Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Philosophical Fragments

Home
Evangelical
Was Plucky Huck Mistaken to Save Akin’s Bacon?

Was Plucky Huck Mistaken to Save Akin’s Bacon?

Last updated on: August 27, 2012 at 9:28 pm by Timothy Dalrymple

Was Plucky Huck Mistaken to Save Akin’s Bacon? 2012-08-27T21:28:39-04:00 Timothy Dalrymple

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” gaffe has provided a Sister Souljah moment for the Republican Party. He’s become the glaring red neon sign emblazoned with the words, “If you reach this point, you’ve gone too far.”

It’s unfortunate for Todd Akin because what he said was nowhere near as offensive as what Sister Souljah said prior to the 1992 election. The activist and hip-hop MC was quoted as saying, in response to the Los Angeles riots in 1992: “If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?”

Todd Akin, by contrast, was not advocating genocide. He said one stupid thing and one imprudent thing. He asserted the existence of a hitherto-unknown reproductive mechanism that functions something like a Venus Mons Fly Trap (all puns intended) to capture and kill Rapist Sperm. That was the stupid part — but it was a meme Akin had inherited. Although I’ve been pro-life for as long as I can remember and I’ve never heard it before, apparently this has served as a kind of urban myth in some pro-life circles that has made it easier to justify opposition to abortion in cases of rape. The effect is to say that pregnancy due to rape is rare, and this exception ought not to dictate our policy position on abortion in general. Akin did what partisans do all the time: he assumed the truth of what he had inherited from those who shared his viewpoint and fought alongside him in the cause.

Branding.

The imprudent thing was the reference to “legitimate rape,” and especially unfortunate was the relationship between the stupid thing and the imprudent thing. As others have documented well enough already, what Akin meant to say was something like “forcible rape” in contrast to statutory rape — a justified and important legal and moral distinction. Put most charitably: in cases of statutory rape (if, say, a 19 year old boyfriend is having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend), the female is willing and receptive, and the female body responds to pleasant sexual experiences in ways that make conception more likely — as opposed to forcible rape, where (the theory goes) the normal sexual response cycle that prepares the woman for fertilization does not occur, or the extreme trauma of the rape experience may lead to miscarriage, or the stress level releases some kind of muscular Sperminator to devastate all the little swimmers, or whatever. My only point: this was the reason he was making the distinction. His very wording implied that the female body is not always successful in this, and thus sometimes women who are forcibly raped will conceive. He was not trying to cast doubt on claims of rape — but that’s exactly what it sounded like he was doing. It sounded like this: if you get pregnant, you were not really raped, because if you had really been raped then an emergency Sperminator would emerge and say hasta la vista, spermos.

So that’s it. Akin said something stupid and something imprudent. He revealed that he had a rather serious misunderstanding of the reproductive process, when he has made his career in part on his opposition to abortion. That’s a serious mistake. It’s embarrassing.

Did this act alone justify the way that Republicans abandoned Akin? Here is where Mike Huckabee is right: not really. Heck, Barney Frank’s boyfriend was running a gay prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment, and the Dems stood by him. Bill Clinton was seducing interns in the Oval Office. We can all think of serious moral lapses, or (more to the point) stupid statements from liberals that did not merit their abandonment.

Governor Huckabee: right motive, wrong application.

So Huckabee has played the role of Jesse Jackson in the Sister Souljah episode. Jackson said, “Sister Souljah represents the feelings and hopes of a whole generation of people,” and refused to repudiate her. Huckabee lambasted Republicans for forsakin’ Akin (yes, rhymes will keep coming). Although he’s wrong that it’s an “establishment” versus “principled pro-life activists” issue (Sarah Palin is hardly “establishment), he’s right that this single misstatement does not explain how quickly and completely so many Republican figures turned on Akin and pleaded with him to get out of the race.

Huckabee is basically right about Akin, but wrong about the good-willed people opposing him. As Rick Warren would say: Todd, the first thing you need to know is that this isn’t about you. This is about the future of the Republican party, the reputation of the conservative movement, the extreme importance of recapturing the Senate, and therefore ultimately it’s about the future of the country in which we live.

Akin makes social conservatives look like dinosaurs. He makes us look uneducated, uninformed, and unscientific. He gives credence to the insipid “Republican war on women” meme. He represents your grandfather’s conservatism, not the image the Republican Party wants (and needs) to project today. He’s said other foolish things too — about liberalism being at heart about “a hatred for God” and about America being in the “stage three cancer of socialism” — that have led wise conservatives like John Mark Reynolds to judge that Akin lacks the virtue of prudence that we ought to seek in our leaders. A lot of conservatives, and social conservatives in particular, are tired of representatives who make them look like idiots.

