Congressional Kerfuffles, Catholicism, and the Kansas City Kicker

What do fights between members of Congress and Kansas City Kickers have in common?  We explore the arguments of the roles of women in our society.  

Transcript

Congressional Kerfuffles, Catholicism, and the Kansas City Kicker

May 2024

Two seemingly unrelated events occurred this month, thousands of miles apart, both geographically and institutionally. Yet they both contain a common theme. What is the role of women in society?   

The first was the Congressional kerfuffle.  Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Kong vs. Godzilla, or Sparta vs. Athens.  No, seriously, forget those things because this feud is more akin to mean girls in the school cafeteria than Lincoln vs. Douglas.  We will get to those two later.  

Here is what happened: There was a nighttime hearing to advance a contempt of Congress resolution against Attorney General Merrick Garland for not turning over audio of President Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.  Though the featured performers were women, the tone of the session was actually started by a man.  For all of the focus on the needlessly antagonistic MAGA types like Thomas Massie, the left has its share of bombastic fools, in this case committee co-chairman Jamie Raskin,

As Armond White, movie critic points out, “It’s important to point out that the quarrel actually started with a man — the Oversight co-chairman, Maryland’s Democrat Jamie Raskin, who stirred the pot, alleging that some Republican members’ “pilgrimage” to the Trump trial in New York supported “an adjudicated fraudster and rapist” and that they were displaying their “fierce devotion to a devout and pious spiritual leader who many are calling Messiah.”

The session quickly devolved into chaos, with Democrats blasting the GOP for postponing the hearing so several members could visit former President Trump’s trial and Republicans heckling them in response. Tensions reached a fever pitch when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) remarked that Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) has “fake eyelashes,” which immediately brought the always ready to strangle the spotlight AOC into the fray.  

“That is absolutely unacceptable! How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person. Mark her words down.” As if cameras were not already capturing them.

“Aww, are your feelings hurt?” Greene sarcastically asked. 

“Oh girl, baby girl, don’t even play,” Ocasio-Cortez hit back. 

“Baby girl? I don’t think so,” Greene said. 

Greene later challenged Ocasio-Cortez on why she wouldn’t debate her. 

“I think it’s pretty self-evident,” Ocasio-Cortez replied.

“Yeah, you don’t have enough intelligence,” Greene hit back, spurring a round of boos and jeers from committee members.

Crockett, who had the opportunity to take the high road, well, astonishingly didn’t. She shot yelled that Greene has a “bleach blonde, bad built, butch body.” I have to say, in terms of 9-year-old schoolyard taunts, Crocket did win the day.  And she later noted, “y’all talk noise.”  And “Y’all don’t want to play.” Well.  We had a reality TV show president, and now we have a version in Congress.  Of course, this is like one of those contests in which drunken high schoolers try to see whose flatulence is the loudest. But even in those scenarios there are no cameras or recording devices, which I cannot help but think was the true impetus for the fracas.  With this Congress, I am quickly running out of child analogies.  Crockett is 43.  Greene, the purported instigator, is nearly 50, by the way.  

If you read the transcripts without context, you would be forgiven for thinking this was the girls throwing down outside the club at 3:00 AM after having too many blue martini mother effers (yes that is drink they serve in the club, but do not take my word for it, for obvious reasons, I do not go clubbing). But it was not Girls Gone Wild after all, no, it was members of Congress. You know, the folks who spend $4 trillion per year and provide oversight to the executive branch.   

“Most people probably don’t even know what the hearing was on,” said one House Democrat. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) complained at one point: “We have some members in the room who are drinking inside the hearing room ... who are not on this committee.”

Remember that we have about 290 million American citizens of voting age, and these are among the 435 we selected for Congress.  Don’t blame this cat-tastrophe (see what I did there); blame the benighted American people who chose these clowns.  Actually, my apologies to former employees of Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey; the clowns in the circus were much more dignified.  My issue is that we have reality TV shows, rock stars, movie actors, and so-called influencers.  They can entertain us.  There is even this thing called sports. You might be familiar.  But Congress is there to do three big thing: pass laws, spend money (or not though that is rare as the dodo) and monitor the other two branches. 

