Friday, April 13, 2012

Nancy Reagan, Ann Romney, And "The War on Women"

A story about Ronald Reagan - well, kind of.  From a contributor over at Ricochet, who tells a tale of watching clips of old an Mike Wallace interview with Ronald Reagan:

Wallace asked the President why the office didn't weigh on him like it had on others and the camera cut to a rosy cheeked, vibrant and twinkle-eyed Reagan and his response was "well, maybe they didn't have a Nancy."

"Maybe they didn't have a Nancy." Here was the most powerful man on the planet and when asked why he didn't get weighed down under the pressure he answered without thinking that his wife's support was the secret to his well being, success and happiness, that they were a team. How old-fashioned, how retro, how lovely.

"Maybe they didn't have a Nancy." Think of that quote and what she withstood for him at the time it was made, Nancy Reagan was one of the most vilified First Ladies, and not for political positions she held, like Eleanor Roosevelt or Hilary Clinton, but for supporting and protecting her husband. Yet she never wavered in her devotion to him.

Which of course brings us to the "War on Women", which is really a war waged by the Left upon women who dare to find a different way of making their impact upon the world - a way which might not include having a career, or staying single as a form of empowerment, or being in a "fulfilling gay relationship" (see Hilary Rosen), or having wanton, guilt-free sex with multiple partners using government-provided contraceptives.

And while I have always focused on this war's latter-day battles, I forget that Nancy Reagan was one of the first targets of the Left, precisely because she eschewed the political and embraced the personal aspects of her womanhood.

And that choice helped provide the nation with a leader whose infectious optimism and steely resolve changed the trajectory of American history from one of impending doom to one of a new dawn.  And that's according to The Man himself...

The Left prefers their First Ladies as policy wonks in man-pants, or as Mommies-in-Chief, hectoring America about their diets (while slipping off for a few corn dogs herself).  But not as moms.  Or wives. Or individuals capable and deserving of seeking out their own paths to fulfillment.

Look, any man who says he understands women is lying.  But what I do know about them is that they are wonderful creatures, each beautiful in their own way, regardless of shape, size, or color.  Every woman I have ever been close with - romantically or platonically - has brought something unique to the table, something that has intrigued me, mystified me, amazed me, impressed me.  Each and every one of them has been worthy of great respect.  And while I don't buy into the liberal male's nervous assertion that "women are better at everything", there are certainly some things they can do that our gender cannot.  And when it comes to feeling, or loving, or nurturing, and perhaps even instincts with a child, the female gender is without par.

Sure, they can be killers in the workplace too.  But they do not have to choose the 9 to 5 drudgery in order to have a fulfilling life.  What the left refuses to acknowledge is that woman can contribute mightily to society in ways not directly measurable on a one-size-fits-all economic scale.

But on a macro scale, these choice reverberate.  Just ask the lucky kids who got to see their moms when they tumbled home from school.  Or ask Ronald Reagan.

Or ask Mitt Romney, who seems to have his own Nancy by his side in the form of the brave and lovely Ann.  Bodes well for us all, I think...

No comments: