In which I beg to differ

For those of you who don't spend every free moment picking through the flotsam and jetsam that bobs endlessly on the surface of our political sea, you're probably not aware of the existence of one Bob McDonnell. Mr. McDonnell, a former Virginia attorney general and member of that state's legislature, is in the early stages of a run for the governorship as a Republican. So far, no big whoop.

What is causing him no small headache is a graduate thesis he wrote twenty years ago while attending Pat Robertson's Regent University. In it, he expressed some... colorful views on women, contraception and gays, among others. His opponent, as well as the liberal blogs, have been all over it.

From TPM:

The Washington Post yesterday reported on the masters thesis of Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell. As the paper noted, McDonnell argued, among other things, that working women and feminists are "detrimental" to the family; that government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators;" and that the court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples was "illogical," because at the time non-marital sex was itself a crime.

[snip]

Soon after calling the Supreme Court's decision on contraceptives "illogical," McDonnell blasts "the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state" (pg. 15). It was essentially that "perverted notion of liberty," of course, that the Supreme Court would uphold in 2003 when it struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law.

There's a lot there, and it's all quite conservative and out of keeping with what one would call moderate social policy. In other words, it's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to be written in a graduate thesis by a student at a university founded by Pat Robertson.

Over at Ordinary Gents, Will has ruled the thesis as out of bounds for current political consideration. He writes:

There is such a thing as a sincere change of heart. McDonnell hasn’t disavowed everything he wrote, but he’s definitely walked back some of his more controversial views. In light of the fact that this was written 20 years ago, I’m inclined to give McDonnell the benefit of the doubt. Politicians should at least pretend to be open to empirical or ethical persuasion, and unless the pol in question has a history of being an egregious liar, I’m willing to accept the “changed my mind” explanation at face value.

[snip]

...I’m wary of the chilling effect academic witch-hunts have on the interaction between experts and politicians. Presumably, we want our political leaders to get advice from academics, who are disinterested and frequently more knowledgeable on a particular subject. Academic documents are also fundamentally different from political ones – they’re less vetted, more exploratory, and ultimately less subject to artificial political constraints. I think this is a good thing, and I’d like to see more practical interaction between the academy and policy-makers precisely because academics have more freedom to come up with good ideas.

As Will notes, McDonnell has indicated that his personal views have not informed his priorities thus far, and will not impact the kind of policy he will implement if he is to be elected. Fair enough. But I don't think it's particularly surprising or objectionable that people have seized upon the thesis and have expected McDonnell to make an accounting of it.

First of all, it is hopelessly naive for any candidate for any major political office to expect any published material to go un-scrutinized or un-exploited. For crying out loud, look at the brouhaha that erupted over a single reference to a "wise latina" that Justice Sotomayor made in one speech many years ago. This is the world in which we live, and it is pointless to pretend that we're all too high-minded to delve into the murky past of any candidate for dirt.

Further, I think it is entirely legitimate for people to want to know the social views of their prospective governor. And the views in that thesis are extreme. Do I think that they automatically disqualify McDonnell from office? No, I most certainly do not. It is not unreasonable, as Will notes, to take him at his word when he claims that his views have changed with time. (It would be an understatement of epic proportions to say that my own social views have changed in twenty years.) But neither is it unreasonable for people to ask about what he said, what he believes now, and how those beliefs would impact how he governed the state.

Will goes on to compare McDonnell's ordeal to the travails of Cass Sunstein, whose lengthy academic paper trail was used against him during his confirmation to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. To which I say, Cass Sunstein must surely have known that it was coming, unless he has been writing those articles for The New Republic from a cave on Mars for lo these many years. Perhaps, as Will suggests, this kind of academic mining will dissuade academics from entering the political sphere. That might be unfortunate in the abstract, but an aphorism about heat and kitchens springs to mind.