This has brought the usual chorus of too online types, mostly male but a few women, wondering whether the allowance of women into the halls of power is worth it.  The Babylon Bee, trying hard to put a farcical spin on an existing farce, was game for the contest, suggesting that the men in Congress are considering both the revocation of the 19th amendment and setting up a separate women’s congress house (that is pink and looks like Barbie’s dream home (of course) so the men can get work done.  

The bee is not serious, but some of the too-on-liners are, and to them, I say that position is stupid for two reasons. The first is history, and the second is that it is stupid and dumb. I need not expand on the second, but for the first, two stories from the same period, the 1850s America.  

In the annals of American history, Preston Brooks and Charles Sumner resonate as emblematic figures of a deeply divided nation on the brink of civil war. Their literal and ideological collision in the chambers of Congress in 1856 serves as a stark illustration of the tensions that fueled the conflict over slavery and the broader question of states’ rights versus federal authority. Preston Brooks, a firebrand pro-slavery advocate from South Carolina, and Charles Sumner, a staunch abolitionist senator from Massachusetts, represented polar opposite viewpoints on the issue of slavery, embodying the deep-seated animosities that permeated American society during the antebellum period.

Preston Brooks fervently believed in the right of states to determine their laws regarding slavery, vehemently opposing any federal interference or encroachment on what he perceived as a matter of states’ sovereignty. His actions in the infamous caning of Charles Sumner were driven by a sense of duty to defend the honor and interests of the South against perceived Northern aggression and abolitionist rhetoric.

In contrast, Charles Sumner emerged as one of the most vocal and uncompromising abolitionists in Congress, advocating for the immediate emancipation of slaves and full equality for African Americans. A Harvard-educated lawyer with a keen intellect and a commanding presence, Sumner’s speeches on the Senate floor were characterized by their eloquence and moral fervor. He condemned slavery as a moral abomination and a violation of the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in the Constitution. Sumner’s scathing denunciations of the “Slave Power” and its supporters, including Brooks and his fellow Southern politicians, made him a target of intense hostility and resentment among pro-slavery forces.

The clash between Brooks and Sumner reached its climax on May 22, 1856, when Brooks assaulted Sumner on the Senate floor with a cane, delivering a brutal beating that left Sumner bloodied and unconscious. The attack, which occurred in full view of horrified onlookers, shocked the nation and further inflamed sectional tensions. While Brooks viewed his actions as a righteous defense of Southern honor, they were widely condemned in the North as a cowardly and brutal act of violence.

Despite their ideological differences, the legacies of Preston Brooks and Charles Sumner endure as symbols of the tumultuous era in which they lived. Brooks was remembered for his violent defense of the Southern way of life and became a hero to many in the South. At the same time, Sumner was hailed as a martyr for the cause of freedom and remained a towering figure in the history of American abolitionism. Their clash is a cautionary tale of the perils of extremism and the tragic consequences of failing to reconcile competing visions of justice and liberty in a diverse and divided society.

Brooks was an idiot for reasons beyond his physical assault.  But he was not alone.  Aaron Burr was the sitting Vice President of the United States when he killed Alexander Hamilton over a political dispute. Andrew Jackson fought duels over the honor of his wife and carried a lead ball inside his body.  And Donald Trump is, well, Donald Trump.  

Men can be emotional, overwrought, short-sighted, easily flummoxed, and operate out of fear.  Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain in the 1980s, was cool and collected, far-sighted, aggressive, and resolute.  I think I have made my point because these stereotypical attributes are applied by sex, and in this case, they are reversed.  And forget Greene vs. Crocket.  You just know that if he had his druthers, Kevin McCarthy would love to punch Matt Gaetz in the face (probably not alone in that fantasy), but he has enough sense of decorum and personal dignity (and not wanting to get arrested and face a civil lawsuit) to act on that impulse. Men do express their emotions differently (yes there are differences folks) but it is not as the history of Congress, or some of the male members today are shining differentiators from what we saw from the women.  

