Michele Bachmann has agreed to do various things to entrench in legislation the conservative vision of family. In particular, in July she signed this pledge, a copy of which Slate.com has so helpfully obtained.
What strikes me about it is the bullet point fifth from the last, in which the signer pledges to support “prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement, or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.”
Now, I’m as opposed to these horrid acts as anyone else, but I’ve gotta ask…what about our boys? Would the conservatives who serve up pledges like this support “prompt termination” for policymakers who would expose ANY United States troops to mutilation or death in forward combat roles?
If this pledge were motivated by a love of these females as human beings and a desire to prevent them from coming to harm, then consistency would predict a similar concern for all soldiers, and thus a strong desire to avoid war whenever possible.
If, on the other hand, this pledge is motivated by an unconcious drive to protect the females of our group because they are the mothers who will ensure the continuance of our DNA, then we should expect an emphasis on protecting females without a commensurate opposition to war generally.
Which one of these predicitions is closer to reality, and what does that say about the crafters of this pledge?