Posts
I finished Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction: My Story.
In the Appendix to this book, "Goals 2000 in the Context of a Global
Power Grab", Bachmann criticizes Goals 2000 and also provides the text
for the National Education Goals that were a part of that program. She
discusses in that appendix her concern about world government, which
made me wonder what the John Birch Society thinks about her, since it
has long had a similar concern. According to this article on
the John Birch Society's web site, Michele Bachmann was the second most
consistent advocate for liberty among the Republicans running for
President in 2012 (next to Ron Paul), yet she has problematic positions
on such issues as the Patriot Act, war, foreign aid, and other issues.
The
Appendix on Goals 2000 reminded me of an earlier passage in Bachmann's
book. I was going to write about it in a write-up, but I forgot to do
so, so I'll do that now. On page 119, Bachmann discusses the Minnesota
Profile of Learning curriculum that she opposed. She states:
"Yet
it was not just a power grab of our schools, but a power grab of our
whole way of life as free Americans. Students were now to be seen for
their value to the economy, for their usefulness to a future employer.
No parent sees his or her child only in such utilitarian concerns, but
central planners do----and that was the problem. Embedded in the
Profile was a vision of top-down control in which children became mere
cogs in a vast bureaucratic machine."
This reminded me of a class
that I took at Harvard Divinity School years ago. The class was about
religion in public schools, and one of the books that we read concerned
attempts to subordinate public education to the marketplace. This book
criticized charter schools and also Channel One, a news program that was
sponsored by a corporation. Schools that accepted Channel One gave the
corporation the opportunity to provide them with televisions, which
helped the schools. But a question that the book was raising was this:
At what price? Was education becoming subjected to the
marketplace, with its dehumanizing focus on the bottom-line? And did
that compromise public schools' status as a place of democracy,
equality, and diversity----one of the few such places in the world?
I'll
admit that it's been a while since I read this book, and so I'm a
little fuzzy about its overall argument. But I do remember my professor
for that course making a point that has stayed with me. She said that
there are different views about what the role for education should be,
and one view is that it should be to train people for the marketplace.
Students
in my class equated that particular view----about education's primary
role being to train people for the marketplace----with the right-wing,
which supports capitalism. But, as you can see from what Michele
Bachmann says in the quote above, things are more complex than that, for
Bachmann is opposed to seeing students primarily in terms of their
usefulness to the economy. Moreover, conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly was an opponent of Channel One. It's
ironic that Bachmann, who defends the free market for page after page
in this book, should be critical of the public schools focusing on
making students into reliable cogs in a dehumanizing capitalistic
economy. But she probably would say that she's not against capitalism
but the corporatist union of government and business, or that she's in
favor of balancing out the free market with other things, such as
family.
I'll stop here. Overall, I enjoyed this book. I
still don't particularly care for Michele Bachmann's worldview,
especially how she criticizes people for receiving government handouts
when she herself has been a beneficiary of the government, and how she
is part of a movement (the religious right) that (in my opinion) tries to shove
conservative Christian ideas down people's throats in the public square
(though she'd probably say that it's the secular left that tries to
shove its views down people's throats, and she'd have a point there).
Her criticism of taxes, even as she supports taxes for the middle-class,
also irks me. But I feel as if I know her a little better after
reading this book, and I've enjoyed reading her story.
Showing posts with label Core of Conviction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Core of Conviction. Show all posts
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction 6
In my latest reading of Core of Conviction: My Story,
Michele Bachmann presents many of the usual conservative criticisms of
Obamacare: that it cuts Medicare, that it increases demand and thus the
price of health care, that it can lead to rationing, etc. Bachmann also
criticizes how states require health insurance companies to cover a
bunch of things that she apparently does not regard as necessary,
resulting in high premiums. In addition, Bachmann not only has a
problem with the federal government requiring everyone to have health
insurance, but she also disagrees with the Massachusetts plan that had
such a requirement, stating that it has left Massachusetts residents
with the highest premium rates in the U.S. (See, however, this article,
which says that the high premiums are not due to health care reform and
that the premiums are high at least in part because of low deductibles
and the high number of health professionals.)
