Before the uproar starts, let me reaffirm that I will continue to speak out, write and work to defeat the central policy initiatives that President Obama has put into law, and counter what he is trying to enact into law. I am diametrically opposed to what I believe is the European welfare state mentality of this entire Administration led by the President. We are America and Americans, and this is the very reason our ancestors left everything behind to come here – no matter where they were born.
But opposition to policies, and automatic dislike of political opponents, should not be synonymous. What I am about to write about the Obama family I could just as easily write about the President George W. Bush family (Obama’s predecessor) and the Mitt Romney family (Obama’s latest opponent.)
In an interview on August 7, 2007 in the Chicago Sun-Times by Mary Mitchell with then-Senator Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, the following exchange took place:
Mitchell asked: How did [you] manage to snag Barack?
Michelle answered: “What I talk about with my girlfriends is that before you start worrying about, I don’t have a man,’ where are you in your own space, in your own head? What do I need to be as healthy and happy on my own with or without? And the minute you get that in order, it seems like things fall into place.”[1]
When I read this at the time, I immediately thought “what a great response. I could not agree more.” I was very impressed. And, later when I heard that she had remarked that the election of her husband was to her “for the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country”[2] – a statement much maligned by many of my conservative colleagues – I could understand how a Black American might feel that way. And, while I have never felt anything but pride at being an American, as a Mormon myself I have some understanding and experience with the sting of prejudice by fellow Americans.
With this as a prelude, if I had the opportunity to place a family in the White House who represent the American ideal (at a time when 50 percent of American marriages – and 50 percent of second marriages – end in divorce) . . . it would be a family with the following characteristics:
- A family where there is both the mother and father in the home;
- Where their marriage (a first for both) is secure, and it is obvious that they are working together for the good of the family;
- Where their children are a priority in their lives, and they make every effort to protect them from the intrusiveness of the media, the staff and others who would use them for their own purposes; and,
- Where they are more interested whenever possible in having dinner together each evening as a family than having political dinners with friends or people who could further their political interests.
I am a conservative. I am a Republican. We have been advocating since the beginning of the movement that we prize family values, oppose abortion and favour traditional marriage. The Bushes, the Romneys and the Obamas all fit this definition of the “All American Family” equally well . . . and should be honoured and appreciated for how they as a family represent America to the world.
So, while we conservatives must oppose with every tool we have the leftist policies and ideology of President Obama and the hordes of social welfare elitists he has placed in the most powerful positions in government, this can only succeed if we come up with better ideas that excite the imagination and enthusiasm of the American public who still believe that freedom is the issue and libertarian conservatism is the answer. Not by character assassination or . . . in the vernacular of today . . . the “politics of personal destruction.” The end result of such tactics often reminds me of the apocryphal Chinese proverb (that kids pass from one to another): “he who slings mud loses valuable ground.” It’s not just that the public dislikes it; more importantly, it means that winning is more important than principles and the values we share. And, if this is all we care about, we have lost what is truly important already.
________________________________________________
Terrie Lynn BittnerApril 3, 2013
I agree that we need to treat the Obama family like children of God and show respect for them as people. However, you then used terminology that really violated the point of your article--the importance of civility. Terms like " leftist policies" and " social welfare elitists" do exactly what you said not to do. They apply emotional labels designed to make people feel instead of think. Such labels serve only to divide and do nothing to further the good of the country. The Church has asked us to talk about issues, not people, and it is possible to do so without manipulative labels. Having a different idea of how to take care of our nation doesn't make someone wrong. In his On-Faith blog, the Church's PR person said countries do have a responsibility to care for the welfare of their people. How is political--but governments are not exempt from the requirement to care for the sick, the poor and the needy. It is easy to say the government shouldn't--charity should. However, I think what that really means is that government should not have to. When we are meeting our personal responsibilities to the poor, the government can get out of the business. The need of the government to make sure the poor don't die from lack of health care or food just means we are failing in our mission to care for God's children. Not everyone who is poor is poor due to bad choices. Many of our prophets grew up poor, after all.
shellyApril 3, 2013
Very good article about not condemning all of a person because of some of their choices. However, you said, 'We have been advocating since the beginning of the movement that we prize family values, oppose abortion and favour traditional marriage. The Bushes, the Romneys and the Obamas all fit this definition...' Obama is a supporter of the eventual tear down of traditional marriage by supporting gay marriage. He has also, over and over again, supports a 'woman's right to choose' to take the life of the baby. He supports abortion. So 2 or your 3 points Obama fails miserably. I agree that we need to take each action of individuals separately. If a criminal that likes to rob banks is also caught aiding an old lady to the car with her groceries we should acknowledge that kindness he/she did. But we must remember the bank robberies and hold them accountable for that, too. I too am Republican and Conservative. It is getting more difficult to find those that will 'not be moved' from these values even in our own party or that will not be afraid to call a bad choice just that. We can love individuals without sanctioning the error of judgement or outright sin.