The Palin family, obviously, has about as much cultural savoir faire as a dead moose. But what's interesting is that they still know how to play the media game the big dogs play. To sum up, when the chips are down and especially when you haven't heard your name on a major news outlet in 24 hours, just start talking and don't stop.
Now, I don't think I've gone off in this particular forum on my feelings for the Palin family. I'll never forget the moment when, while getting ready to head out to an event and with the television in the background I heard CNN announce that McCain had chosen a woman. Of course, I screamed out loud, ran around and called everyone I knew. I also certainly gave him credit, even at the time, for playing ball. I've criticized the standard Democratic strategy but this was a classic in the halls of failed Republican strategies: when something the Democrats are doing makes you look out of touch and you don't otherwise have the upper-hand, do something totally inappropriate for the party so long as it makes you look like you're indistinguishable from the Democrats. In this case, find a woman no one has heard of before and throw her onto the national scene because...well...she's a woman. And they sure as hell wouldn't have been able to find an African-American they could run.
And the more I saw her, the more hysterical things became. McCain wasn't a good choice to begin with, in my opinion because he's insane, and there are plenty of other reasons. But Palin was an off-the-charts disaster. And here's where I get some slack. See for me, the person the politician is matters. A lot. If you have wayward children, that's cool, and actually relatively common. A weird spouse who would make me cross the street if I saw him coming is a little less excusable, but still, I would let it go. But you don't parade them on stage and babble extensively in public about it all. Your daughter is an unmarried pregnant teenager who hasn't graduated high school. Do you seriously start carting her waywayd boyfriend around on the campaign trail?
And most importantly, do you allow this? A public dissertation on her pregnancy? I mean, really. Her mother just makes me ill. The most interesting part about the article/interview, and the part that I don't quite follow, is the unspoken disconnect between what are apparently her views on sex/contraception/abortion and her statement that abstinence is unrealistic, combined with her comment that it would have been better if she'd had the baby 10 years down the road. As things stand now, the only way to achieve that latter goal, given the second consideration, is a liberal view re: contraception and if necessary, abortion. I'm not sure she fully gets that and that's fine, she's young (to even make the comment, having a baby isn't glamorous, just screams that she's young), but why in the world does slate not get that? : "Maybe Bristol Palin shouldn't be a poster child for teenage pregnancy. But she's doing more for the pro-life argument than a bunch of narcissistic twentysomethings who get abortions because they're drunk and forgot their birth control are doing for the pro-choice side."
Well, I guess I have to back up here and get a bit more complex. Implicit in the above quote from author Rachael Larimore is that we still don't have an unquestioned right to do what we want to do with our bodies AND that women have greater obligations, have to be more responsible, can't make mistakes, and can't have as much fun as men. And moreover, you can read in what she writes that she doesn't think women really should have those rights, that they should still be "acting" for the betterment of the cause. Her statement sounds like something out of a right-wing playbook or out of a bitter old feminist who can't accept the fact that the battles she fought for back in the day have largely been won and we are in a bold new era.
The reality is that most Americans, I repeat most, are pro-choice. That is, they believe that women should have a choice when it comes to the question of abortion (note that most women who are pro-choice also say that they personally would not have an abortion, but do not feel that there should be laws to regulate this). Very few people are pro-abortion, meaning that they are actually in favor of abortions. *Key point here - the opposite of the pro-life position is the pro-abortion position, not the pro-choice position. Pro-life is extreme right, pro-abortion is extreme left, and pro-choice is the middle position* Women don't enjoy having abortions - the cost, pain, and potential for physical scars is nothing compared to the emotional and psychological scars that stay with women throughout their lives. The fact that you can come up with some stories of women who obviously have other issues that haven't been dealt with by their families or professionals and who, as a result, are acting out in ways that involve sexuality, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this extremely important political debate.
Back on point, I don't know that Bristol Palin does anything for the pro-life movement. I mean, the pro-life movement is an extreme right-wing movement largely based on completely outdated notions of social structure and a belief that extremist interpretations of religion should be the basis for political order. It's really creepy. Bristol Palin is a nice 18 year-old who got unlucky (I have a feeling they did normally use contraception but something happened, like they didn't have a condom one night or something like that and I also think that she is probably, or will as her political views develop as she becomes an adult become, pro-choice, as described above) but is lucky enough to have friends and family who are helping her out so she's able to stay in school. I know plenty of people who have similar stories, but many aren't lucky enough to have family and friends who will help out. Often they're on their own, and often they don't return to school. And part of that is the goofy (normally overly religious) notion that it is a morally GREAT thing to raise a child, whatever age you are. It sends families and generations into a state of underachievement. It matters not just for them, but for our nation. When a large percentage of the members of our society are not getting the chance to achieve what they are capable of, we not only lose their potential, we end up liable for supporting their failure. These are not small matters.
That got very serious. But yeah. I'll send out my outrageous political proposal of the day - when girls first get their periods, they should be fitted with IUD devices so they simply can't become pregnant until they decide or they fail to replace it in a timely fashion (by which time they should be near the age of maturity anyways). At the very least, you won't have these ridiculously early pregnancies. Why not just solve the problem? We have the technology.
Posts
