I have a problem with Michele Bachmann.
The problem I have isn’t with her socially conservative views, which I disagree with but do not denigrate, since they are legitimately held⎯nor is it with her recurring symptoms of foot-in-mouth disease, which provide comic relief more than anything else.
No, what I worry about is having as a potential president a person who is apparently capable of believing⎯simultaneously and passionately⎯in two opposing principles of government without seeing the illogic of her position(s).
She trumpets the inherent goodness of states’ rights, and has devoted herself, at least in her stump speech, to the goal of shrinking the federal government’s role in freedom-loving Americans’ lives to the fullest extent possible.
That sounds fine so far as it goes, until she is asked about New York’s recent legalization of same-sex marriage. Yes, Ms. Bachmann says, every state has a right to pass its own laws. But, as president, she would work as hard as she could to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizing marriage as a contract exclusively between a man and a woman.
That last part sounds to me a lot like federal overreach into our personal lives, and an infringement upon the rights of states to determine their own political and social character.
I don’t think Michele Bachmann concerns herself with people who notice this inconsistency, because they aren’t likely to vote for her in the first place. More interesting is that her target audience obviously isn’t disturbed by it in the slightest. All it cares about is that she hits the hot buttons: states’ rights, the gay threat to American values, right to life, the required teaching of creationism in science class.
That’s to name but a few. I’m sure we’ll be hearing much, much more from her, even if half of what she says can’t exist alongside the other half.