Bachmann started out the race using her religion as a platform to gain support from Evangelicals and most conservatives in general, but has recently had to backtrack on many of her very polarized beliefs in order to smooth over her public image. Regardless of her many attempts to appear increasingly credible, she continues to make logical fallacies in interviews and debates. On Meet the Press, she listened to herself claim that gays were of Satan, then attempted to explain her respect for the gay community. The following clip from the New Hampshire debate shows yet another logical fallacy that can be proven by using Jefferson's ideology as portrayed by Edwin Gaustad in Sworn on the Altar of God.
In this clip, Representative Bachmann explains that in her opinion, abortion shold be illegal because of the sanctity of life "from birth to natural death". She supports her argument by quoting the Declaration of Independence and our "unalienable rights" (the right to life) but seems to disregard the fact that freedom of choice and the ability to reason are unalienable rights given to us by God according to Jefferson, the author of the Declaration.
Her attention-grabbing public appearances are convincing supporters and non-supporters of her intense religious fervor, and are possibly pushing moderates into the realm of believing that she is "crazy".
I really like your analysis of Bachmann's religion in the context of her political platform (which always appears to be shifting in one direction or another). With that being said, I have a question for you - how do you think her radicalism will impact her success in the upcoming elections?
ReplyDeleteAs many of the theories mentioned in the Fowler alluded to, the majority of people in American society appear to be distancing themselves from more devout, Evangelical religion in favor of spiritual practices or no religion at all. Assuming these theories to be relatively accurate, one would assume that radicalism would hurt a candidate in a modern day and age, but nevertheless, Bachmann appears to have a group of followers that support her extreme agenda. Do you think her radicalism will help or hurt her campaign ambitions?
I'm not really sure at this point. Honestly, I don't think she'll get very far because she is not appealing to the changing demographic in America. As for hurting her campaign ambitions, I'm not even sure what those are, so it's hard to say. It seems like her goal is to pick up the evangelical vote without much regard for appealing to moderates, so if she's trying to outdo Perry in Christian-ness... it will be an interesting year...
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say, but it seems all the mainstream republican candidates (not just Bachmann) are pushing religion as a motif in their campaigns, and the media is loving it. I think it is because they know the people are tired of having a President that claims to be Christian but has time and again gone and signed a bill or said something that the people would perceive as "unholy", especially Christians (eg pushing to get rid of don't ask don't tell). I am not a Christian, but I understand where these candidates are coming from and it seems to be working. The last time I saw a poll, Obama was losing to these generic republicans.
ReplyDeleteI think your analysis of Bachmann's radicalism is accurate--while she has created a following for herself, much of her prominence in the public eye is due to negative attention. It will be interesting to see if Bachmann will be able to maintain a following with Perry entering the race using a similar evangelical appeal. The clip we saw in class where she continually averts the questions saying, "I am running for President," demonstrates how she is already working to repair her extremist remarks that have alienated her from more moderate voters.
ReplyDeleteKatya,
ReplyDeleteI take issue with two of the points you considered in your analysis. Firstly, as I am sure you know, Google search determines search results based upon the past search behavior of the user. Therefore, if, while searching ‘michelle bachmann’ in the search bar, you encounter entries such "crazy", "slavery", "husband" and "owned" it is probably because you have previously searched for entries that are negative views of Michelle Bachmann. For example, when I searched ‘michelle bachmann ‘ I found entries for “census”, “photos”, and “quotes.” This is because my previous search history is unbiased against her as I presume yours might be judging by the tone of your piece.
Secondly, I would like to offer a rebuttal to your consideration of Bachmann’s position on abortion. In quoting the Declaration of Independence, specifically the passage which addresses the “inalienable rights” bestowed upon all humans, you state that Bachmann overlooks woman’s right to choose. It is important to remember that when considering one’s inalienable rights, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Bachmann’s interpretation of the Declaration is not that women don’t have the right to choice, rather their right to choose infringes upon the rights of the fetus.
With regards to whether this position makes Bachmann “crazy”, as of May 2009, this position was held by the majority of American’s according to a national Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx)
Firstly, you're right, that is the way that Google Search auto-completes search terms, but I was referring to my search on Youtube which pulls up most popular results starting with the original input.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, that argument leads directly to a philosophical debate over whether life begins at conception or at birth or somewhere in-between. I'll leave my personal beliefs out for now and just say that your argument with regards to Bachmann's meaning is correct if you accept that life begins at conception. If you think life begins at birth, then the woman's right to choose supersedes the fetus's. I was simply presenting the latter argument.