Another example from two years after the Brooks assault. During the Illinois Senate seat campaign in 1858, the incumbent, Stephen Douglas, and his opponent, Abraham Lincoln, engaged in seven debates across the state, each lasting over two hours.  

Douglas: 

“That we believe this truth to be self-evident, that when parties become subversive of the ends for which they are established or incapable of restoring the government to the true principles of the Constitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dissolve the political bands by which they may have been connected therewith, and to organize new parties upon such principles and with such views as the circumstances and exigencies of the nation may demand.”

Lincoln: 

“But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle, and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.”

Greene: Fake eyelashes

AOC: Baby Girl

Jasimine Crocket: “Y’all don’t want to play” 

Lincoln was an ill-educated man, but he believed that to be taken seriously as a politician, much less a Senator, much less a president, he should sound educated and informed.

Yet here we have several house members who are intentionally acting dumber to construct a false patina of streetwise, populist nonsense. AOC has degrees in economics and international relations from Boston University and worked for Senator Ted Kennedy’s office, where she focused on immigration issues. Did she use street slang in her interview for that position or with the admissions director at Boston U?  As White points out, “Fact is, AOC’s outdated, pseudo-affectionate slam is not nomenclature she picked up from her monied Westchester background. Nor is it even slang from her alma mater, Boston University (Andy Cohen also graduated from BU). “Baby girl” was the affectation of a scheming politician imitating home-girl realness. AOC faked grassroots sistahhood, Real Housewives–style.”

And Crocket?  She attended Mary Institute and St. Louis Country Day School (a swanky institution) and Rosati-Kain. She graduated from Rhodes College in 2003 with a Bachelor of Arts in business administration. As an undergraduate, Crockett planned to become an anesthesiologist or certified public accountant before deciding to attend law school. She later attended the University of Houston Law Center, graduating in 2006 with a Juris Doctor.  This is not a high school dropout without education.   

The fact that we still see this as a woman thing and not what it really is, the advent of the performative Congressperson who would rather post to social media and go on TV and project an attitude aligned with the sensibilities of the left, and in many cases that means an alignment with what they perceive to be African American culture. Yet I have seen dozens of interviews with Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, and Condoleezza Rice, and all would be embarrassed if they ever addressed an opponent as “baby girl.” Non educated Lincoln tried to appear to be educated.  The late great Walter Williams grew up in Philadelphia projects.  He had the same goal.  Over educated AOC wants to sound un educated.  This is the sound and tone of the new social media, populist politics.  

All of this, as opposed to, you know, legislating, despite working for the legislative branch, tells a lot more about this crowd than their sex.  As Michael Corleone might put it, Jamaal Bowman pulling a fire alarm or Chip Roy thundering at a witness in a hearing without asking a single question is part of the same hypocrisy.  Unlike Brooks, Greene’s comment was not necessarily borne out of direct malice, and probably not racism as (of course) was immediately suggested but rather that of cunning calculation.  AOC’s immediate castigations and how they were delivered were not true umbrage, but rather, that is what online AOC would do, so the real one must follow suit.  Greene, AOC, and Crockett will fundraise from this.  A Crocket bleach blonde, bad built, butch body is already on sale.  

Yet this raised the concept of the role of women in our society, and this was not the only one these past few weeks. Harrison Butker, up until this week, was known for two things: an incredible kicking leg for the Super Champion Kansas City Chiefs and an odd name. That has changed.  

Giving a commencement speech at Catholic Benedictine University in Atchison, Kansas, Butker noted, 

“I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you will get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and mother. I’m on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I’m beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.”