Bachmann made another criticism of Obamacare that I had not heard before: that it imposes on makers of medical equipment a tax of $40 billion over ten years, in order to pay for Obamacare. Bachmann thinks that this stifles scientific innovation that could save lives and also money for the health care system. She prefers letting the free market develop innovations, which would result in more jobs and more money for shareholders, encouraging them to invest in more scientific innovation. Is Bachmann accurate in this claim about Obamacare? Well, others have made this criticism about the tax, and this article says that even progressive Democrat Elizabeth Warren has issues with taxing medical equipment makers.
Bachmann makes another interesting point on page 171. She says that we should have a system in which a lot of health insurance companies and health providers are competing for our business. She then asks, "Could the government help the poor, or those who might not be able to make clearheaded decisions?" Her answer is pretty skeptical. I appreciated her question, though, because that's been a concern that I've had about health-insurance in a free market. When there are a bunch of options out there, how can I be sure that I'm picking the right one? And what would happen if there comes a time when I actually need to use the health insurance, and I find that I did not pick the right option (i.e., what I need is not paid for)?
One thing that I liked in my latest reading was that Bachmann highlighted that criticism of the Federal Reserve spans the political spectrum, from Ron Paul to socialist Bernie Sanders. This was a refreshing exception to her usual demonizing of the Left.
Bachmann made another criticism of Obamacare that I had not heard before: that it imposes on makers of medical equipment a tax of $40 billion over ten years, in order to pay for Obamacare. Bachmann thinks that this stifles scientific innovation that could save lives and also money for the health care system. She prefers letting the free market develop innovations, which would result in more jobs and more money for shareholders, encouraging them to invest in more scientific innovation. Is Bachmann accurate in this claim about Obamacare? Well, others have made this criticism about the tax, and this article says that even progressive Democrat Elizabeth Warren has issues with taxing medical equipment makers.
Bachmann makes another interesting point on page 171. She says that we should have a system in which a lot of health insurance companies and health providers are competing for our business. She then asks, "Could the government help the poor, or those who might not be able to make clearheaded decisions?" Her answer is pretty skeptical. I appreciated her question, though, because that's been a concern that I've had about health-insurance in a free market. When there are a bunch of options out there, how can I be sure that I'm picking the right one? And what would happen if there comes a time when I actually need to use the health insurance, and I find that I did not pick the right option (i.e., what I need is not paid for)?
One thing that I liked in my latest reading was that Bachmann highlighted that criticism of the Federal Reserve spans the political spectrum, from Ron Paul to socialist Bernie Sanders. This was a refreshing exception to her usual demonizing of the Left.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction 5
In my latest reading of Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction: My Story,
Bachmann offers her opinions on prominent political figures: Jesse
Ventura (not that great of a reformer, plus he surrounded himself with
liberals), Paul Wellstone (a liberal Michele Bachmann respects), Hillary Clinton (would have made a better President than
Obama, since she's not as far left), John McCain (good guy, but he was
wrong to support the bail-out), John Boehner (wrong to support No Child
Left Behind, but he looks like Dean Martin), etc.
I particularly enjoyed Michele's story about how she was reading a book about Lincoln's cabinet at an event where President George W. Bush was about to speak, and Karl Rove told her to get rid of the book because the President was about to give a speech. (Michele says that Rove's concerns were understandable because the media might photograph her reading the book and make it look like she was reading during Bush's speech, implying that she was bored.) Michele replied that she would not read it while Bush was speaking, and that it was a good book. Rove responded that he knew it was a good book, since he had read it himself, but the President was about to speak! I liked this story because it highlighted how Karl Rove is a voracious reader. I've read that he and Bush would compete over who would read the most books over the year. And we're not just talking about light-weight books, either, but substantive books about history. See here.
