unique to this generation and they are not. Women tried to “have it all” as you say before this decade. YOu are right in saying there has been good and bad which has come from your generation, but that is true for all generations – and *sometimes*, what is good and what is bad is in the eye of the beholder!

  11. I said nothing to glorify the sixties, nor do i think any decade has some aura of greatness that surrounds it – not the 80s, not the 90s, not the 2000s, not this decade. I simply stated what I learned happened then, something that people conflate with “sexual anarchy as caused by those dirty hippies,” as opposed to the pristine and perfect 50s. neither era actually existed.
    by the way, don’t forget to check out http://www.encyclopediadramatica.ch. their page on the term “offensive” is like nothing i’ve ever seen before, even on the internet.

  12. Emily, I can tell you didn’t live through the Sixites even if you had never mentioned that fact. I think I probably have the same feeling as I read your words that my father had when he asked me at the dinner table each night, “What did you learn in school today?” While he was always interested as I struggled to find the energy or the interest to tell him, he was especially interested in hearing what I told him I learned about the Depression and WW11, events both he and my mother lived through.
    Your understanding of the 60s is limited to what you have read and what you have gleaned in talking to others, just as my understanding of the 30s and 40s is limited to what I have read and discussed with those who lived through those years. I think it fair to say that “limited” is a proper word choice. From a limited perch, conclusions are often. well, “limited,” for all of us.
    American society, unlike say Japanese society, doesn’t stress that those who’ve lived through an era have attained some wisdom that those who come later cannot possibly have. All anyone can hope to do is listen to those who’ve lived something and attach some worth to what they say.
    There was much good about the 60s, much bad. We have reaped both. I hope you don’t fall for the glorification of that era, and I hope that you understand that even the good can turn bad.
    New marketing techniques and the growing sway of television had elevated youth to great heights and these media had found a way of extracting money from a huge group of Boomers who had grown very heady about our new powers, with all the attention given us, and who had grown convinced of our moral superiority to our parents, convinced of our greater wisdom than our parents and grandparents, convinced our of destiny in building a better society.
    While historically the attention to Youth had a precursor for a short time, the 20s, I think it fair to say that never before had a young, a very young generation, considered itself so in possession of knowledge and wisdom that their parents didn’t have, and never before had a young generation which had not proved itself in any great way by sacrificing had so much power. (Only certain guys had to go Viet Nam).
    I don’t mean to suggest that you are wrong in suggesting that every generation feels, to some degree, that the society in which they grew up was superior to the one supplanting it, but it’s true that not all that is new is good, and it is true that that which is good can be perverted into bad.
    The Sixties were about empowering as well as enslaving (talk to the working mother who tried to balance work, marriage, children and managed to find unhappiness in trying to have it all and talk to the kids); about independence that led to a growing dependency; about working for the benefit of others yet glorifying the self; about seeking health and enlightenment and finding neither; about demanding greater liberties and shirking greater responsibilities.
    Unfortunately, it seems to be in our national character to mix up moving forward with moving. It would be nice if we could criticize ourselves as much as we praise ourselves. It would be helpful if we could concentrate as much on what was left behind that was good as much as identifying what might be good.

  13. by the way, by “non-existent” I meant that this utopian age never existed – indeed, and unfortunately, the negative consequences of a repressive post-war American society did exist.

  14. ah, yes – when in doubt, blame *the SIXTIES!!!* wooooOOOOOoooo…
    as far as I could tell, and granted I wasn’t yet born then, the sixties (and I’m assuming what is meant is the LATE sixties, a la hippies and woodstock) weren’t about bringing about changes in how people had sex but rather blowing open closet doors. You could talk about sex, you could be honest, you didn’t have to publicly repress it as a “sinful nature,” and pill-form birth control (wooOOOOooo…) empowered women to make their own sexual decisions rather than relying on men to make such decisions for them when engaging in intercourse.
    I know people long for the mythical and frankly, non-existent days before the late sixties when the closet was slammed shut, women knew their place (in the kitchen, or at least subservient to their opposite sex spouse), and abuses of all kinds could take place with little to no repercussions.

