Should Virginia voters care about the views expressed by gubernatorial candidate Robert McDonnell in his graduate school thesis 20 years ago? Today's headline in the Washington Post implies that voters should ignore McDonnell's thesis, and that ideologically, he is a changed man; the thesis is merely a record of his "past views." Despite his disapproval of wage earning women, his view of feminism as an "enemy" of the family, and his condemnation of homosexuals (he equates homosexuality with other "evils" -- drug abuse and pornography -- that the government should "punish and deter"), McDonnell claims that he now opposes workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and has revised his views of gender roles.
I have some sympathy for anyone confronted with an inflammatory paper written by his younger self. I don't always agree with articles I wrote last year, much less 20 years ago; sometimes an article or column is simply an argument with myself. And I tire of efforts to characterize (or smear) political candidates and nominees with ideas expressed or merely explored in papers or speeches years ago. (Intellectually exploration has become absurdly perilous politically, as Cass Sunstein might attest.)
But reading McDonnell's thesis, I am not convinced of its irrelevance. Maybe he is more tolerant or even supportive of at least some civil rights for women and gay people, as the Post suggests. The views of thinking people, and politicians, on particular social issues do evolve. What's perhaps most troubling are not the micro questions but his macro-vision of civil government as divinely ordained. "The civil ruler is a minister of God to execute judgment and encourage good," McDonnell explained.
It is this belief in the propriety, even the necessity of a government guided by particular religious ideals that appears to underlie his approach to social and economic issues, from gay rights to tax preferences and the legality or availability of contraception. Viewing fornication as sinful, for example, McDonnell lamented the Supreme Court decision extending a right to use contraception to unmarried couples, "at a time when every state in the union made sexual intercourse between unmarried persons a crime." Maybe McDonnell would now oppose criminalizing consensual intercourse between unmarried adults. The question is does he still believe that, in general, particular religious (in other words sectarian) notions of sin should shape the criminal law?
These are the questions I'd pose to McDonnell: is he still convinced that "Man" can only do good in an environment shaped by "faith" not "atheism"? Does he still agree that "a people that reject the importance of the family in its God ordained covenantal form must assuredly reap the consequences," and how might government promote the "God ordained covenantal form" of family life? Does he still oppose "a public school system in which textbooks and courses of instructions are increasingly oriented to humanist values and a secular philosophy"? And, if so, which non-secular philosophies and non-humanist values should public schools seek to inculcate in their students?
Reading McDonnell's thesis, which relies on slogans, political talking points, and declarations of faith more than argument, I also wonder if he's developed his capacity for nuanced, rational thought. Twenty years ago, he described the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v Connecticut (affirming the right of married couples to use contraception) as an attempt "to create a view of liberty based on radical individualism, while facilitating statist control of select family issues." Whatever did he mean by that? Can he elaborate on his previously stated view that "the giftedness of the Republican philosophy is that it embraces the talents and worth of all peoples, while Democrats seek to Shepard a nation of powerless incompetents." How did McDonnell then reconcile his tribute to "the worth of all people" with his opposition to extending "special rights for homosexuals or single parent unwed mothers" and his view of atheism as inimical to goodness? What is his view of non-theism (and non-theists) and the role of sectarian religious beliefs in government today?
Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9313013@N04/1510078088
Hold his feet to the fire, Wendy.
I don't remember the Washington Post, or The Atlantic for that matter, going back and reviewing the academic works of Barack Obama when he was running for the presidency, looking for insights into his thinking and character.
In fact, I don't remember either of those two publications ever bothering to report that all of Obama's academic records, from Occidental, Colombia and Harvard, were hermetically sealed and unavailable for review, and remain sealed to this day. So I wonder about this current keenness to rehash Bob McDonnell's 20-year-old views and characterize them as relevant, under the guise of "journalism."
Actually, there was a fair amount written about an article he wrote for Columbia's newspaper back when he was a senior.
That's funny, La Lydia. I certainly remember people going back to all of Barack Obama's professors, things that he said about associating with socialists and unionists, his relationship with his pastor, and the books that he wrote (including one particularly poor misquote from Dreams of My Father).
I also remember an endless drumbeat about Sonya Sotomayor and comments that she made years ago.
Maybe your memory doesn't include these things because you always ignored the "liberal media" in any article about Obama, or perhaps your memory is selectively faulty here because you don't like thinking about the questions that the author is posing.
Either way, your response captures what is wrong with so-called conservatives today: they regularly tell Americans to 'wake up' but fear any sort of objective thought, preferring to claim unfair treatment, double standards, and the like rather than discussing issues.
His analysis of the Supreme Court cases is just that, analysis. It was written as a law school thesis and you shouldn't attribute partiality to the case summaries. Maybe the ultimate recommendations in the thesis, but you're quoting the analysis, which is factually accurate. The bottom line is that Eisenstadt v. Baird did, in fact, extend the novel (at the time) right to privacy notions of Griswold to apply to unmarried persons at a time when every state in the union made sexual intercourse between unmarried persons a crime. What's the problem in stating that? To suggest that he "lament[s]" the decision is reading your own views into it. To suggest this means he might "believe that, in general, particular religious (in other words sectarian) notions of sin should shape the criminal law" is way off-base.
La Lydia -- Educational "records" are private under FERPA (Family Educational Right to Privacy Act, also called the Buckley Amendment). So it doesn't take any special act of hermetic sealing to keep them from the public.
