When Christine O’Donnell defeated Mike Castle in the recent GOP primary in Delaware, it sparked an internal fight between Tea Party populists and the establishment elites. I’m not elite enough to be part of the Ruling Class and I have an aversion to populism so I really have no dog in this fight. I’m certainly happy to to see a liberal squish like Castle go, but O’Donnell appears to be a bit, well, eccentric.
Maureen Dowd describes O’Donnell as an “anti-abortion, anti-masturbation, anti-premarital-sex, anti-stem-cells, anti-gay-marriage, dubious-about-evolution Christian conservative.” That sounds like qualifications for my ideal candidate. And since she thinks J.R.R. Tolkein’s female characters are good role models for women, she gets points for having geek cred too.
But in her multiple appearances on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher(!), she made some peculiar comments about dabbling in witchcraft and . . . other weird stuff:
I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. . . . I didn’t join a coven, I didn’t join a coven, let’s get this straight. . . I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. [...]
One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s a little blood there and stuff like that. … We went to a movie and then like had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.
That’s a bit weird, but the next clip is even more disturbing:
O’Donnell says that if Hitler was searching for Jews should would not lie about hiding them. Her reasoning: God would find a way to help her in that situation without lying.
Dabbling in witchcraft is one thing, but dabbling in a Kantian deontological moral system is truly twisted.
(And no, I’m not joking (okay, I’m half joking). As a virtue ethicist I believe it would be immoral to not lie in that situation. But even a Kantian should follow the Rahab Categorial Imperative: If your hiding some of the Chosen People from enemies who want to kill them, it’s your duty to lie to protect them.)
(Via: Patterico’s Pontifications)
September 18th, 2010 | 11:48 pm
[...] dabbled into [...]
September 19th, 2010 | 1:07 am
re the lying issue:
Obviously you’ve never read Corrie Ten Boom (“They’re under the table!”)?
Or are are you trying to redirect the moral object of an act (here a lie) based upon intention or circumstances? If so, then I’m afraid that O’Donnell has got you beat Mr. Consequentialist, I mean “virtue ethicist.”
September 19th, 2010 | 1:24 am
Yeah, and Obama admitted doing cocaine. No one is perfect.
September 19th, 2010 | 5:59 am
Actually, Immanuel Kant said that he, too, would not lie to a man looking for someone in Kan’ts house to do him harm. He said that at that point rather than lie, one must tell a “clever truth.” O’Donnell’s dilemma might sound inane, but it’s not all that elementary.
September 19th, 2010 | 8:57 am
Okay, I have to tell you that the line “but dabbling in a Kantian deontological moral system is truly twisted” was a great one. But, I have to ask, is anyone going to get that joke unless they have taken a class on 19th century philosophers. Anyway, Categorical Imperatives . . . ah . . . Rock !!!!
September 19th, 2010 | 9:29 am
O’Donnell is Christian, emphatically pro-life, vivacious, and attractive.
Man, is she ever going to get the Palin treatment from the MSM.
September 19th, 2010 | 10:38 am
That lying problem is an old one, of course. I live in Vienna, which throughout the cold war has been the base of many missionaries targeting the Communist countries of Eastern Europe. They ALL employed clandestine techniques and a measure of subterfuge; the degree of actual lying they felt comfortable with varied from organization to organization, and from person to person.
Anyway, most of them had some sort of “cover”, some sort of ostensible reason for being in Vienna and traveling to Eastern Europe, whether it was to sell US agricultural equipment or organize tourist events. And they all were clearly uneasy with the tension of whether they were really lying everytime they presented that cover as the reason they were here — because in reality, it wasn’t the reason. Many of them could not handle the situation and would get very touchy whenever that subject was raised.
But in the end, if a border guard asked, for example, Why are you visiting Hungary? NONE of them would say, “To smuggle Bibles and theological literature”, or “To encourage the Christians who are having a hard time under your regime.”
Back then, being young and immature, I was most impressed with those who carried of their “Christian secret agent” performance with bravour and pizazz; now, being somewhat older, I am not sure whether the others, who struggled and yet did what was necessary, risking their own spiritual comfort and well-being for their persecuted brethren, didn’t deserve my admiration more.