  15. This is gorgeous:

    As good ‘ol Abe Lincoln said several times, “if it was such a great good, why haven’t those proposing such good become slaves themselves.”

    Back to a larger point. What are we going to do about out of wedlock births and the deleterious effect it has on the health of children?
    Outrage makes us seem virtuous…but the problem persists from a change in values about sex, coupling and parenting first advocated in the 60’s.

  16. ah, yes – when in doubt, blame *the SIXTIES!!!* wooooOOOOOoooo…
    as far as I could tell, and granted I wasn’t yet born then, the sixties (and I’m assuming what is meant is the LATE sixties, a la hippies and woodstock) weren’t about bringing about changes in how people had sex but rather blowing open closet doors. You could talk about sex, you could be honest, you didn’t have to publicly repress it as a “sinful nature,” and pill-form birth control (wooOOOOooo…) empowered women to make their own sexual decisions rather than relying on men to make such decisions for them when engaging in intercourse.
    I know people long for the mythical and frankly, non-existent days before the late sixties when the closet was slammed shut, women knew their place (in the kitchen, or at least subservient to their opposite sex spouse), and abuses of all kinds could take place with little to no repercussions.

  17. This is gorgeous:

    As good ‘ol Abe Lincoln said several times, “if it was such a great good, why haven’t those proposing such good become slaves themselves.”

    Back to a larger point. What are we going to do about out of wedlock births and the deleterious effect it has on the health of children?
    Outrage makes us seem virtuous…but the problem persists from a change in values about sex, coupling and parenting first advocated in the 60’s.

  18. As I see it, politicians who sign “pledges” are seldom really showing their commitment to the words of the pledge. Rather, they are publicly identifying with an ideology that is held by the sponsor. They are saying, in effect, we are in the same camp and your views are shared by me.
    It is no surprise the Bachmann and Santorum would affiliate with this group. They have long been Culture Warriors and have actively sought to advance the political goals of theocratic social conservatives (ie seeking social conservative policies because of their religion rather than due to beliefs about the effectiveness of certain social policies).

  19. I don’t like pledges from any political candidates, and whoever wrote this will never make it as a speech writer.
    I do like that the issue is being raised.
    I hope during the campaign season that there is a robust discussion of how the social policy of the last 50 + years, no matter how well-intentioned it first was, has devasted first, the black family and the esteem and role of black men in the family and in society at large, and how the same failures of those policies have seamlessly moved on to do the same to those of other ethnicities–Hispanics and Whites, in particular. Thankfully, Asians seem not to have been affected (yet.)
    It’s time to talk about what has happened and how social policy plays a major role in human behavior.

  20. The fact is, the southern culture was a bit more complicated and diversified than the average history book would have us believe.

    David, agreed that Southern Culture was more complicated and diverse. But, reasonable, well researched and written histories always take multiple factors into account, recognizing that bias is always a factor. The sad fact is that Southern Culture was economically driven on the backs of slaves. That cannot be argued. An additional sad fact is that slavery was horrible, but notably denied by most Southeners. (And, I’m not arguing that Northerners were not racist, far from it; or, Northerners wanted racial equality … slavery for Northern workers meant unfair competition, loss of jobs for themselves). Trying to pretty it up slavery, put lipstick on that pig, only says more about the proponents of such “ill-history” than about anyone else. As good ‘ol Abe Lincoln said several times, “if it was such a great good, why haven’t those proposing such good become slaves themselves.”
    More irritating is blame is put on the readers of this “pledge or vow” and their sensitive feelings, or misconstruction of the pledge. David, the plain truth of this pledge is they stated outright, African Americans were better off in some airy-fairy, mythical land of marriage and slavery, as slaves. It has nothing to do with misunderstanding or sensitive feelings, and everything to do with what was actually said. African Americans were better off as slaves than they are now.
    Either the FAMiLY Leader (note the upper case FAM LY, and lower case ‘i’ … very intentional .. sic) means what it says, and says what it means … or, they’re gonna lay the blame for their guilt on someone else, which they’ve chosen to do. In my opinion, what they’ve done in both instances is reprehensible.
    The fact that candidates for POTUS have chosen to first endorse and sign this “pledge or vow”, then backtracked is also typical candidate behavior, of whatever ilk. Unfortunately for them, being credible candidates for many voters, this personal choice of theirs only adds one more chink in their armor; only adds more fuel for a voracious media whose only purpose in life is to damage and destroy reputations, characters, and lives.

