Matt Lewis successfully makes the case that Byron York was correct in questioning Mr. Bachmann’s influence on his wife, who seeks the highest office in the land.

First, a 2006 quote from Bachmann:

My husband said, now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord said, “Be submissive. Wives you are to be submissive to your husband.” And so we moved to Virginia Beach, Virginia, and I went to William and Mary Law School there, for a post-doctorate degree in tax law. And I pursued this course of study. Never had a tax course in my background, never had a desire for it, but by faith, I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband.

She moved to another state and pursued a post-doctorate degree in a field she didn’t like because her husband commanded her to do so. Her religious beliefs say she must listen and be submissive even against her better judgment, if her husband says it’s right.

Which raises a question: What happens when she gets to the Oval Office? Who would really be in charge? The woman voters elected? Or her unelected husband? She says her religious beliefs require her to be submissive to his will, even against her better judgment.

Okay.

What happens when she’s got her finger on the button? I don’t mean literally, of course. We’re not talking nuclear war, but rather figuratively the position of president. She would be the one elected a chief executive. What happens if her husband tells her a policy or decision is right, even if she doesn’t agree? Does she abandon her religious beliefs? Or does she bow to his will?

This is a legitimate question. Once you put it out there that you’re religiously submissive to someone else, it’s entirely legitimate for voters to wonder how you’ll function as the most powerful person in the world. Would you even be the most powerful person? Or would that role fall to your husband, who you admit you’re submissive towards?

Because to avoid her husband ruling via proxy, we’d have to count on one of two things: 1) She decides to abandon her stated religious beliefs and place her judgment ahead of his; or 2) We’d have to take the word of her husband that he won’t try to interfere with her decisions.

Imagine a scenario in which she’s forced to make a difficult decision. She wants to do one thing, her husband thinks a different way is the right choice. What does she do? Submit to her husband’s will as she says her religious beliefs require? Or abandon her beliefs and tell him she’s in charge?

As for any kind of promise that could be made that her husband wouldn’t interfere, that wouldn’t suffice. We conservatives don’t believe in “trust me” government, as Ronald Reagan said:

“Trust me” government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. But my view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties

Bachmann has to explain how her admitted submissive attitude would affect her as president. Would she abandon her long-held beliefs? The beliefs that led her to move to another state and pursue a degree she didn’t want? Or would she submit to the will of her husband, as she has said her beliefs require? Or are we expected to “trust” that her husband simply won’t interfere? Unless of course he decides to one day?

These are fair questions to answer. And Bachmann’s supporters would be admitting as much if the situation involved Barack Obama having said he submits to the will of his wife. We’re electing someone to the nation’s top office. We have the right to know whether that person would actually be making the decisions, or if he/she would be following the directives of another, unelected person.