September 19th, 2010 | 11:25 am
Christine O’Donnell simply bewitched Delaware voters.
See: http://bit.ly/cW5s6a
September 19th, 2010 | 12:05 pm
This is crazy. She has a very interesting past! I just shared a link to this blog.
http://bleditor.com/bledit.php?bleditID=14705
September 19th, 2010 | 2:27 pm
[...] and encouraging her opponents to dig deeper though her old media appearances. Indeed, she has more troubling off-the-cuff statements to explain than this one, so waiting this storm out may not be the best option. In the meantime, Pagan faiths are sent the [...]
September 19th, 2010 | 4:45 pm
Being “dubious-about-evolution” is one thing. Being a young-Earth creationist is a whole other level…
September 19th, 2010 | 5:38 pm
one: a lot of girls “dabble” in Wicca during college, so this is not a big thing.
Two: What I wondered about is that this woman actually had the courage to take on Bill Maher, not once but several times. Did she hold her own? No one is bothering to check, and of course now Maher is planning his revenge, with edited tapes to prove she is extreme.
Three: as for lying: When we were in Africa, we were told by the gov’t to report any suspicious activity, but we made sure the freedom fighters cut the phone lines so it took three days for the letter to arrive…and we never did report about all the supplies that accidentally “fell off” our truck at a prearranged spot (in exchange for clearing the road of landmines so we could bring in supplies).
September 19th, 2010 | 7:07 pm
I have no stake in the matter, either, as I am neither an elitist or a populist. But I can’t figure out for the life of me why the Wiccan thing is being treated as a big deal. Sure, I would have expected criticism over the fact that she considers Wicca a bad thing (since a good post-modernist is not supposed to speak negatively of alternative religions). But to instead bash her because she dabbled in witchcraft!? Since when have the elites decided that witchcraft is wicked?
I suppose they must think that her Wiccan dabbling will strike a negative cord with her conservative base. But they’re wrong. Dead wrong. And frankly, they should know better. Then again, this is Bill Maher we’re dealing with. He’s too angry and conceited to truly understand anything at all about us.
September 19th, 2010 | 11:46 pm
Sarah Palin was a lightweight because she didn’t bother with abstract thought experiments, while Christine O’Donnell is a crackpot because she does.
It’s nice to see that the beltway classes are at least capable of introducing variations on their script. Ms. O’Donnell worked at a think-tank. Being provocative was her job, and she was articulate enough to get that job, which ought to count for something.
I don’t much care for her politics or (what seems knowable about) her character, but it gets annoying when the political class tries to have it both ways at the expense of attractive pro-life women who come from humble circumstances.
September 20th, 2010 | 12:38 am
Matt but it gets annoying when the political class tries to have it both ways at the expense of attractive pro-life women who come from humble circumstances.
And it gets annoying when the populists make excuses for someone just because they are an attractive pro-life women. There are plenty of homely, pro-life, middle-aged men who are qualified for the Senate that do not get nearly as much support as O’Donnell has received.
Indeed, any good-looking conservative woman should run for office. It doesn’t matter if she has even the basic level of qualification, she’ll find hundreds of thousands of conservatives who will support her bid for office.
I have nothing against O’Donnell. But can anyone seriously claim that she is qualified to be in the Senate? There are 300 million Americans and 100 Senators. Is she really one of the .000003% of Americans that should be in that position? There are already too many political hacks that shouldn’t be there. Do we really need to send one more?
By the way, remember when conservatives used to make fun of Obama’s lack of qualifications (for both the Senate and the Presidency)? What happened to that? Now we’ve decided to just emulate Obama’s supporters by trying to put politicians in power that we wouldn’t hire to run a nonprofit or business.
September 20th, 2010 | 8:36 am
Dear Joe Carter: Part of the reason for the “attractive female” element is that it goes contrary to part of the feminist myth Dems have told themselves for years. It’s like finding a pro-life atheist–the element of surprise and interest is there as well as the more common reaction of simple gratitude for another ally.
As far as her qualifications, the fact of working at ISI has to help, does it not? I’d rather have senators who are actually accustomed to thinking rather than professionals who know basically how to cut deals.
September 20th, 2010 | 9:17 am
Re lying. I believe the Jesuits made the point and others have too that one should tell the truth to everyone to whom one owes a duty to do so. In most cases, in everyday life that means always telling the truth and we should assume, unless we have reason to the contrary, that we owe such a duty to the person to whom we are speaking. However in the “Nazi interrogator” case (or indeed other cases where life liberty or health of oneself or another may be compromised) there is no duty to tell the truth and in scriptural terms I am confident we do not “bear false witness”, ergo it is not a sin that we need to repent. I agree with Joe Carter that it would be be immoral to not “lie” in some situations. Christians are to be “wise as serpents” which may involve some dissembling in extreme circumstances.
September 20th, 2010 | 9:49 am
Craig Payne As far as her qualifications, the fact of working at ISI has to help, does it not?
The fact that she worked for ISI is certainly a plus; the fact that she sued ISI for $6.9 million, citing the “demotion in all but name” (in which a male was made her supervisor) was “gender discrimination”, is a negative in my estimation.
In her lawsuit she said (and these are her words):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/docs/O%27Donnell%20Complaint%20ISI.PDF
I’ve held the exact same type of job that O’Donnell held (director of communications) at several organizations and was “asked to perform clerical and administrative tasks.” Was I being discriminated against because I’m a man?
Perhaps like O’Donnell, I should have sought professional treatment for the “extreme emotional harm” it caused me.
Also, it’s a bit odd that she refuses to lie about hiding Nazis, yet she is willing to lie on a federal legal document. She claimed that ISI promised her “time to take master’s degree classes at Princeton.” Yet at the time she was working for ISI she hadn’t even finished her Bachelor’s degree, much less been accepted into a Master’s program.
She also seems to have lied about a whole bunch of other stuff, which raises questions about her credibility.
The fact is that if she had a D behind her name rather than an R, her conservative defenders would be trashing her. We shouldn’t hold our candidates to a lower standard just because they agree with us on key issues.
September 20th, 2010 | 10:02 am
On the lying issue, I think that she’s wrong and her position is a bit foolish, but it’s not an unusual opinion among conservative Evangelical Christians. I remember having discussions concerning it in my youth group. So while I don’t think it’s a good sign of intellectual rigor, I wouldn’t say that it automatically disqualifies one for political office.
September 20th, 2010 | 10:32 am
Dear Joe Carter: Thank you for the information; I will check further into this.
September 20th, 2010 | 10:38 am
Craig,
Here’s a good article about it on the Weekly Standard that lays out the facts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/citing-mental-anguish-christine-odonnell-sought-69-million-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-again
I was trying to avoid bringing up this stuff in the original post since I didn’t really want to get into the mud-slinging about her. I truly would love to be able to fully support O’Donnell. But she is not only completely inexperienced, she has a history of issues that raise questions about her integrity.
I can overlook a lot of stuff (e.g., the dabbling in witchcraft) but for me, character is paramount. A politician who has a history of dishonesty isn’t someone I can endorse.
September 20th, 2010 | 6:20 pm
Joe Carter,
You make a good point, and I can sympathise with your uneasiness about superficiality, but you run the risk of being even less realistic about the Senate than O’Donnell’s supporters are.
There are systemic barriers in place that prevent honest, smart, modest, well-spoken, highly qualified people from attaining high office in this country, and that goes much deeper than Ms. O’Donnell and her primary race. She might make an easy target, but it isn’t as though she stole the nomination from Cicero Jr.. She beat a bland pragmatist who also falls far below the 99th percentile in any survey of qualification.
September 27th, 2010 | 2:20 am
Joe – I noticed the lack of an answer regarding your claim that it could be immoral NOT to lie. I resubmit: Are are you not trying to redirect the moral object of an act (here a lie) based upon intention or circumstances?
The axiom “malum ex quocumque defectu” encapsulates the point that the whole act becomes evil if disordered in one of its moral sources. (CCC, nos. 1755-1756; Citing St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia-IIae, 18.4, ad 3; 19.6, ad 1).
While one may not owe the Nazi guards the truth, it would still be immoral to outright LIE. To deny this point, one must drink deeply of the consequentialist’s kool-aid. (I think Kant, whom you cite, would also disagree with you.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact