Presidential Candidates: Be Submissive to Your Husbands

A cartoon showed people visiting a museum of ancient history and looking at an exhibit of a husband, wife and children having dinner. The label on the exhibit was "The American Family c. 1950." The point seemed to be to mock the liberal idea that the traditional family is doomed and soon to be an object of idle curiosity and fascination.

I was reminded of that cartoon when I watched the question posed to Michelle Bachmann by a member of the media last night in the Iowa debate. He obviously wanted to take advantage of the rare opportunity actually to ask a question of a real, live, dinosaur before the extinction of these exotic beasts was complete. So, in the spirit of an anthropologist probing the mindset of a member of a tiny aboriginal tribe, he asked: "What does it mean for you submit to your husband?" Perhaps he thought that merely pointing out that she had endorsed such a thing would be enough to discredit her. Or maybe he was genuinely curious.

Her answer was fine, if vague. Refusing to cast pearls before swine, she managed to sound completely normal and got applause from the audience.

But here is the answer I dearly wish she had given:

"(With a wink) Well, that is a good question. It means that my husband would really be running the country and I'd just be the, uh, "front man," so to speak - you know, sort of like in the Clinton White House back in the 90's."