More interesting than whether or not little Bristol Palin is pregnant or whether or not she is in fact baby Trig’s mother is the question of whether or not the Palin family’s “private” affairs should be on or off limits in the nation’s ongoing presidential debate. I say that the private lives of the entire Palin clan are absolutely relevant to the presidential race and should be scrutinized by the news media and the rest of us. Here’s why:
Social conservatives like Sarah Palin use their own (private) faith as a model for legislating the way the rest of us live our lives. If, when this model is applied, it creates such problems as unwanted teen pregnancy, it is certainly the business of those of us who would be regulated by such a model. This isn’t to say that liberal parents don’t have unwanted pregnancies in their families, but they also don’t suggest that abortion should be illegal even in the case of incest or rape – Palin’s policy position.
It also matters that at 17, Brisol Palin is going to marry Levi Johnston (her baby’s daddy), even though statistics overwhelmingly show that people who marry at such a young age are much more likely to divorce. This would not be the public’s business if it were not for the fact that Sarah Palin supports the union – obviously either as spiritual retribution or as political maneuvering. It is important to note that in either case, poor Brisol is paying the price for her mother’s failed policies, namely the legislation in her family of abstinence-only sex education, a likely scarcity of birth control, and zero tolerance of abortion.
Bristol, you have no one but your lovely mother to thank for the ruin that is about to befall your once promising life. Actually, I’m sure it will turn out fine for you and Levi, who stated, “I don’t want kids” on his MySpace page.
Though my own father never pronounced over the Internet that he didn’t want kids, I speak form experience on these matters. My mother gave birth to her first child when she was 19 and my father was 18; their marriage lasted for about 10 years. When my father left, my mother went back to work, and was usually too exhausted to pay much mind to my educational progress. I was held back in the fifth grade because I failed every single class. I ultimately dropped out of high school, and I didn’t learn to read proficiently until I was in my mid twenties – spelling is still a struggle. I was lucky enough to return to school in my thirties and finally graduate from college, but it wasn’t as easy a road as it might have otherwise been. But I’m sure Bristol’s fetus “Tron” will have all the benefits of an Alaskan public education, and I’m sure his daddy will take him out to “shoot some shit” – a skill that every Alaskan should have.
The bottom line is that since social conservatives want to legislate our private lives they have no right to cry foul when the press or those with opposing political views choose to scrutinize their family matters. In fact, social conservatives, through their agenda to make the private public, forgo their own rights to privacy. How else should we be expected to make decisions on whom to vote for if we aren’t given access to the results of their policy decisions? Again, Bristol’s pregnancy should be seen as an example of a failed public policy agenda, not as an average teen pregnancy.
Moreover, if these religious fanatics really believe that God has a divine plan, shouldn’t every event that occurs in anyone’s life be cause for public celebration? Didn’t He (and not the self-ascribed “redneck,” who if “fucked with…[will] kick [your] ass.”) ultimately plant the seed in little Bristol’s womb?
Shouldn’t it logically follow that everything is proof of God’s existence? I say that if Sarah Palin really believes this obvious malarkey, she should have no issue whatsoever in discussing Bristol’s child or children at length.
I apologize to those readers who think this all sounds too harsh. I’m aware of how bitter I sound, but aren’t you just a little sick of these Taliban members trying to legislate our private lives away? Those who seek laws to back up what they feel in their “heart of hearts” (a place you’d think would be pretty private) have no right to protest their right to privacy. I say we have every right to look inside that heart to see what really lurks there.
Finally, of greater significance than what Bristol’s pregnancy tells us about Sarah Palin is what Palin’s selection by John McCain tells us about his political mind. Does Palin seem like a stopgap against Obama’s post-convention bounce, or do you imagine that McCain would go to her for advice in times of national emergency? And if you, like me, think McCain sees her more as the former than the latter, what does it say about him – that he would place someone whom he likely doesn’t trust, dangerously close to (arguably) the world’s most important post? The man is at worst criminally negligent, and at best completely un-patriotic…or maybe he’s just insane.
One thing you hear about a lot from social conservatives is the positive value of shame in regulating behavior. For example, unwed mothers, queer people, and other sexual deviants should be publicly shamed as a deterrent to others and as a statement by society that certain standards will be upheld.
What we see with Bristol is a much more compassionate response, and I think it’s actually the most common response among right-wing Christians when “sin” happens to people close to them. They’re laying off the shame talk, emphasizing the positive, and trying to be supportive and caring within the bounds set by their ideology (i.e., that Bristol must “choose” to carry the baby to term and that she’s better off “choosing” to marry the father and keep the baby, and that the father had damn well better “choose” to marry Bristol).
