One Less Congresswoman, One More Mother

Politics is a peculiar trade, yet it is often defined by many self-proclaimed news junkies (with the same masterful facade as the politicians they claim to ire) as “cutthroat,” “ruthless,” “fast-paced,” or, my personal favorite, “fun.” However, in my experience of being around people who are genuinely in it for more than glorified gossip has led me to the realization that although there is real merit in having conversations, asserting beliefs, and mastering the art of rhetoric, the two most important skills in any environment of political discourse are the ability to give a direct, clear answer, and the ability to admit that in the end, we do not know. 

To win in politics is to pretend to know. To succeed in politics is to admit that it is impossible to ever know. 

If I’ve learned anything from spending 20 hours watching Trump 2.0 confirmation hearings, exhaustively screening NewsNight with Abby Phillip, listening to the The Michael Knowles Show and C SPAN's Washington Today, and my Saturday afternoon stints of Firing Line reruns, it’s been that rarely do people give a simple yes-or-no answer. It is so rare, in fact, that when someone does, it is always met with intrigued eyebrow raises from the interlocutor, as if they had admitted to being the technician behind a hologram known as “The 1969 Touchdown,” or the umpteenth conspirator behind the JFK assassination. 

Which is why the recent Johnsonian-Paulinian struggle over proxy voting seemed no different than any other Great Expectations-esqe House drama. 

While the Paulinians -including those from the rather Conservative wing of the party- rally around the same woman who sat there agreeably when her colleague diminished Congress to an old stomping ground for old white men, Johnsonians hail the omnipotence of the constitution, lauding it as the alpha and omega of all modern political decisions. But both sides fail to recognize the major point (probably because Republicans are not yet comfortable with raising the standard of conservatism it upholds just yet).

Rhetoric is important. It’s what wins elections and influences the direction of all of American society. But because of its less popular status in the public square, the root virtues of an issue are often sacrificed at the altar of the idea that catchphrases rally enough cultural consensus. This is the reason why many mainstream pro-lifers (especially those elected to a representative body) dance around the controversy of IVF. The idea that something as small as a fertilized egg is a human with infinite dignity also correlates directly with the issue of babies conceived in a petri dish, making the argument against abortion easily adaptable to the argument against IVF. However this issue has been somewhat swept under the rug due to Republicans’ fears of losing too much support from the pro-life, pro-IVF crowd. 

The same thing happened with the issue of proxy voting. It is wrong to advocate for proxy voting on the premise that Congress was only made for old white men, because that is not really why it's wrong. Essentially, proxy voting is wrong because every child has a natural right to a present, supportive mother. It is true that children are deprived of this through no fault of their own, however any mother that is prioritizing her career over her child is voluntarily depriving him of his right when he could otherwise have it. If that child’s mother serves in Congress, even with proxy voting, anyone who pays even the slightest attention to the palace intrigue of late night vote-a-ramas, budget deliberations, night-long hearings, or overall interstate travel can deduce that a mother will be a significantly less present, active, and supportive mother in her child’s life.

Anna Paulina Luna is no more of a Conservative than her pointy-headed Liberal allies. After all, the first idea of Liberalism is that the family a child is born into is only nature’s mere suggestion on how to model one’s life, and that it is not only okay, but often empowering to abandon that at the behest of the adult’s own selfish desires. The first idea of Liberalism is that the individual will thrive better when he atomizes himself and prioritizes his own volition with little to no concern for what will happen to the people he has an obligation to. 

The real, ideologically consistent reason why anyone who dares to call himself a Conservative ought to be against this measure is because conservatism rejects this idea. The first belief that Conservatism is predicated on is that babies are born with inherent, unbreakable, sacred bonds with their mother and father, which imply the parents giving up their desires of a wayward life or other self-centered desires to raise the child that will eventually both return the favor and pay it forward. 

Liberals may love to repeat this in a snarky tone to mock Conservatives, but yes, we do live in a society. 

Whether it be for power, fame, or instant name recognition, Anna Paulina Luna is not pushing for proxy voting instead of stepping down from the role at the risk of a loss in a special election in deep red FL-13. Conservatism does not place one woman’s employment desires over the right of her son to have a present mother who can devote her heart fully to their covenant that began at conception. 

There are only two choices a congresswoman can make that would allow her to put 100% effort into whatever she is doing. The first is to put off her desire to climb the professional ladder, lengthen her resume, and commit to having a happy healthy family. The second is to commit herself fully to the task of properly voting on the House floor and put off having children until she has satisfied her thirst for power and recognition. The Conservative position is unyielding. Family matters. The most important thing any human can leave behind is a legacy, not a reputation. Anna Paulina Luna’s legislative history, voting record, and floor speeches will soon be forgotten, yet her family will live on for generations to come.

Even on a more practical note, if I were a member of Florida’s thirteenth district, in a country where we still recognized both the importance of committed motherhood and the implications of the Constitution, I would be more at ease that proxy voting wouldn’t be allowed, out of anticipation of what future congressmen would stretch it’s limits to. Anna Paulina Luna claims that she personally would never use the opportunity to party in the Virgin Islands, completely ignoring the fact that we do live in a society where our actions have repercussions on other people, a fact that Conservatives center all cultural beliefs around. 

If I may engage in the art of rhetoric in the face of a loaded accusation, I refuse to give a simple “yes” or “no” to the idea that I oppose proxy voting ultimately because me and my Conservative peers would like to keep women in the home. It is unfair to equate giving birth to new life with rambling on the House floor to a C-SPAN audience of dozens of people. Though I suppose my lack of surprise at society’s attempt to do so hails from the post-sexual-revolution, ERA, Betty Friedan culture the United States has been blanketed in. We are not perfect at accepting this, as the Alex P. Keaton-type, overachieving workaholics many Conservatives are, but life is not all about checking boxes, adding to resumes, writing words, and making money. The genuine pro-family, pronatalist position is: 1) that mothers are important; 2) that motherhood should be encouraged; and 3) that the best way to improve society is not by voting, (either by proxy or in person) but by responsibly raising the Americans that will be taking this country into the future. I suppose this serves as Anna Paulina Luna’s extravagant exit from the Conservative movement, and entry into Liberal Capitol Hill activism. 

Women always need to be so overly dramatic with things!