Billy Graham, Mike Pence, and the Death of Democracy
Depend on it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. […] We have only the Names of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight. — John Adams (14 April 1776)
In 1948, The Reverend Billy Graham held a series of events in Modesto, California. His evangelical team at the time included Bev Shea, Grady Wilson, and Cliff Barrows. While the post-war years saw an increase in evangelicalism and revivals, a number of prominent revivalists were brought down by allegations of impropriety. Graham and his team wanted to avoid any such possibility. From these meetings, then, they developed what would become known as the “Modesto Manifesto,” though no written document exists.
The “Manifesto” that emerged addressed a number of contemporary concerns, including the misappropriation of money, exaggeration of crowd sizes, and criticisms of local churches. However, according to Seth Dowland and the Christian History Institute, nothing was on their minds more than sex. In part, the concern with sex was a sign of the changing times. In part, it was a result of Graham’s good looks. And, in part, it was to avoid the pitfalls that had snared other evangelists. But from that day forward, Graham vowed never to eat, to travel, or to meet with another woman who was not his wife (Ruth), unless someone else was present.
In recent years, the rule has taken on a new life, and a new name. Some now call the refusal to meet along with a woman the Mike Pence Rule. A 2017 story in The Washington Post noted that Pence will not eat a meal with a woman other than his wife. Furthermore, he will not attend an event that serves alcohol if his wife is not also in attendance.
Mike Pence is not alone in this ideology and this practice. For example, Republican Robert Foster — now running for Governor of Mississippi — also adheres to the rule. When a reporter — who happened to be a woman — asked if she could shadow him during his workday, he refused her request. His campaign manager explained that a male reporter would have to accompany her on the assignment, because the optics would be inappropriate. The ride-along would open him up to a “smear campaign” and insinuations of “an extramarital affair.” Despite criticisms, Foster maintains that it is a true expression of his Christian faith. Oddly enough, a second Mississippi gubernatorial candidate, Bill Waller, Jr., says that he, too, adheres to the rule. He just thinks it’s common sense in this day and age.
The Wikipedia entry on the Billy Graham Rule suggests that the rule had four major functions: “It is adopted as a display of integrity, a means of avoiding sexual temptation, to avoid any appearance of doing something considered morally objectionable, and to avoid being accused of sexual harassment.” As you can see, they are four very different kinds of things. I would suggest that the arguments for, and application of, the Graham/Pence Rule fall into several categories: religious, sexual, and political.
The religious strictures are not new. Women are not to be temptations to men. Women ought not mix with men. Women must dress modestly in order not to tempt men into sin and damnation. Women ought not be allowed to preach to men. Men must, as Graham put it, avoid the “appearance of evil.” Both Pence and Foster expressly stated that their adherence to the rule was a direct expression of their Christian faith. I have news for them, however, the 17th century Mexican nun Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz saw right through that argument. According to her, if a man gives in to temptation, the fault is his, not hers. In 2017, Katelyn Beaty wrote that Jesus himself chastised followers for “fastidiously keeping the religious traditions while neglecting the greater law.” Beaty, much like Sor Juana, concludes that the answer is to hold men accountable for their actions.
The second category refers to sexual impropriety — or the appearance of sexual impropriety. Men like Pence and Foster argue that they must not even appear to do anything inappropriate. This practice contains three aspects: temptation, respect for his wife, and fear of reprisal. As noted above, men have traditionally seen women as tempters best to be avoided. This fear, however, says a more about the man than the woman. Is he so morally and physically weak that he cannot even bear to be in another woman’s presence? That he must exclude her from legally mandated access to business dealings? Secondly, Pence has noted that he maintains his distance from women, upholds the Graham rule so that his wife need not worry. He does so out of respect for her. One can hardly object to someone respecting their life partner. Again, the argument comes from a place of weakness. A strong relationship weathers all kinds of temptations.
Finally, Pence, Foster, and Waller all note the fear of reprisal. In the #MeToo era, they simply cannot take the chance to be caught in a compromising situation, or, to have a completely innocent situation turned into something compromising. For one, the number of false accusations is miniscule. The ones who have something to fear are the ones who do something inappropriate. Keep your hands to yourself. Don’t make sexually suggestive comments. You’ll be fine. But, they would argue, even if one does comport oneself perfectly, a photo could be posted online suggesting something unsavory. Is the fear of that unlikely scenario sufficient to discriminate against a female reporter trying to do her legal job? To be sure, publications such as The Federalist and The National Review think the rule is a good idea. They argue that it keeps lines clear, that it establishes professional guidelines and boundaries. Nonsense. It creates discrimination.
The third category is political.
Were our state a pure democracy there would still be excluded from our deliberations women, who, to prevent deprivation of morals and ambiguity of issues, should not mix promiscuously in gatherings of men. — Thomas Jefferson (5 September 1816)
Jefferson thought that — and was OK with — the exclusion of many groups and individuals from his version of democracy. But “pure democracy” demands the full participation of all its citizens. And women have fought and gained a place within government and society. Not an equal place, but making progress. Professions once closed off are now open to women. Women can now serve at all levels of government. At the federal level, women hold 23% of seats. Not parity, but infinitely better than in Jefferson’s day. But how on Earth are women supposed to operate in government if the men won’t meet with them because of their fear of temptation? Attitudes really have not changed that much since Adam’s and Jefferson’s day.
We have workplace rules about gender equality. Women cannot be excluded from participation. They cannot hold a team meeting, for example, in a strip club if that meeting would make a team member uncomfortable. That workplace rule can be extrapolated to women in government. Indeed, lawyer Joanna Grossman wrote that the Pence rule applied to workplace situations could well violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the law, any working dinner must allow access to anyone of any gender.
Some, like Pence himself, see the Graham/Pence as a step in the right direction, as a way of making America great again. They see it as a shining example of chivalry and moral rectitude. Make no mistake; it is neither of those things. The Graham/Pence rule is a step backward in time, an erosion of political and social gains. One more weapon in the War against Women.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of a book on feminist science fiction and editor of a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls.