I'd like to turn now to a story that Michele tells on page 139 about her husband Marcus and her two daughters at the political fundraiser with President Bush:
"Yet another big thing also happened that night: Our two youngest children, Caroline and Sophia, had their youthful lives changed. Marcus, always thinking ahead, had said to them a few days earlier, 'Let's make this event your chance to improve your social skills and your confidence.'...So he gently instructed the two shy girls, then twelve and fourteen, that their mission for the evening was to go up to everyone at the dinner and introduce themselves. Nobody would bite them, he promised...Caroline and Sophia were both a bit daunted at the prospect, but...they went for it; sticking close together, they primly and properly extended their greeting to all the folks. The girls knew, of course, that Marcus was hovering nearby, ready to help in case of a faux pas emergency. And so their debut in big-time political fundraising was a success; they had no trouble working the room. That's the way childhood ought to be: parents guiding the development of their kids, seizing every opportunity to help them grow in confidence and ability."
I liked this story because I myself am a shy person. Do I fear that people will bite? No, not literally, but I fear that they will think I'm an oddball were I to introduce myself to them (which happens sometimes, but not most of the time), or that I won't know what to say after saying hello and introducing myself. Small-talk is not something I'm good at. But there are cases in which I may not have to do much small-talk (as important as it is to learn how to do that). I could just say "Welcome to the event" or "Thanks for coming".
I particularly enjoyed Michele's story about how she was reading a book about Lincoln's cabinet at an event where President George W. Bush was about to speak, and Karl Rove told her to get rid of the book because the President was about to give a speech. (Michele says that Rove's concerns were understandable because the media might photograph her reading the book and make it look like she was reading during Bush's speech, implying that she was bored.) Michele replied that she would not read it while Bush was speaking, and that it was a good book. Rove responded that he knew it was a good book, since he had read it himself, but the President was about to speak! I liked this story because it highlighted how Karl Rove is a voracious reader. I've read that he and Bush would compete over who would read the most books over the year. And we're not just talking about light-weight books, either, but substantive books about history. See here.
I'd like to turn now to a story that Michele tells on page 139 about her husband Marcus and her two daughters at the political fundraiser with President Bush:
"Yet another big thing also happened that night: Our two youngest children, Caroline and Sophia, had their youthful lives changed. Marcus, always thinking ahead, had said to them a few days earlier, 'Let's make this event your chance to improve your social skills and your confidence.'...So he gently instructed the two shy girls, then twelve and fourteen, that their mission for the evening was to go up to everyone at the dinner and introduce themselves. Nobody would bite them, he promised...Caroline and Sophia were both a bit daunted at the prospect, but...they went for it; sticking close together, they primly and properly extended their greeting to all the folks. The girls knew, of course, that Marcus was hovering nearby, ready to help in case of a faux pas emergency. And so their debut in big-time political fundraising was a success; they had no trouble working the room. That's the way childhood ought to be: parents guiding the development of their kids, seizing every opportunity to help them grow in confidence and ability."
I liked this story because I myself am a shy person. Do I fear that people will bite? No, not literally, but I fear that they will think I'm an oddball were I to introduce myself to them (which happens sometimes, but not most of the time), or that I won't know what to say after saying hello and introducing myself. Small-talk is not something I'm good at. But there are cases in which I may not have to do much small-talk (as important as it is to learn how to do that). I could just say "Welcome to the event" or "Thanks for coming".
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction 4
In my latest reading of Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction: My Story,
I enjoyed reading about Bachmann's family and how Bachmann has shopped
at thrift stories (and she thinks that the government should be more
thrifty in its spending----which I agree with, as long as cuts in
spending are focused on waste rather than money that the poor need to
survive). What I want to focus on in this post, however, is something
that Michele says about her husband Marcus' practice of therapy on page
91:
"So what would Marcus do in a typical counseling session?...He would gather a small group of seekers into a circle of seven or eight----seekers of relief from, say, anger or alcohol. Then he would begin the discussion by asking questions: 'What's a good response to anger?' or 'How do you handle a spouse who is drinking?' And then, for the next half hour or so, Marcus would listen as each individual brought up his or her personal issues. Marcus knew he had to proceed in his counseling with patience and subtlety. As Paul said to the Corinthians, the goal is not to shame but to instruct, to counsel."
