Yesterday's firestorm against Sarah Palin over her daughter's pregnancy focused on the bogus issue on whether or not this means she was a bad mother. Certainly I, and no doubt others, fought back on her behalf against this baseless and even cruel smear. As I said yesterday, Sarah Palin might well be a bad mother, but her teen daughter's pregnancy is not evidence of that. People are complicated, and people have free will. We don't know enough about the Palin family to say one way or the other in this case, and we should all remember, having been teenagers ourselves, that teenagers have minds (and bodies!) of their own, and parents have limited control over them. As Juan Williams of NPR said on TV last night, liberals would be insane to go after Palin on these grounds.
But this morning, I've heard from several Palin sympathizers (and read comments at various places on this blog) who say that their view of her is dimmer this morning, not because her daughter is pregnant, but because of her mother's decision to bring the national spotlight onto her daughter in crisis. Patrick Deneen -- who is blogging again, thank goodness -- sums up this point of view in a post you need to read in its entirety. Excerpt:
I like Sarah. How can one not? She is what we wish all our politicians were - real, earthy, and perhaps above all in this election, someone who comes from somewhere. ... But still - learning yesterday that Sarah's daughter is expecting diminished Sarah in my eyes. This diminishment had nothing to do with disapproval of the pregnancy or disappointment in her mothering skills (it amazes me that some on the Left are even going here. Really. Incredible.). ... Sarah won't be the one subjecting her daughter to this gauntlet, but surely she had to know it awaited. If her daughter is damaged by this attention, her mother will have invited it for the sake of being named to the ticket. Perhaps this is the ultimate example of "Country First." Or, I fear, it may be another woeful instance of "Political Viability First." I wish only the best for the Palins, and hope Sarah's was the right decision for their family.
One young Republican woman to whom I spoke this morning said, "I know I probably shouldn't feel this way, but the mom in me wonders why she's exposing her family to all of this garbage. Shouldn't she be protecting those kids? Maybe it's not fair, but I think less of her this morning because of this."
UPDATE: I forgot to say that a male politician facing these kinds of problems in his family ought to have the same questions put to him -- though I also must note that the Republican woman to whom I spoke this morning freely admitted that she has a double standard for women. I see that frequent commenter Reaganite in NYC in the comboxes below has pointed out that nobody called for Al Gore to drop out of public life to attend to his family when his teenage son got into trouble with the law. That's a fair and necessary point. All I would say is, well, two things: 1) the Gore situation, compared to the Palin one, just goes to show how hard it is to come up with a single rule to handle all family situations; it's very hard to know for sure what any family should do from the outside; and 2) Gore already was in public life and serving in office when his son started getting into trouble; Palin is a governor, of course, but the Bristol Palin stuff wouldn't have been such a huge deal had she not chosen to run for vice president. Had she chosen to say no to John McCain, she could have limited the exposure of her daughter to the scrutiny and scorn of the public.
Still, maybe she made the right choice. I hope she did.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I asked my husband, who supports Palin's choice to take the position, this question: what would you do if it were you or I running for office and our daughter was pregnant at 17? He said he probably would go ahead with it, for two reasons. First, it would teach her a lesson, and second, why should the sin of one family member prevent the rest of the family from living their lives?
As I think about it more, I think he's right, particularly about the "teaching a lesson" part. Being a loving parent in this situation means letting the teenager deal with the humiliation that is a consequence of their sin, but also providing the financial and emotional support needed to help their teenager choose life. Is the humiliation heavier for a teen whose parent is in the public eye? Of course it is, but Palin was already governor when Bristol got pregnant. Regardless of the VP run, everyone in Alaska would have found out about her situation. And the REAL humiliation comes from people closest to you knowing about your sin. Does it really matter whether the number of total strangers talking about you is 600,000 or 60 million? And wouldn't it be even more shameful to know your indiscretion caused your mom or dad to give up such an opportunity as being nominated for VP? It would be a lot harder for a young woman to live with herself for that, in the long run, than to live with a momentary public exposure of a sin she has committed.
If in Alaska 17yr old Bristol is considered a minor, does that make Levi who is 18yrs old guilty of statutory rape?
K Street Catholic @ 7:50 AM writes:
"[W]hat would you do if it were you or I running for office and our daughter was pregnant at 17? He said he probably would go ahead with it, for two reasons. First, it would teach her a lesson, and second, why should the sin of one family member prevent the rest of the family from living their lives?"
If I was running for office and I discovered my 17-year-old daughter was pregnant at 17, I would withdraw from the race immediately and issue a public apology. If I was already serving, I would resign immediately, with a public apology.
As I wrote earlier, the actions we take as individuals affect those around us, especially our families. As parents, we are obligated to exercise maximum efforts to inculcate good moral values in our children. The Palins have obviously failed to do so in regard to their wayward daughter. That failure is direct evidence of dereliction of duty and failure of judgment on the part of the parent, and by extension is evidence of her unfitness to serve. To allow her to continue in office is to permit a stain on a public trust.
By the same token, the conduct of a child directly reflects on the parents (and, to a lesser extent on siblings and grandparents). As children, we are required to obey our parents and respect their teachings. (Concept is called "discipline".) Bristol Palin should have known better than to do what she did. Her actions bring disgrace not only to her, but to her parents, siblings and grandparents as well.
Since it is Bristol's family that produced this disgraceful child, it is Bristol's family that needs to take action to remedy the problem. Getting the father of this child to marry her is simply a good first step. They need to get her out of the public spotlight, the better to allow these two to quietly begin the process of restoring the family reputation through hard work and exemplary conduct.
Both Sarah and Bristol Palin owe apologies to quite a few people, their family not least among them.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
If you think teen pregnancy is a bad thing, doesn't Bristol's fairytale-like story validate teen pregnancy?
Bristol is now famous because of her pregnancy. And because her mom is a governor running for national office, of course the guy in the picture is going to stick around. I'm sure most teens would not have the same luck, but may hope to be living the same fairytale if they happen to get pregnant.
It seems Bristol was sexually active at age 16 and will deliver at age 17. What was her mother and father doing about supervision and, please permit me, vetting this young man.
My understanding is that she was taught abstinance only without contraceptives. What is the relationship with Bristol and her father and especially her mother. Values?
And why was her mother seeking a fifth child as she is evidently quite ambitious. (I'll say seeking since she was evidently not using contraceptives). Indeed, she can afford to have a special needs child with her insurance and their income. I still question her judgement. She can have as many children as she wants but please tell me the time to care for the family and be an agressive VP as she is evidently displaying. Her track record with her second oldest child is not encouraging.
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.