  21. I don’t like pledges from any political candidates, and whoever wrote this will never make it as a speech writer.
    I do like that the issue is being raised.
    I hope during the campaign season that there is a robust discussion of how the social policy of the last 50 + years, no matter how well-intentioned it first was, has devasted first, the black family and the esteem and role of black men in the family and in society at large, and how the same failures of those policies have seamlessly moved on to do the same to those of other ethnicities–Hispanics and Whites, in particular. Thankfully, Asians seem not to have been affected (yet.)
    It’s time to talk about what has happened and how social policy plays a major role in human behavior.

  22. Tereasa & Throbert:
    First of all “conscientious” is an adjective, qualifying “Christians” and thus not applicable to all who go/went under the name “Christian.” Rather, it pertains to those who take seriously Paul’s words in Galations 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
    The history sources from which I draw this information are the biographical and autobiographical accounts, as well as written correspondence and essays by actual persons living in the southern states in the late 1700s and early 1800s. For instance, the itinerant Baptist preacher John Leland, who was friend and spiritual adviser to Tom Jefferson, especially regarding religious freedom. There were many who advocated at least the phasing out of slavery as an economic institution if not immediate emancipation, particularly to avoid civil strife and possible war.
    The fact is, the southern culture was a bit more complicated and diversified than the average history book would have us believe.
    However, the current news tells us that The Family Leader has acknowledged the offense some have felt in reading these passages in the “pledge,” and are taking steps to make corrections.

  23. The fact is, the southern culture was a bit more complicated and diversified than the average history book would have us believe.

    David, agreed that Southern Culture was more complicated and diverse. But, reasonable, well researched and written histories always take multiple factors into account, recognizing that bias is always a factor. The sad fact is that Southern Culture was economically driven on the backs of slaves. That cannot be argued. An additional sad fact is that slavery was horrible, but notably denied by most Southeners. (And, I’m not arguing that Northerners were not racist, far from it; or, Northerners wanted racial equality … slavery for Northern workers meant unfair competition, loss of jobs for themselves). Trying to pretty it up slavery, put lipstick on that pig, only says more about the proponents of such “ill-history” than about anyone else. As good ‘ol Abe Lincoln said several times, “if it was such a great good, why haven’t those proposing such good become slaves themselves.”
    More irritating is blame is put on the readers of this “pledge or vow” and their sensitive feelings, or misconstruction of the pledge. David, the plain truth of this pledge is they stated outright, African Americans were better off in some airy-fairy, mythical land of marriage and slavery, as slaves. It has nothing to do with misunderstanding or sensitive feelings, and everything to do with what was actually said. African Americans were better off as slaves than they are now.
    Either the FAMiLY Leader (note the upper case FAM LY, and lower case ‘i’ … very intentional .. sic) means what it says, and says what it means … or, they’re gonna lay the blame for their guilt on someone else, which they’ve chosen to do. In my opinion, what they’ve done in both instances is reprehensible.
    The fact that candidates for POTUS have chosen to first endorse and sign this “pledge or vow”, then backtracked is also typical candidate behavior, of whatever ilk. Unfortunately for them, being credible candidates for many voters, this personal choice of theirs only adds one more chink in their armor; only adds more fuel for a voracious media whose only purpose in life is to damage and destroy reputations, characters, and lives.