It would be nice to be in a group like this: one that brings up a topic and discusses solutions, so that I have some practical wisdom to take home with me----and all of this occurs in an atmosphere that doesn't put people down. Unfortunately, many groups that I've been in are not like this. People either complain about the same problems over and over, or they monopolize the time with topics that have nothing to do with therapy, or they make fun of other group-members, or (in the case of some Asperger's groups) the focus is more on advocacy rather than therapy. (And advocacy is important, but it would be nice for a group like that to concentrate on how to develop social skills, once in a while.)
What are your experiences in counseling groups? Do you find them helpful, or do you think there are things that they could do better?
"So what would Marcus do in a typical counseling session?...He would gather a small group of seekers into a circle of seven or eight----seekers of relief from, say, anger or alcohol. Then he would begin the discussion by asking questions: 'What's a good response to anger?' or 'How do you handle a spouse who is drinking?' And then, for the next half hour or so, Marcus would listen as each individual brought up his or her personal issues. Marcus knew he had to proceed in his counseling with patience and subtlety. As Paul said to the Corinthians, the goal is not to shame but to instruct, to counsel."
It would be nice to be in a group like this: one that brings up a topic and discusses solutions, so that I have some practical wisdom to take home with me----and all of this occurs in an atmosphere that doesn't put people down. Unfortunately, many groups that I've been in are not like this. People either complain about the same problems over and over, or they monopolize the time with topics that have nothing to do with therapy, or they make fun of other group-members, or (in the case of some Asperger's groups) the focus is more on advocacy rather than therapy. (And advocacy is important, but it would be nice for a group like that to concentrate on how to develop social skills, once in a while.)
What are your experiences in counseling groups? Do you find them helpful, or do you think there are things that they could do better?
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction 3: Marcus Bachmann
For my write-up today on Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction: My Story,
I'll highlight some things that Bachmann says about her husband,
Marcus. I'll start with a passage that touches on wifely submission,
and then I'll mention my favorite passages about Marcus from my latest
reading.
I'm starting with the passage about wifely submission because that's an issue that interests people when it comes to Michele Bachmann. Michele Bachmann talks about when she was in Tulsa studying tax law at Oral Roberts University. She loved Tulsa, whereas Marcus didn't, plus Marcus felt a calling to help young people. Michele and Marcus prayed together, and Michele arrived at her decision. On page 81, she says:
"Marcus was my husband, the leader of our home and family. Between my law school and my marriage, it wasn't even a contest. I now realized, deep in my heart, that however much I would hate to leave ORU, I would hate even more causing hurt to Marcus. And then God reminded me of the famous words of Paul to the Corinthians: 'Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.'" But Michele was still unhappy to be away from law school.
They left Tulsa, and Marcus went into youth ministry. But, eventually, as he prayed, he concluded that Michele needed to pursue her calling to be a lawyer, and so they went back to Tulsa. Marcus then worked with young people as Vice-President of Admissions at Oral Roberts University, and he also was director at a senior center. (Michele says that he loved interacting with the elderly because, as a second-generation immigrant, he had grandparents who did not live in the United States.) Michele and Marcus later made another move, and Michele went to the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
Michele did submit to her husband and regarded him as the head of the home. But, in a sense, her decision was still hers: she chose her husband's happiness over her own because her marriage was important to her. Was Marcus a "my way or the highway" sort of husband? That's not the impression that I get from my reading thus far of Michele Bachmann's book, for Marcus comes across as laid-back, comfortable to be with, and caring.
I'll now turn to my favorite passages about Marcus:
On page 61, Michele talks about when Marcus first met her Mom and step-father, Ray:
"Next it was Marcus' turn to meet my family...It was a Saturday, and Mom had said to come by anytime, so we did. When Marcus and I arrived, we found Mom and Ray scraping their wallpaper in the hallway. Marcus was eager to help, so that's what we did. Such gallantry might seem more practical than romantic, but let me tell you, it was both----practical and romantic. By pitching in so readily on a chore, Marcus made a good impression on our folks. Men, here's a lesson for you: Flowers and candy are wonderful for a girl, but if you really want to convince her that you're Mr. Right, it helps to be a handyman!"
Well, I'm not a handyman, but I admire Marcus for being eager to help Michele's folks!