Even reading these words safely in my home office I can hear the “uh ohs” followed by massive off and online hordes descending on Butker.  Now, I have to disagree with his assessment.  I had a mother of whom I never questioned her love of me but often questioned her desire to be a homemaker.  I grew up amidst books written by Betty Friedan and pamphlets from something called NOW.  When my mother became a reference librarian, staffing a role whose primary purpose was to enable the delivery of information, of anything, to anyone in a public library, I knew that was her calling.  Later on, in her too-short life (she died of cancer at 60), she would often demonstrate her intelligence and wisdom. I knew there was little she would not do for me and my brothers, but that was not her sole nor paramount way to happiness.  I was a callow youth in the early 1990s when, as a seeker and purveyor of information, she told me about this thing called the Internet and how important it would be.  I didn’t get it and, evidently, did not get her DNA when it came to brain power. But I digress.

Writing for the Tennessean, Nicole Russell noted that Butker was right, 

“What Butker describes is an orthodox view of the roles of men and women, which holds that women are happiest and most satiated at home, raising children and being a wife. For women who want to be homemakers and are married to kind, selfless, and humble men who aren’t obsessed with submission as a means of control, this lifestyle could be healthy for dedicated partners. Given the declining birth rate, it is certainly good for society for women to have babies. For a lot of women, this is the case. It’s exhausting to see a mantra of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in corporations, schools, colleges, and organizations around the United States. However, it means only certain views are tolerated; only certain belief systems can be spoken of publicly.”

Yet Russell goes on to say, 

“Still, Butker’s remark that all women will wish they chose motherhood over choosing a career is both a false binary and a bit more complicated. Not all women will want to become moms over becoming attorneys, and not all attorneys will be happier as stay-at-home moms or homemakers.”

Haley Strack, writing for National Review, concurs with the later part of Russell’s comments, 

“The basic premise of Butker’s speech — that men and women should prioritize their respective vocations — is a wonderful message for recent graduates. It’s noble to encourage young Catholics to get married, have children, and be spiritual leaders in an anti-Catholic world. That said, getting married, having children, and being a homemaker is not a vocation every woman desires or pursues. Nor is it an easily achievable one. Nor is it the right one for every woman.” 

But here is also part of the issue. Butker was not posting this on Substack or using a press conference for his work as part of the NFL. He was delivering what is still a Catholic view at a Catholic University to a group of graduates, the vast majority of whom, it can be assumed, are Catholics (in contrast to Notre Dame or Villanova, Catholic Universities that appear, like our Pope, to be part of an altogether different religion).

Adds Russell, “These are also traditional Catholic views. Butker spoke at Benedictine College, a Catholic private liberal arts school about 50 miles northwest of Kansas City, Missouri, where the Chiefs are headquartered. Without social media, no one would have known of the speech, much less made it the cause celeb of the week.” 

Women’s equality means the opportunity and the choice to conduct themselves with the rancor and emotion of Preston Brooks or with the erudition and dignity of a Condoleezza Rice.  I have seen enough of AOC to know that she does not really talk as she did at the hearing.  

And Greene? With her, it is probably not as much of a choice.  Crocket is perhaps trapped in the leftist interpretation of how an African American needs to act, so though she can sound more educated, it is not in her interest to do so, as a significant part of the culture might suggest she is “acting white.”  Some might conjecture this is AD saying that acting “white” is superior. No. It is not about language or accent, race or ethnicity. It is about conducting oneself with a weightiness that should befit someone making trillion-dollar decisions for the good of hundreds of millions.  These are not simple people doing simple work.  It is incredibly important, and the conduct should reflect that.  Want to get on social media? Quit Congress and become an influencer or commentator.  

And Butker’s comments?  The good news is that he is wrong at the core.  Just as women – and men (looking at you, Matt Gaetz) have a choice in their conduct, women should, and do have the option to become a homemaker, a careerist, or try for both, and their husbands, on several occasions, can staff the home front.  This is not about what you were born as but the decisions you make.  It is called agency, and it is the bedrock of the success of our nation.