  24. Tereasa & Throbert:
    First of all “conscientious” is an adjective, qualifying “Christians” and thus not applicable to all who go/went under the name “Christian.” Rather, it pertains to those who take seriously Paul’s words in Galations 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
    The history sources from which I draw this information are the biographical and autobiographical accounts, as well as written correspondence and essays by actual persons living in the southern states in the late 1700s and early 1800s. For instance, the itinerant Baptist preacher John Leland, who was friend and spiritual adviser to Tom Jefferson, especially regarding religious freedom. There were many who advocated at least the phasing out of slavery as an economic institution if not immediate emancipation, particularly to avoid civil strife and possible war.
    The fact is, the southern culture was a bit more complicated and diversified than the average history book would have us believe.
    However, the current news tells us that The Family Leader has acknowledged the offense some have felt in reading these passages in the “pledge,” and are taking steps to make corrections.

  25. Many slaveholders were conscientious Christians who realized that within their current southern culture, if they freed their slaves, these black immigrants could easily be grabbed off the street and placed in the slave auctions.

    Yeah, they were cut from the same “conscientious” cloth as Christians who argue that when Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, he was merely talking about some relatively narrowish gate in the city walls that an obese, heavily-laden camel would have difficulty squeezing through, and not the actual eye of an actual needle.
    I mean, sheesh, Dave — if those conscientious slaveowners you talk about were truly motivated by Christian love for the “black immigrants” they’d inherited as property, here’s a completely obvious solution: free the slaves, but keep them on as farmhands, and pay them a fair salary for their labor, so that they can eventually save up and afford to move northward and away from the danger of slave auctions.

  26. Also…

    Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial

    This recognition seems like a good argument for privileging procreative heterosexual marriage — but how you logically get from that to totally opposing any form of legal recognition for other “intimate unions” is beyond me.
    (Well, actually, it’s not beyond me — I’m pretty sure the “logic” here is based on an assumption that most heterosexuals need a carrot and a stick to prevent them from switching en masse to homosexuality. Which, of course, would seem eminently logical to anyone who happened to be a deeply closeted bisexual in a heterosexual marriage, and projected his or her own situation onto everyone else.)

  27. Dave, my goodness, what history are you reading? What’s the definition of a conscientious Christian? The South, the very place that had minister after minister, be it Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Catholic used Scripture to validate the ‘peculiar institution’, you’re depicting as ‘conscientious Christian’. There was a split in the Protestant Churches between North and South over the slavery issue; and, part of the reasoning at the time was the very one you’ve cited: they’re better off here without freedom, than back home. Nothing new with that argument. It just a shame we must refute it again and again, a 150 years later.
    Dave, I would argue most slaveholders in the South were not conscientious Christians in the true meaning of that word. The African end of enslavement that you mention was simply a holding place on the Western Coast of Africa. The European, Brazilian, and American desire for slaves initiated that whole cycle. The infamous Middle Passage was the awful piece of the journey to Brazil or America.
    And, no, Dave, these ‘conscientious Christians’ you talk about were not afraid of freeing their slaves because they’d end up at slave auctions. Again, what history are you reading? The slaveholders were afraid of losing their livelihood. These ‘conscientious Christians’ bred slaves to sell at slave auctions. They bought at slave auctions. These ‘conscientious Christians’ kept the slave auctions in business, and some of them owned and operated many of these slave auctions.
    I can do no better than cite Abraham Lincoln on slavery:

    This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.
    –April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce

    “So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Fragment on Slavery” (April 1, 1854?), p. 222.

    Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, “Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment” (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

  28. The pledge contains what seems to me an outright fabrication:

    as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health

    Who the heck is going around making the claim that either homosexual behavior or sexual promiscuity “optimizes” individual or public health?
    I mean, I’m sure there are New Age gay quacks out there who peddle Ancient Crystal Skull™ Prostate Massage Wands (Homeopathic Lube sold separately) as the secret to vitality and longevity.
    But is there any tendency in public policy to promote either homosexual behavior or sexual promiscuity as highly beneficial to one’s health?
    What some non-crazy people might say is that certain homosexual behaviors, and even certain promiscuous behaviors, will tend to have a negligible effect on health — for example, heavy petting through the clothes is so likely to be harmless that even if you engaged in that activity with 50 different people of the same sex or the opposite sex, there would most probably be not the slightest damage to your health. (Nor would there be any major health benefit, on the other hand, except possibly making you feel more relaxed!)
    But saying that there are no significant health reasons to shun a behavior completely — i.e., saying that the behavior is not particularly “bad for you” — is not the same as claiming that the behavior leads to optimal health!