That’s the first reason so many conservatives were breakin’ with Akin. The second is because opposing Akin is advantageous for the party as a whole, and thus the movement, and thus the country. It’s not merely that conservatives want better representatives. It’s that Todd Akin, like Sister Souljah, unwittingly provided Republican leaders an opportunity to define themselves over against the “extremes” in their own party.

Just when the Obama administration wants to portray the Republican party as the party of old white men, of anti-intellectual southerners who are really driven by dark theocratic impulses and hatred for women and minorities, taking Akin further into the fold would only be making their argument more plausible. At this moment when it’s so vitally important to win back the Senate, and when a single seat could turn the tide, shaking Akin communicates that the Republican party is more evolved. The platform is still strong on matters of life, but it’s not based on some Snopes-worthy urban myth about emergency Sperminators.

If driving a stake in Akin will make an overall victory more likely, and give Republicans the ability to drive the extremely important decisions regarding the future of our country, then, well, Akin’s bacon is cooked.

To social conservatives in Tampa: this is not a matter of principle against convenience; there’s nothing unprincipled in encouraging a friend to step aside for the good of the cause and the people the cause serves. The interests of the nation outweigh the interests of one man. It may not be fair, but please, kindly, graciously, tell Akin that he can find some lovely and lucrative job elsewhere. He won’t end up on food stamps.

Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war.

Previous Post

August 24, 2012

I am a Hate-Filled Christian

Next Post

August 28, 2012 Une Conversation Avec Moi

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abortion adoption Africa Aging AIDS America Worship American history Americolatry An Open Letter to a College Freshman animals Apologetics art Atheism Authors Barack Obama Bible Biblical Scholarship Billy Graham Blogging Bono Book Review Books That Change Lives Breakfast Links Bulletin Board Business Children Christian Approach to Politics Christian Media Christian Right Derangement Syndrome Christianity and Homosexuality Christians in Government Christmas Chuck Colson CLS v Martinez Comic Creation Creativity and the Arts Cross Examinations Cross Investigations Daily Fragment Daily Trinity Death debt Deep Thoughts on Fatherhood depression economy education Election 2012 entertainment Environment Epistemology Erik Campano Euthanasia Evangelicalism Evangelicals and Gays Everyday Transcendence evil evolution Facebook Jesus faith Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics faith and reason family Feminism foreign affairs Franklin Graham Future of Evangelicalism Galen D. gay marriage George W. Bush Guest Posts Guns Gymnastics Harold Camping Heaven Hell Holidays Hollywood Homosexuality iam2.org Illegal Immigration immigration Immigration Reform Injustice Inspiration Interviews Islam Jeremy Lin Jesus jesus christ John Mark Reynolds Johnnie Moore Judgment Day Just War Theory Killing Osama Link of the Day Lists of the Week Mark Goldblatt Marriage Military Missions Mitt Romney Modern Western Thought Monastic wisdom Mormonism Morning Hash Morning Report Motherhood Movies Obamacare Old Testament Orphan Care Palin Parenting Pastoral Resources Patheos Peace Between Religions PEPFAR Persecution Peter Wehner Peter Wehner Philosophy Political Quotes of the Day politics Politics and Economics Pornography Prejudice Prisoner Rape Question of the Week Race Radical Faith Rapture Ravi Zacharias Rick Santorum Russia Salvation Sarah Palin Scandals Science Science and Faith Separation of Church and State Series sex sex slavery social justice Social Justice Ministry Spiritual Disciplines sports Steven Tyler Suffering Suicide Sunday Funnies T. Dalrymple Tea Party Technology terrorism The Christian Media Files The Daily Trinity The Electorate The Ethics of Rhetoric The Future of Seminary Education The Middle East The Obama Presidency theological Theological Renewal Theology Uncategorized Understanding Evangelicalism Vocation war War and Peace With Distinction Word to the Wise Writers

Select a Month October 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Romans say about the mind governed by the flesh versus the mind governed by the Spirit?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The flesh leads to sin, but the Spirit leads to righteousness The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace The flesh is weak, but the Spirit is strong The flesh seeks itself, but the Spirit seeks God

Related posts from Philosophical Fragments