Pencees Part II

In my last post I wrote about the progressive's disdain for people, like Mike Pence, who try, with varying degrees of effort, and success, to live up to a moral code, a code that is objective and exists outside the person's own leanings, prejudices and enthusiasms.  They mock Pence's determination to avoid temptations that might damage his marriage by adopting and adhering to certain rules regarding social interactions in the absence of his wife.  These critics are arrogant enough to claim that Pence's code of conduct is antiquated and strange, that it betrays a hostility towards women and/or a tendency to perversion that must be controlled with draconian medieval rules of behavior.  Whereas the critics themselves are too sophisticated and well-adjusted to have to worry about such things.

As I was writing this it occurred to me that this attitude among progressives is not limited to the marital arena.  It is of a piece with their contempt for constitutional government.

Progressives believe that all the ills of the world, as well as the anti-social behaviors and attitudes of people, can be cured if we just put the right people into government and give them all the power they feel necessary to enable them to re-engineer society.  Woodrow Wilson, one of the earliest leading lights of the progressive movement, was openly contemptuous of the Constitution, even as he swore to preserve, protect, and defend it.  Put the right hands on the levers of power and they could remake society.

The framers of the Constitution had a more jaundiced, and I would say clear-eyed, view of human nature.  They knew that all men were fallen and susceptible to temptation and that, when men are given power over their fellow citizens, they are apt to abuse it if allowed to do so.

So they designed a government for the United States that would frustrate the natural tendency of men to amass and abuse power.  The framers held no illusions that any men, even themselves, could be trusted with unchecked power.  So if they couldn't eliminate man's drive to seek power, they would harness it.  In James Madison's famous formulation, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

Someone once wrote that the Constitution was designed with sinful man in mind.  The powers of government are fractured and distributed.  They are divided between the central government and the states.  And within the federal government the legislative, executive, and judicial functions are established in three separate but equal branches; each branch possessing certain powers that enable it to resist encroachment by the other two.  The purpose is not to facilitate the smooth and efficient administration of government, but rather to frustrate it and keep it contained.

But the scheme only works if we honor it and internalize it.  As the Constitutional Convention was disbanding, its delegates returning to their home states, a woman famously asked Benjamin Franklin what sort of government they had devised for the United States:  "A republic, if you can keep it," was his reply.

Sadly, we have done a poor job preserving the founders' vision.  Congress and the president found the legislative process to cumbersome so they created the administrative agency, combining the legislative, executive, and judicial functions within one organization.  The federal government was dissatisfied with the limited powers granted it so all three branches colluded in rewriting the Constitution to grant virtually unlimited authority to the central government.  And all this was done with the enthusiastic support of the voters.

Just as progressives see no legitimate purpose to Mike Pence's personal rules of conduct, they hold the structural constraints of the Constitution in utter contempt.  They see themselves as fundamentally good people, capable of identifying the best interests of a country of 330 million people and of advancing those interests if only they are given the power to do so without any silly reservations about liberty and stuff like that.

Pencees

This week Mike Pence proved that many on the left who imagine themselves sophisticated, tolerant, and cosmopolitan are, actually, bat-$#!t crazy.  And it required no real effort on his part.  A Washington Post profile of Pence's wife, Karen, contained a brief reference to two personal rules of conduct to which Pence adheres to protect his family against unnecessary strain.

In 2002, Mike Pence told the Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.

My completely unscientific impression is that this sort of code of conduct is unusual, but I might be wrong.  Regardless of how common or not it is, I can't see why anyone who is not Mike or Karen Pence should have any strong opinions about it.  I certainly can't see why anyone should be offended.  But I failed to account for the modern American progressive's intolerance for any deviation from their prevailing orthodoxy.

That one sentence generated dozens of columns from leftists.  They weren't writing to compliment Pence for his commitment to his marriage, they made over-the-top, borderline insane criticisms that deliberately misstated Pence's position and exaggerated its consequences beyond the limits of parody.

Laura Turner's op-ed piece for the Post on March 30 is a case in point.  When she writes "But for men to categorically refuse to meet one-on-one with women is often dehumanizing and denies the image of Christ that each person bears,"  she is taking issue with a stand that Pence never articulates.  Pence only avoids dining alone with a woman other than his wife.  There are many occasions during a work day when a man and a woman may meet alone in an office setting and Pence's rule, on its face, would not interfere with those interactions.  She also accuses Pence of "fuel[ing] the myth that loads of women are waiting around to falsely accuse powerful men of rape."  If Ms. Turner had any real friends one of them would have warned her how stupid that sentence is.

She then accuses Pence of limiting women's career opportunities.  "If a woman at work cannot meet one-on-one with her boss or colleague, her options for advancement (or even being taken seriously as a colleague) are extremely limited."  Again, Pence's rule is not nearly that broad.  To suggest that the opportunities for women who work with him are "extremely" limited is ludicrous.  But to make that argument raises the threat that men who try to protect their marriages could be put through the wringer of a sex discrimination charge.

For the progressive, everything is politics and politics is everything.  He can't just say "That's just how Mike Pence does things.  It's not my style but its not my business."

Mike Pence's refusal to dine alone with other women does not imply that all women are foul temptresses or rape hoaxsters.  Nor does it imply that Pence is completely incapable of controlling his sexual urges around them.  It is a prudent recognition of the reality of our fallen nature.

The National Opinion Research Center published a survey in 2006 that 15 to 18% of married people have had a sexual affair outside of their marriage.  I doubt very much that all of those people set out to cheat on their spouses.  For many of them it "just happened."  And there are also so-called emotional affairs, where there is no physical intimacy, that can be almost as damaging to a marriage as full-blown adultery.

I think Pence's personal code is a recognition that no one is immune to temptation.  Anyone who claims he is is a liar or a fool.  Maybe when everything in his life and marriage are going great, Pence can have all sorts of interactions with the opposite sex without a hint of an improper thought getting into his head.  But all marriages go through periods of stress: illness in the family, financial troubles, working long hours, kids getting into trouble, etc.  When that happens, people become more vulnerable to seeking escape in an extramarital affair.  They also become more vulnerable to entertaining suspicions that their spouses are up to something.  Pence shouldn't be lambasted because he takes precautions against those eventualities.