  29. Many slaveholders were conscientious Christians who realized that within their current southern culture, if they freed their slaves, these black immigrants could easily be grabbed off the street and placed in the slave auctions.

    Yeah, they were cut from the same “conscientious” cloth as Christians who argue that when Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, he was merely talking about some relatively narrowish gate in the city walls that an obese, heavily-laden camel would have difficulty squeezing through, and not the actual eye of an actual needle.
    I mean, sheesh, Dave — if those conscientious slaveowners you talk about were truly motivated by Christian love for the “black immigrants” they’d inherited as property, here’s a completely obvious solution: free the slaves, but keep them on as farmhands, and pay them a fair salary for their labor, so that they can eventually save up and afford to move northward and away from the danger of slave auctions.

  30. Also…

    Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial

    This recognition seems like a good argument for privileging procreative heterosexual marriage — but how you logically get from that to totally opposing any form of legal recognition for other “intimate unions” is beyond me.
    (Well, actually, it’s not beyond me — I’m pretty sure the “logic” here is based on an assumption that most heterosexuals need a carrot and a stick to prevent them from switching en masse to homosexuality. Which, of course, would seem eminently logical to anyone who happened to be a deeply closeted bisexual in a heterosexual marriage, and projected his or her own situation onto everyone else.)

  31. The pledge contains what seems to me an outright fabrication:

    as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health

    Who the heck is going around making the claim that either homosexual behavior or sexual promiscuity “optimizes” individual or public health?
    I mean, I’m sure there are New Age gay quacks out there who peddle Ancient Crystal Skull™ Prostate Massage Wands (Homeopathic Lube sold separately) as the secret to vitality and longevity.
    But is there any tendency in public policy to promote either homosexual behavior or sexual promiscuity as highly beneficial to one’s health?
    What some non-crazy people might say is that certain homosexual behaviors, and even certain promiscuous behaviors, will tend to have a negligible effect on health — for example, heavy petting through the clothes is so likely to be harmless that even if you engaged in that activity with 50 different people of the same sex or the opposite sex, there would most probably be not the slightest damage to your health. (Nor would there be any major health benefit, on the other hand, except possibly making you feel more relaxed!)
    But saying that there are no significant health reasons to shun a behavior completely — i.e., saying that the behavior is not particularly “bad for you” — is not the same as claiming that the behavior leads to optimal health!

  32. Warren,
    I would never minimize slavery, it’s a blot on our nation’s history and a gross injustice to our African-American brothers and sisters. But my studies of the slave trade show that the African end of enslavement was often worse than the life –bad as it was without freedom –in the United States. Many slaveholders were conscientious Christians who realized that within their current southern culture, if they freed their slaves, these black immigrants could easily be grabbed off the street and placed in the slave auctions.

  33. From what I’ve seen of this pledge, it seems more like it was written by a democrat trying to embarrass republicans, rather than by a republican.
    If someone who signs this pledge were to win the primary, Obama would have a field day using it against that person in the general election.

  34. I do have great sympathy with Teresa’s concerns re. eugenics etc.
    As for slavery (and colonialism): it can be argued that these evils (and they are, I submit, in principle, evils, regardless of whether slave-owners and/or colonial powers ‘behaved relatively well’) helped to create a context which spawned profound dysfunctionality in individual persons, families, communities and nations.
    The effects of things like slavery and colonialism cut both ways. For example: as a former colonial power, the UK’s ability to promote human rights is perhaps somewhat compromised.

  35. “Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.

