Party girls
Tuesday December 5, 2006
Meanwhile, in a Slate piece today, Michael Kinsley praises George W. and Laura Bush for keeping their twin girls, Jenna and Barbara, out of the media spotlight, and he agrees that now that the girls are adults, you can't blame...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Rod-
I guess forsaking all privilege to teach at a DC public school (Jenna) or joining her parents on a trip to Africa to see firsthand the scourge of poverty and AIDS (Barbara) somehow doesn't count in your narrow-minded little "bratz" view.
Have you done either of those things? If not, what does that make you?>
joining her parents on a trip to Africa to see firsthand the scourge of poverty and AIDS (Barbara) somehow doesn't count in your narrow-minded little "bratz" view.
I'm sorry, but a ride on Air Force One and a stay in a five-star hotel in between photo ops does not equate to doing a god-damned thing about poverty.
"seeing the scourge firsthand??"
Great - tragedy tourism. The new slumming.>
Since Rod brought up the World War II analogy, I thought I'd mention what the Roosevelt kids (okay, some of them were in their late 30's) did during WW2:
Anna Roosevelt: surrogate First Lady during Eleanor's many absences.
James: 2nd in command of a U.S. Marine commando unit.
Eliot: Bombadier in US Army Air Force.
Franklin Jr.: Naval officer who participated in the battle of Casablanca.
John: served in the Navy.
But then again, Georgetown didn't have near as many cool clubs back then...>
So what exactly are the Bush daghters doing with their lives? Do we know for a fact that they do nothing constructive, including holding down jobs or doing any sort of volunteer work? I would like to know the facts before criticizing them.>
For what it's worth:
Jenna: Jenna Bush Joins UNICEF Program in Paraguay for Young Professional Volunteers
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2547671
Barbara Bush: Bush daughter is said to volunteer in S. Africa
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/07/06/bush_daughter_is_said_to_volunteer_in_s_africa/
And, oh, I think the girls are/were on a two-week vacation in Latin America. It's not as if we hear about them constantly partying all the rest of the time, do we?>
Also, it's not like they've been charged with driving while under the influence.
">http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html>
How horrifingly sancatimonious of people to judge the Bush kids. Personally, I don't have any idea what those girls are up to, and don't care. But whether or not they serve the 'war effort' or Peace Corps is their business. 99% of most Americans haven't done squat for the war effort either, other than sink 25+% of our hard-earned income down the government black hole, with a good chunk of that going down the Iraq black hole. Regardless, of all things the Bush girls might be or not be doing, at least their not wasting their lives as a journalist, like Kinsley. Better to live a life of self-pursuit than spend each minute of ones day spewing forth lies and cynicism, like our media.>
Go take a chill pill, Andrew.
But whether or not they serve the 'war effort' or Peace Corps is their business. 99% of most Americans haven't done squat for the war effort either
No, but 99% of other Americans don't have a father who has sent other Americans' children to fight and die overseas.>
No, but 99% of other Americans don't have a father who has sent other Americans' children to fight and die overseas.
Oh, snap!>
I fail to see why the Bush girls are under some greater obligation to serve the war effort than any other person. They have no more control over their father than any of us does. Or do we just like the Old Testament idea of visiting the sins of the father on to all suceeding generations. Or perhaps the hatred of Bush is just so strong in some quarters, like this one, that any attack is justified. If you want to attack Bush have at it. But attacking his daughters is unjustified.>
"If you want to attack Bush have at it. But attacking his daughters is unjustified."
Amen!>
Oh, snap!
god_is_in_the_tv
Huh?>
I read this earlier today, and my reaction was that this was the worst piece of moral preening I've seen in Slate for a long time (and considering that I read Dahlia Lithwick regularly, that's saying quite a bit). Really, where does one even begin in trying to describe the moral imbecility that underpins this piece? I've resisted the implication by some that crunchy conservatism is merely an expression of moral superiority, but the fact that Rod thinks Kinsley's argument is anything other than such leads me to supsect there's something to the critics' point.
There are any number of points one might make in response. Here are a few:
1. Iraq is a tragedy, but Iraq is not World War II, a war of existential proportions. We have grown so powerful , wealthy, and populous, that we can engage in a regional war without the all-out effort put forth by the greatest generation. Are we therefore morally inferior when we do so? Do we really need to put our entire economy and populace on war-footing for every silly military adventure our leaders get us into? Are we less virtuous for not doing so in the face of dire need? And if it's not immoral for any one of us to go about our daily lives (or for those of us whose parents voted in favor of politicans who voted to fund the war--I mean, just how far does the responsibility run? This is a democracy after all.), why is it immoral for the Bush twins to go about their lives. Rod talks of noblesse oblige, but that strikes me as precisely backwards: It is of royalty (see Princess Di, or the Japanese imperial family after Kobe's earthquake) that we expect grand gestures of emotion and solidarity with the common people; such expectations--and the belief that the contributions of a presidential family member are inherently more valuable or meaningful--strike me as inimical to the American conception of the dignity and worth of every individual, as well as the values we claim to be fighting for, such as the freedom of each individual to define his or her own life.
2. When does the moral obligation kick in? Where was Chelsea when Clinton was busy bombing the former Yugoslav republics? Or was that not on a sufficient enough scale to give rise to the fuzzily defined obligation of presidential progeny to make some contribution to the common cause? Maybe it arises when the proportion of dead and wounded to the total force reaches a certain level? Say 5%? Presidential progeny should therefore be prepared, I take it, to drop whatever they're doing and contribute to the common good when, say, a special ops mission in some god-forsaken land goes awry and 15 of 20 personnel die. Right? If not, why not?
3. How long does the obligation extend? It seems there should be some proportionality between degree of harm inflicted by the president's decision and the duty of his offspring to make sacrifices, right? I sure hope President Truman's great-great grandchildren are shoveling s--t in some backwoods African AIDs clinic to atone for his dropping nuclear bombs on the Japanese (or is it only American lives that count in Kinsley and Rod's calculus?). And their grandchildren forty years from now, too. 'Cause Hiroshima really was awful, you know.
I came up with these three objections in five minutes, and I imagine more will come to me as I stew on this. For now, though, I'll just note that as much as I agree with Rod about the Bratz phenomenon, it's the flaccid moral reasoning in essays like Kinsley's that really lead me to despair for the future of our civilization. Just to remind folks: indignation over Bush's policies does not substitute for moral reasoning. Note the phrase: moral reasoning, not moral preening. More of the former, please.>
I too have to say that I think it is wrong to judge these girls. They have no control over their father and what he does. Does anyone even know what they do or not do?
The people I have a problem with is the ones who talk about what others should be doing without doing it themselves.>
I guess the Bush girls did what every parent wished; they learned well from their father and men like Dick Cheney. They might be wonderful kids, but they're a metaphor of what's wrong with our country. But, of course, almost zero children from the people who sent us to war are actually fighting in it (or doing anything else for that matter).>
No one dislikes Dubya more than me. I believe he deserves to be disgraced forever as an incompetent nincompoop.
However, I feel this discussion is over the line. First because the girls aren't responsible for the actions of their parents. It's not their fault their father is rapidly becoming as loved at home as he is in the Middle East.
Besides that, no pundit or self righteous critic can inflict the pain the Bush's must have felt when those pictures of Jenna removing her thong in public hit the internet.
That had to have broken their hearts. I felt the same kind of pain for them that I feel when I hear of a kid killing another kid. I feel pain for the parents of the killer just like I do for the parents of the victim.
So I say we need to back off the twins. They have to live with Dubya being their father, that's a big cross in itself. Dubya and Barbara have to live with daughters gone wild.
We need to just hug our own and be thankfull. Let it go at that.>
I sure hope President Truman's great-great grandchildren are shoveling s--t in some backwoods African AIDs clinic to atone for his dropping nuclear bombs on the Japanese (or is it only American lives that count in Kinsley and Rod's calculus?). And their grandchildren forty years from now, too. 'Cause Hiroshima really was awful, you know
Thank you, Richard. I now know that I don't have to take anything you say seriously.>
David,
Did I say something that bothered you? Are you not familiar with reductio ad absurdum? Does the person employing such tried-and-true methods of satire have to spell out that (1) he considers Hiroshima (along with prior fire-bombing of Japanese cities) to have been a morally horrific act, (2) that AIDS in Africa (and worldwide) is something that we should be devoting much more money and effort to treating, and (3) that serving on behalf of those afflicted with the disease is an honorable calling worthy of great respect?
If so, take two doses of Swift and call me in the morning. Sheesh.>
To make my argument clear for the satirically challenge: One basis (and there may be others) for criticizing the Bush daughters for their apparent indifference during our war in Iraq is that the children of leaders should be forced to bear some of the sacrifice that those leaders impose on the rest of the population (and perhaps even victims abroad). Fine. But if that's the case, where do you draw the line? As the act becomes more heinous, shouldn't the obligation of sacrifice become greater? And if a botched war in Iraq justifies imposing these sacrifices on the leaders' children, why doesn't the introduction of atomic weapons into warfare, not to mention the carnage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which many (including my relatives in Japan) would argue are far greater evils than anything Bush has done in Iraq, require this sacrifice to be carried a couple of generations downstream?
In other words, in condemning the Bush daughters, you're using some sort of moral calculus. I'm just trying to point out where that calculus logically leads. If I'm wrong, do me the honor of pointing out why; if I'm right, try to provide a different rationale for the criticism of the daughters. Casting me off as a pariah not worthy of a response is the easy way out, though if it satisfies your urge to make futile gestures of moral superiority, have at it. Just don't mislead yourself into thinking you've actually, like, won an argument. That requires a bit more work.>
"The president's twin daughters are celebrating their 25th birthday with a trip to Argentina. Apparently their trip has caused what's known as chaos, to the point where, according to ABCNews.com, the American embassy and many Argentinian officials have strongly suggested the twins return to America. Just to repeat, Argentina, former safe-haven for Nazi war criminals, is drawing the line at the Bush twins." --Jon Stewart>
sinsonte,
gotta be careful what you post, man. The satire-impaired on this board will no doubt quickly begin invoking Godwin's law and chastising you for drawing parallels between Bush's offspring and Nazi war criminals. Consider yourself warned. :-)>
What do you expect from Bush
young-uns? Daddy's a drunk, mamma killed a boy in high school, Auntie C in FL is a smuggler, Unka Neal's an embezzler (failed), and at least one cousin is a crack ho. Family tradition and all that.>
What are you doing Rod?>
I'm sure all who are so critical were super virtuous when they were in their 20's...I know I certainly was...;)>
What are you doing, Rod?>
Uh, Rod: Recall the problem Abe had with the missus? I think you are a little too Bush crazed. Take a deep breath. Besides, daughter Barbara HAS volunteered in AIDS clinics in Africa and Eastern Europe, while Jenna has done education volunteer work. (WPost 5/24/04)
And to their credit, they have done it quietly. This from the July 6, Boston Globe. Barbara was volunteering quietly at a Capetown hospital dealing with AIDS patients. "Barbara Bush's experience in Africa might seem a made-to-order moment for good publicity, a chance for the Bush family to show a connection between policy and personal conviction. But the Bushes apparently will have none of that."...>
You know after thinking about this post overnight it reminds me of the children of pastors. Everyone expects so much from them. They should set examples, etc. We have to remember that they are people. They are not perfect.
I also have to tell you Rod that from what I gather your children are quite young. Be careful what you say about other people's children. It might just come back to bite you in the butt.
Anyone who is in the spotlight (so to speak) like the Paris Hiltons, the Ted Haggarts, Dr. Dobson's of the world are fair game. They put themselves out there. The twins are not.
I also think that people are totally confused as to why we are even in Iraq and that makes a huge difference. People in WWI and WWII were fighting for someone. They knew Hitler was killing people for no reason, etc. Our country came together because they cared about what was going on.
That is not to say we don't care about the people in Iraq that were harmed by Hussein (sp?). We just don't know if they even wanted us to help. Did they bomb the towers? It is a mess. However, I think he would have been cricized no matter what he did. That being said we should support our soldiers and their families.
COMPASSION PEOPLE, COMPASSION!>
Yes, the twins are party girls. Yes, it would be nice if they did something more serious, though it appears they may be making an effort.
Yes, it is scandalous that so few of the children of the powerful and well-connected join the military and put their butts on the line.
But, the twins are adults. George can't make them join the military even if he wanted to, which I doubt he does. After all, he used family connections to jump over 500 people on the waiting list for that Texas Air National Guard unit. Though I do give him at least some credit for serving in some capacity, unlike Mr. "I had other priorities" 5 deferrments Dick Cheney.
I agree with the people who say the twins have a heavy cross to bear in being the daughters of one of the worst presidents ever. How embarrassing that must be. I am sure they love their dad. And how embarrassing their behavior must be to their parents. I think people should leave the twins alone, just like Senator elect Webb wants his son Jimmy left out of the spotlight.
Kids, adult or not, are not responsible for the actions of their parents. Nor are parents responsible for the actions of their adult children.
I hope the twins find their niche in life. They seem like pleasant enough young women who are somewhat frivilous and like the party lifestyle. I am sure that the personal lives of many of us in our 20's and late teens would not have borne close examination. Many of us become more serious when the fun of party lifestyle becomes trite.