Theses and dissertations, at least graduate theses, are typically held by a university's library (or perhaps by the program/department). They are, again typically, available to anyone. But, especially for work at levels beneath the Ph.D., those works are often available only to those who present themselves at the library (often there is only one exemplar, and few places go to the trouble or expense of scanning them. Doctoral dissertations, by contrast, are usually available through ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing).
I don't know whether Barack Obama had to write a B.A. thesis at Columbia. The J.D. does not require a program research paper (as opposed to papers written for individual courses, which are between the professor and the student). As editor of the Harvard Law Review he would have written a so-called note. During last year's campaign, a six-page-long unsigned piece that had been published in HLR was identified as Obama's "lost" note ("lost" only in the mind of a headline writer). See the August 2008 piece in Politico at URL http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html .
And of course Obama had published two books, which were featured in many news and background stories during the campaign.
So if you were implying that there was a conspiracy of silence, you would be wrong.
There is a missed point in this article and discussion. Ms. Kaminer is alarmed not only at the candidate's specific viewpoints (which should be debated in the political process) but by the fact that they may be determined by "sectarian" viewpoints. What does she mean by "sectarian"? Coming from one denomination? How is "sectarian" different than "religious" viewpoints?
There's a reason I ask this. Isn't religion essentially a person's understanding and seeking of Ultimate Truth? In that sense, religion by necessity must be a major determining factor of how one views all of life, including government. If a person believes there is a God who created the world (as do most Americans), doesn't it also follow that all human institutions flow from His authority in some sense (even if indirect)? You may disagree, but that is certainly not an "irrational" argument.
The atheist, the agnostic, the Muslim and the Christian all bring their religious beliefs (beliefs about Ultimate Truth and reality) to the table when they govern. So I am alarmed when it is implied that religious beliefs don't influence men and women's views of government. Why not?
Our discussion shouldn't be on whether "religious influence" in an individual legislator or governor is important, but on how we as a culture can constructively debate, seek and embrace truth in all forms.
All Religion is based on Faith. And truth, as we understand it, is defined as a fact. And there lies the problem -- all these religious folks think their ultimate truth should be imposed on all of us. And there is nothing rational about it. It is an exercise in attempting to control others, no doubt in many instances an effort to buttress their own flawed faith. Now I understand faith -- it is one of the most powerful ideas in life. But faith, in its pristine form, is by its very nature voluntary. You cannot coerce folks into having faith -- because the immense powers of faith draw their strength from the voluntary act of embracing the notion itself. And so all these misguided religious folks who would advocate governing a people with laws constrained by religious beliefs are lost souls living out a sad and pitiful delusion.
Speaking of an analytic, merely scholarly work that of course in no way reflects any sort of 'macro-vision' of civil government that may be dangerous to its citizens....I do recall a similar debate not long ago about John Holdren, Obama's current 'science czar'.
http://www.zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Note this is no defense of McDonnell's applications of scripture to the public law which are not in the spirit of good faith nor good government (refer to Saint Augustine, yes, even you Protestants out there who like to ignore anything pre-Reformation...). Just merely an interesting parallel. Of course, the theology of the modern so-called liberal is increasingly turning to some sort of Gaia-worship, making population control more palatable than the wreckage which is modern feminism....does the author truly feel justified enough to dare mention 'double standards' in this article?
A graduate thesis written by an inexperienced, cloistered 20-something is one thing; a thesis written by a mid-30s adult student is quite another. Accumulated life experience, mature anger in rhetoric pointed at that which is perceived as 'other' or evil, the very choice to attend a conservative Christian college- these are multipliers into how one should view and consider Bob McDonnell's summation of his academic achievement.
It is no small matter that this individual voiced such viewpoints. Having written and repeatedly read other peer graduate thesis, I can state that these academically important arguments are not simply 'assignments' that are lightly undertaken. These represent the body of knowledge, educated opinions, and heart of an author.
Bob McDonnell had every right to research and create such an important paper. He has (or had) every right to hold such beliefs. That is the a foundational greatness of America: freedom of thought, free speech, and the open exchange of ideas.
That said, however, the measurement of person is not based on what they simply say (or might believe) but of what they do. A thesis such as is this is a summation of an individual's education, experience and worldview, not merely routine another piece of course work. It is, in many ways, the culmination of an entire advanced learning and understanding distilled into an academic final deliverable. To undermine or estimate the academic and professional importance of such a graduate paper would be both naive and uninformed.
Such a thesis reveals core beliefs and a world view that, to me, are both disturbing and highly xenophobic. If I were at the polls, this personal would most certainly not get my vote.
Nobody cared about the crap the Obamas' wrote 20 years ago. Why should we care about this? Geez, as a matter of fact I seem to remember that they either couldn't find anything they wrote or they actually hid what Michelle wrote. What do you suppose she could have written that was so bad or controversial that it would need to be hidden from view? Let me guess....
First, let's focus on the upcoming Virginia gubernatorial race, not attempt to relive the 2008 presidential election.
As a Virginia resident, I can think of nothing Robert McDonnell has done in his current post of state attorney general to garner attention. No fraud crackdown, no high profile corruption prosecutions, no improvements in the penal system have occurred on his watch. Instead, from day one on the job he has focused on his next goal, the governor's mansion.
When I look at what [morally bankrupt] Elliot Spitzer accomplished for the cause of justice as state AG of New York - taking on big insurance, big banking, etc. I look at Robert McDonnell's time in office as a wasted opportunity.
He has not earned my trust, or my vote, regardless of his college paper; which I too find disturbing, but not very relevant. I don't like that he seems to have 'Christian zealot' underpinnings, but I could accept it IF he was competent for the office to which he was elected. We can't afford an incompetent governor merely looking for a foot up to national politics.