There was an interesting (and unsettling) moment in the GOP Presidential Debate in New Hampshire this past Saturday, and it revolved around the idea of sending our women to war. For the most part, we conservatives have long been against the idea of sending our daughters off to war (generally speaking), but in recent years the cultural tide has shifted and we’ve seen the fairer sex take a more active place in our military. This has come at some cost to our culture and to our civic sensibilities, but it has not been a devastating blow. While many conservatives still argue that women should not be placed into direct combat, we do recognize their right to defend our country if the so desire. However, the idea that we may soon be forcing our girls to enroll for Selective Service in case the draft is reinstated is abhorrent and a bridge too far for this conservative.
I expect our liberal opponents to endorse and champion such an idea, but to hear during the debate that several of the GOP candidates hold the same position was truly depressing.
Watch as [score]Marco Rubio[/score], Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all come out in vocal support of forcing our daughters to go to war.
No one spoke out against the idea during the debate, but one candidate has since stood up to call the idea “Nuts”! Apparently, only Senator [score]Ted Cruz[/score] (R-TX) understands that the idea of forcing women to sign up for Selective Service is both immoral and ill conceived.
During a speech in New Hampshire on Sunday Cruz told a crowd that he simply could not believe what his fellow Republicans were saying.
“It was striking that three different people on that stage came out in support of drafting women into combat in the military. I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was: Are you guys nuts?”
Pinning blame for the idea on political correctness, Cruz said forcing women into close combat “is wrong, is immoral and, if I’m president, we ain’t doing it.”
“We have enough political correctness – especially in the military,” he said.
Cruz said his two daughters can do “anything in their heart’s desire,” but added “the idea that the government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all.”
In the aftermath of the debate conservative Christian leaders around the country have been standing up and speaking out against forcing our girls into the draft. From the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics wing came this denouncement of the proposed new military policy:
That we’re having this conversation reveals that America is less humane and gentlemanly, and that we’ve surrendered to our progressive zeitgeist. It is unacceptable.
America, this shouldn’t be hard. Nations ought not send their daughters into battle, but God forbid, if wars arise, it ought to be sons that do the nation’s bidding. Anyone with an iota of commonsense and an eye toward reality knows we shouldn’t sacrifice our daughters to battle—and especially not to the spirit of the age. Perhaps we’ve arrived at this point because the voices of anti-reason want every last vestige of natural difference obliterated in order to fulfill their dystopic dream of egalitarianism over everything else. America may fall victim to such erroneous ideologies that intentionally puts women in harm’s way, but it will not count my daughters as casualties for its cause—ever.
Pastor Douglas Wilson of Moscow, Idaho’s Christ Church and New Saint Andrews College was even more clear and outspoken.
Once you have signed off on the nation/state conscripting your daughters to go serve in combat roles, whatever it was you thought you were conserving — thus allowing you to call yourself a conservative — has had a fork stuck in it and is done. Nothing really to conserve any more.
A nation that conscripts its daughters for its defense is a nation that no longer deserves a defense. We may have to fight later as a practical matter, but this is a matter of rudimentary allegiance.
The compromise runs deep also (as it does with Christie and Bush), because the formal legality of women serving in combat roles is merely weeks old. The speed with which some Republicans roll over so quickly on issues like this is revelatory. If conservatism were an ornate Persian carpet, this is a six-inch swath of orange shag sewn into the middle of it.
Conscripted women in combat is progressivism, pure and simple. It is an essential part of their egalitarian new world order, and this is why we need something other than what Dabney called a certain kind of conservatism — “the shadow that follows radicalism to perdition.”
Conservatives, we must stand in defense of our daughters and fight back against the liberal progressives immoral tyranny. Our daughters deserve that we fight for them.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com