Michele also says on page 61:
"For his part, Marcus's job was...in downtown Minneapolis, a place called Soul's Harbor, where he taught employment skills to those who were down and out. But all that time turned out to be time well spent, because he enjoyed listening to people; he has always said that everyone's story has value."
I try to cultivate an appreciation for listening to people's stories, for that is a good social skill: being interested in other people, and realizing that everyone's story has value. That, incidentally, is one reason that I enjoy Michele Bachmann's book! At a certain level, I am already interested in people's stories, but I should cultivate that interest.
On page 80, Michele talks about Marcus taking her to nursing homes when they were dating:
"Because we had no money, we would occasionally go to visit some of Marcus's favorite senior citizens at nursing homes in Winona, at Sarnia, and the Watkins Home. These were very unusual dates, but I got to see what a loving, sensitive, and caring man Marcus is, and afterward, rather than being depressed, we found great joy in recalling the stories and jokes of these seniors."
I love that passage!
Marcus was a controversial figure during Michele's run for President because of his alleged belief that homosexuals could change. But I think it's important to recognize the good that people do, not just the things that we disagree with.
I'm starting with the passage about wifely submission because that's an issue that interests people when it comes to Michele Bachmann. Michele Bachmann talks about when she was in Tulsa studying tax law at Oral Roberts University. She loved Tulsa, whereas Marcus didn't, plus Marcus felt a calling to help young people. Michele and Marcus prayed together, and Michele arrived at her decision. On page 81, she says:
"Marcus was my husband, the leader of our home and family. Between my law school and my marriage, it wasn't even a contest. I now realized, deep in my heart, that however much I would hate to leave ORU, I would hate even more causing hurt to Marcus. And then God reminded me of the famous words of Paul to the Corinthians: 'Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.'" But Michele was still unhappy to be away from law school.
They left Tulsa, and Marcus went into youth ministry. But, eventually, as he prayed, he concluded that Michele needed to pursue her calling to be a lawyer, and so they went back to Tulsa. Marcus then worked with young people as Vice-President of Admissions at Oral Roberts University, and he also was director at a senior center. (Michele says that he loved interacting with the elderly because, as a second-generation immigrant, he had grandparents who did not live in the United States.) Michele and Marcus later made another move, and Michele went to the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
Michele did submit to her husband and regarded him as the head of the home. But, in a sense, her decision was still hers: she chose her husband's happiness over her own because her marriage was important to her. Was Marcus a "my way or the highway" sort of husband? That's not the impression that I get from my reading thus far of Michele Bachmann's book, for Marcus comes across as laid-back, comfortable to be with, and caring.
I'll now turn to my favorite passages about Marcus:
On page 61, Michele talks about when Marcus first met her Mom and step-father, Ray:
"Next it was Marcus' turn to meet my family...It was a Saturday, and Mom had said to come by anytime, so we did. When Marcus and I arrived, we found Mom and Ray scraping their wallpaper in the hallway. Marcus was eager to help, so that's what we did. Such gallantry might seem more practical than romantic, but let me tell you, it was both----practical and romantic. By pitching in so readily on a chore, Marcus made a good impression on our folks. Men, here's a lesson for you: Flowers and candy are wonderful for a girl, but if you really want to convince her that you're Mr. Right, it helps to be a handyman!"
Well, I'm not a handyman, but I admire Marcus for being eager to help Michele's folks!
Michele also says on page 61:
"For his part, Marcus's job was...in downtown Minneapolis, a place called Soul's Harbor, where he taught employment skills to those who were down and out. But all that time turned out to be time well spent, because he enjoyed listening to people; he has always said that everyone's story has value."
I try to cultivate an appreciation for listening to people's stories, for that is a good social skill: being interested in other people, and realizing that everyone's story has value. That, incidentally, is one reason that I enjoy Michele Bachmann's book! At a certain level, I am already interested in people's stories, but I should cultivate that interest.
On page 80, Michele talks about Marcus taking her to nursing homes when they were dating:
"Because we had no money, we would occasionally go to visit some of Marcus's favorite senior citizens at nursing homes in Winona, at Sarnia, and the Watkins Home. These were very unusual dates, but I got to see what a loving, sensitive, and caring man Marcus is, and afterward, rather than being depressed, we found great joy in recalling the stories and jokes of these seniors."
I love that passage!
Marcus was a controversial figure during Michele's run for President because of his alleged belief that homosexuals could change. But I think it's important to recognize the good that people do, not just the things that we disagree with.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction 2
In my latest reading of Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction: My Story,
Bachmann covered a lot of ground. She talked about how her family when
she was young became impoverished after her dad and mom divorced (and
yet she notes that her mom chose not to receive welfare), how she was
not particularly popular with the guys in her high school years and did
not know how to flirt (which surprised me because I stereotyped her as a
Beauty Queen type), how she became a Christian when she was in high
school, how she lived for a time on a Kibbutz in Israel and learned the
value of having a strong national defense (as Israel was threatened by
foreign enemies), how she met her husband Marcus at work and was friends
with him for a while before they took their relationship to a romantic
level, how she and Marcus worked with pro-life causes and sought to help
unwed mothers, and how they campaigned for Jimmy Carter in a time when
the Democratic Party was more open to the pro-life cause than was the
Republican Party.
On page 46, Bachmann discusses her conversion to Christ and how that filled a void within her:
"Now I felt real confidence. Profound confidence. Finally I felt armored and equipped, ready to confront the world and its many challenges. I knew that I belonged to God and that He loved me, and so I no longer had to depend on the approval of others. My cheerful childhood outlook had been damaged by the move away from Iowa, then more damaged by my parents' divorce. And while I kept plugging away through my early teen years, learning and working, I had felt a gnawing insecurity----an insecurity that is common, I realize, among children of broken homes and blended families. Maybe that's why I had joined every club, thrown myself into every activity. Now, looking back on my life before Christ, I realized that I had been searching for something and not finding it. I had sought approval from teachers and classmates, and while they were almost always nice, they could never fill the real void in my life. What I needed was a close personal relationship with the Lord Jesus."
I can identify with what Michele Bachmann says about having a void in her life and feeling insecure. Even people who live with others and are continually around people have testified that they still feel a deep sense of loneliness. Bachmann found peace in Jesus, rather than in her accomplishments and approval by others. But why are there people who become Christians and yet still feel that there is a void in their lives? I think of Whitney Houston. Is it because we need to remind ourselves continually that we are loved by God----that we need to root our identity in God's love rather than approval by others and accomplishments, not just at a moment of conversion, but every single day?
On page 46, Bachmann discusses her conversion to Christ and how that filled a void within her:
"Now I felt real confidence. Profound confidence. Finally I felt armored and equipped, ready to confront the world and its many challenges. I knew that I belonged to God and that He loved me, and so I no longer had to depend on the approval of others. My cheerful childhood outlook had been damaged by the move away from Iowa, then more damaged by my parents' divorce. And while I kept plugging away through my early teen years, learning and working, I had felt a gnawing insecurity----an insecurity that is common, I realize, among children of broken homes and blended families. Maybe that's why I had joined every club, thrown myself into every activity. Now, looking back on my life before Christ, I realized that I had been searching for something and not finding it. I had sought approval from teachers and classmates, and while they were almost always nice, they could never fill the real void in my life. What I needed was a close personal relationship with the Lord Jesus."
I can identify with what Michele Bachmann says about having a void in her life and feeling insecure. Even people who live with others and are continually around people have testified that they still feel a deep sense of loneliness. Bachmann found peace in Jesus, rather than in her accomplishments and approval by others. But why are there people who become Christians and yet still feel that there is a void in their lives? I think of Whitney Houston. Is it because we need to remind ourselves continually that we are loved by God----that we need to root our identity in God's love rather than approval by others and accomplishments, not just at a moment of conversion, but every single day?
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction 1
I started Michele Bachmann's Core of Conviction: My Story.
Why am I reading this book, when she's out of the race for U.S. President, and arguably is not as popular or prominent as she once was? I did not particularly care for Michele Bachmann back when she was popular and prominent (not that I knew her personally, then or now). This was for a variety of reasons: my dislike for evangelicalism, and my hatred of right-wing judgmentalism and hypocrisy. (In Michele Bachmann's case, she and her husband have both received money from the government.)
But now that she's not as much of a power-player, I've decided to read her book, for I have a certain degree of nostalgia when it comes to the religious right (not that I agree with it on much these days). I've long enjoyed reading the religious right's revisionist history, and also reading about the religious right itself, for part of me admires people who stand for their principles as underdogs against the establishment. Part of me also is drawn to the simplicity of the religious right's worldview (or my impression of that worldview): that America would be all right if people believed in the Bible, loved their families, and worked hard, just like Americans supposedly did in the good old days.
On some level, such themes are present in Bachmann's book. Regarding the underdog theme, the book opens with Bachmann unexpectedly defeating a Republican state senator whom she and others considered to be too liberal. She went to a G.O.P. convention in jeans and a torn sweater to express concerns about the senator's nomination, and (to her surprise) she ended up becoming the opposition candidate and won after the senator condescendingly dismissed her speech as the evening's entertainment. Michele then had to come home and tell her family the news!
Bachmann then talks about her salt-of-the earth ancestors, some of whom were Norwegian immigrants, and also the family of her upbringing. Much of her family was Democrat, but her well-read grandmother on her father's side was a Republican. When Michele's dad was debating the Republican grandmother on the Great Society back when Michele was a kid, the grandmother said that Michele and her brother would have to be the ones who'd pay for the programs. Michele says that she was then sensitized to the fact that government programs have to be paid for.
A line from pages 6-7 stood out to me. Bachmann is talking about her speech to the Republican convention, when she was running against the state senator. She says that her "neighbors and fellow Republicans were happy to hear someone speak clear words, words that expressed their own faith and beliefs." I find this sort of thing to be true in the blogosophere as well: People are not always drawn to blogs that think outside of the box; rather, many are drawn to blogs that express clearly and forcefully what they already believe. They then feel elated that someone else feels the same way.
Why am I reading this book, when she's out of the race for U.S. President, and arguably is not as popular or prominent as she once was? I did not particularly care for Michele Bachmann back when she was popular and prominent (not that I knew her personally, then or now). This was for a variety of reasons: my dislike for evangelicalism, and my hatred of right-wing judgmentalism and hypocrisy. (In Michele Bachmann's case, she and her husband have both received money from the government.)
But now that she's not as much of a power-player, I've decided to read her book, for I have a certain degree of nostalgia when it comes to the religious right (not that I agree with it on much these days). I've long enjoyed reading the religious right's revisionist history, and also reading about the religious right itself, for part of me admires people who stand for their principles as underdogs against the establishment. Part of me also is drawn to the simplicity of the religious right's worldview (or my impression of that worldview): that America would be all right if people believed in the Bible, loved their families, and worked hard, just like Americans supposedly did in the good old days.
On some level, such themes are present in Bachmann's book. Regarding the underdog theme, the book opens with Bachmann unexpectedly defeating a Republican state senator whom she and others considered to be too liberal. She went to a G.O.P. convention in jeans and a torn sweater to express concerns about the senator's nomination, and (to her surprise) she ended up becoming the opposition candidate and won after the senator condescendingly dismissed her speech as the evening's entertainment. Michele then had to come home and tell her family the news!
Bachmann then talks about her salt-of-the earth ancestors, some of whom were Norwegian immigrants, and also the family of her upbringing. Much of her family was Democrat, but her well-read grandmother on her father's side was a Republican. When Michele's dad was debating the Republican grandmother on the Great Society back when Michele was a kid, the grandmother said that Michele and her brother would have to be the ones who'd pay for the programs. Michele says that she was then sensitized to the fact that government programs have to be paid for.
A line from pages 6-7 stood out to me. Bachmann is talking about her speech to the Republican convention, when she was running against the state senator. She says that her "neighbors and fellow Republicans were happy to hear someone speak clear words, words that expressed their own faith and beliefs." I find this sort of thing to be true in the blogosophere as well: People are not always drawn to blogs that think outside of the box; rather, many are drawn to blogs that express clearly and forcefully what they already believe. They then feel elated that someone else feels the same way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)