Someone mentioned the Bush family history of screwing up. However, bear in mind George H.W. Bush, who went down to the recruiting office on his 18th birthday and signed up for the Navy. He served meritoriously in WWII and seems to have run his life by the code of noblesse oblige. Imagine what poor GHW Bush thinks when he sees some of his kids and grandkids!! Well, that can happen to any of us.
Lucky for you, Rod, your kids are too young yet to really embarrass and humiliate you. Believe me, it will happen. Dude, I have been there, and after being somewhat of a mess earlier, my adult daughter is now someone to be proud of. The twins may yet do something great for humanity or something.>
I think Rod is trying in a circumspect way to indicate that the military is at war; the nation is not.>
Dovid, I think that's the best summary of our present situation that I think I've read yet.
***
My parents were kids during WWII, and they have often talked about the various "home front" activities during the war (scrap drives, rationing, bond drives, etc.) Looking back, these things were probably not *materially* necessary for the war effort (except maybe the bond drives); but they gave everything the sense that "we're all in this together" -- in other words, as you put it, the *nation* was at war.
How many of us know something with a blue star flag in the window? I don't. How many people today even know what a blue star flag means?
Even if the gov't didn't want to start up things like scrap drives and rationing, I bet that if Bush had proclaimed a drive for war bonds in the wake of Sept. 11, most people would have bought all that they could afford. What thoroughly wasted opportunity. In fact, I think those are the two words that are going to dominate future accounts of Bush's presidency: wasted opportunity.>
Make that, "How many of us know some*one* with a blue star flag in the window?".>
Have the twins done volunteer work or not? The answer appears to be yes. According to Wikipedia (not always reliable, but it seems unlikely to be wrong here) Barbara has done volunteer work in Africa and Jenna is CURRENTLY working with UNICEF in Panama. The latter fact is actually admitted by Kinsley, yet he chooses to put no stock in it, instead mocking it because Jenna is apparently not working directly with children. So, whatever drunkenness incidents and wardrobe malfunctions may be in their past, they are NOT currently "jet-set party Bratz." Can't Rod be bothered to do five minutes of research before he slings accusations around? And it seems odd that it is somehow being regarded as Barbara's fault that her purse was stolen; talk about "blaming the victim." The twins have the right to take a vacation (something the military have no time or permission to do, of course, but Rod doesn't want them to go into the military; he wants them to go into the Red Cross or Peace Corps. Apparently these organizations are somehow different from UNICEF.)
And let's look at the three women praised by Kinsley:
Amy Carter: Notorious flake who dropped out of college (but did, to her credit, later return and get both a B.F.A. and a master's from other institutions). Only known community service was trendy lefist protesting.
Chelsea Clinton: Seems decent enough and has no known history of underage drinking but also has no history of working for UNICEF, let alone the Red Cross or Peace Corps. Where was she when her father was bombing Bosnia? Spent her post-college life earning a "six-figure salary" from a consulting firm and now works for a hedge fund manager. (Source: Wikipedia)
Karenna Gore: Currently runs a non-profit group, but has never done abroad in a dangerous place, which seems to be Rod's requirement. Once gave a frank interview to Time about her history of teenage partying and drinking, but unlike the Bush twins was clever enough not to be caught when she was still underage.
So, Jenna and Barbara strike me as neither better nor worse than the average big-time politician's daughter.>
Can't Rod be bothered to do five minutes of research before he slings accusations around?
James, all you have to do is read the DMN and you will know he does nothing remotely resembling research. It gives new meaning to the term "creative writing.">
The girls and their friends also made the pilgrimage to Compostela after they graduated from college. On foot.
Oh, yeah, they're such party girls. So thoughtless and frivolous.>
Anonymous: As you are probably Jonathan Carpenter, please refrain from seconding my thoughts. Occasional exasperation with Rod's tendency to shoot first, ask questions later is not the same as having it pathologically in for him.
Maureen: Is that for real or a joke?>
Huh?
Sorry David - it was a Brat-ism ;)
See, that guy made some snide comment about 99% of Americans not doing jack for the war effort, and you countered with the zinger about 99% of American's not having a daddy that trumped up a war.
In some circles, that would be worthy of a "snap!" as in ... "ooooh he shore told you!"
Humor just doesn't translate well in text ;)>
"Humor just doesn't translate well in text" -- GIITTV
No kidding. Senses of humor and perspective would do wonders on this or any other blog, wouldn't it??>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.