    In my opinion, it seems that there may be qualifiers as to what group would be considered valuable for “robust childbearing and reproduction” … would the pledge mean American Muslims, American Latinos, American Blacks, etc. My gut hunch would say no, but that’s just me. America does have rather a robust childbearing, and is above the 2.1 necessary fertility rate for staying even … basically, the only 1st world country doing so; but, this is only because of our recent immigrants.
    Also, this sorta sounds rather eugenic and reductionist in its tone:

    … U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.

    What about when these demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security are no longer helped by a robust childbearing … do we do the Chinese model and force one-child families. The State needs to stay out of reproductive oversight at the family level. What they give, they can take away.

  36. DAVE G – Please provide a source for your claims about the prevalence of slaves being mistreated/families torn apart. Minimizing slavery is not something I tolerate.

  37. Warren,
    I would never minimize slavery, it’s a blot on our nation’s history and a gross injustice to our African-American brothers and sisters. But my studies of the slave trade show that the African end of enslavement was often worse than the life –bad as it was without freedom –in the United States. Many slaveholders were conscientious Christians who realized that within their current southern culture, if they freed their slaves, these black immigrants could easily be grabbed off the street and placed in the slave auctions.

  38. I do have great sympathy with Teresa’s concerns re. eugenics etc.
    As for slavery (and colonialism): it can be argued that these evils (and they are, I submit, in principle, evils, regardless of whether slave-owners and/or colonial powers ‘behaved relatively well’) helped to create a context which spawned profound dysfunctionality in individual persons, families, communities and nations.
    The effects of things like slavery and colonialism cut both ways. For example: as a former colonial power, the UK’s ability to promote human rights is perhaps somewhat compromised.

  39. “Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.

    In my opinion, it seems that there may be qualifiers as to what group would be considered valuable for “robust childbearing and reproduction” … would the pledge mean American Muslims, American Latinos, American Blacks, etc. My gut hunch would say no, but that’s just me. America does have rather a robust childbearing, and is above the 2.1 necessary fertility rate for staying even … basically, the only 1st world country doing so; but, this is only because of our recent immigrants.
    Also, this sorta sounds rather eugenic and reductionist in its tone:

    … U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.

    What about when these demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security are no longer helped by a robust childbearing … do we do the Chinese model and force one-child families. The State needs to stay out of reproductive oversight at the family level. What they give, they can take away.

  40. I admit I had to read that first “bullet” twice, but had no problem with the “yet” except that the long sentence might confuse some. Some southern slaveholders did abuse the black families, and these are the ones most often cited for slavery’s evils, but they were not a majority. Cf. Jefferson’s care for his household, including slaves he inherited from his wife’s deceased parents. (The “Sally” stories are patently false.)
    The point the authors try to kake is that the black community is now suffering worse than they did, and worse than the non-African American population at present. But the trend is downward for all.
    I guess the phrase that bothered me most was further on in their “pledge” -near the end –where they say, “Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.” {20} It seems to me “robust” childbearing can lead to poverty in many cases; I would prefer “unselfish and responsible” childbearing as a necessary change.
    But overall, the “pledge” voices the concerns of a majority of the American public concerned for the future of our republic.

  41. DAVE G – Please provide a source for your claims about the prevalence of slaves being mistreated/families torn apart. Minimizing slavery is not something I tolerate.

  42. I admit I had to read that first “bullet” twice, but had no problem with the “yet” except that the long sentence might confuse some. Some southern slaveholders did abuse the black families, and these are the ones most often cited for slavery’s evils, but they were not a majority. Cf. Jefferson’s care for his household, including slaves he inherited from his wife’s deceased parents. (The “Sally” stories are patently false.)
    The point the authors try to kake is that the black community is now suffering worse than they did, and worse than the non-African American population at present. But the trend is downward for all.
    I guess the phrase that bothered me most was further on in their “pledge” -near the end –where they say, “Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.” {20} It seems to me “robust” childbearing can lead to poverty in many cases; I would prefer “unselfish and responsible” childbearing as a necessary change.
    But overall, the “pledge” voices the concerns of a majority of the American public concerned for the future of our republic.

Comments are closed.