The shaming, the criminalizing, and the eliminationism are fine when it’s other people’s children you’re talking about. The compassion is for those close to you. The disconnect between the two responses is jarring.
Scott, you are 100% right on the money.
Can you imagine the response if Obama’s daughters were a bit older and in the same situation?
Right wing nutjobs who want to legislate their morality on me don’t deserve a liberal response to family behavior that is entirely telling as to the way they make decisions/govern. Anyone else remember the Clinton years?
Great post.
What about doing the right thing? Regardless of whether politicians use family and family values for their cause, the children of politicians should be off limits. Children make their own decisions, despite how they were raised. I am a good father, and have raised my children well. I have tried to teach my children to make good decisions, but if they make mistakes, they will be responsible for their actions.
S. Godfree makes excellent points. But by using logic, each side of every issue can be made to sound like the appropriate choice. But life isn’t black and white, the truth usually resides somewhere in the grey area.
If I ever run for office, I would like to be judged for what I do (and don’t do), not for what my family does (or has done).
The words honor and integrity come to mind. We must follow these two virtues because they are the right thing to do, not because other people don’t follow them.
Wow, thanks, Ruben — I hadn’t hit on the idea of “How would the social conservatives respond to Obama’s daughter being pregnant?” yet. That really puts things into focus.
Bristol must “choose” to carry the baby to term and that she’s better off “choosing” to marry the father and keep the baby, and that the father had damn well better “choose” to marry Bristol
This is excellent.
I don’t really see how Bristol’s pregnancy is relevant. The family is living true to their beliefs. Religious right wingers think their approach is best, but they don’t claim 100% success. When religious-right-wing teens get pregnant there are public shamings and shotgun weddings. In the right-wing mind, the shame/wedding pattern is the best thing to do in a situation like this, so it isn’t an example of hypocrisy.
So if it isn’t hypocrisy, where is the political millage? I guess we can compare and contrast Palin’s views about sex education with the results, but I have a feeling that such an approach would backfire because most people are going to think the privacy of the daughter outweighs the significance of that particular issue.
3. I tend to agree with Marleyfan on this one.
Tron! Brilliant.
But don’t get me started about Sarah What’s Her Name; I don’t want to be roughed up by Wager again… (Tim, you totally owe me a new shirt.)
Though I will say that, in response to Marleyfan, as soon as you trot your kids out for political purposes, it’s inevitable that you’ll be judged for what they do…
3 and 5: If a politician supports an education policy that recommends that children no longer learn math because she feels that it’s rarely ever used in public life and is therefore a waste of tax dollars, you – who are asked to vote for this person – have the right to any evidence of the success or failure of her policy position.
I argue that since Palin’s policy positions – abstinence-only sex education, limited access to birth control, and zero tolerance of abortion – will affect everyone else’s children, we should seek evidence of her policy positions in the same way we would in the math example. I know it doesn’t sound compassionate, but how else are we to decide if such policies are effective? It is unfair – and un-democratic – to ask us to vote for policies then say discussion of their outcomes is off limits. The reality is that Palin’s children (though this sounds horribly harsh) are a perfect litmus test for a social-conservative policy agenda.
Religious right wingers think their approach is best, but they don’t claim 100% success.
Whether or not they claim 100% success, their policy agenda is based on governing us in a way that runs parallel to their beliefs. If this were not the case, I’d completely agree with you.
Look at another example: if a politician was pro-marijuana legalization and his son who got stoned every day dropped out of school because he lost all admission for success, wouldn’t this fact be politically relevant?
7. The problem here is that the Palin situation is too anecdotal. No one claims 100% success in these policy debates about sex ed. Also, religious right wingers believe that the moral component trumps everything, including success rates.
The math comparison lacks the deeply personal nature of the Bristol situation. A more apt comparison would be the following:
HYPOTHETICAL:
Obama wins the election. Four years later, when he is running for reelection, his now fifteen-year-old daughter attempts and fails at suicide. It comes to the public’s attention that the daughter had recently had an abortion, and is suffering deep depression as a result.
Would it be ethical to use the young teen’s terrible situation to torpedo her father’s reelection campaign?
Rogan, the problem I see with this example is that Obama’s policy position is not that all pregnant teenage girls should get abortions, or that they would be legally required to get abortions. It this were the case, I’d certainly say yes that the story is politically significant.
funny, this post should’ve been titles: Godfree don’t preach
10. I think that most people understand the political significance of these situations, but this is a question of ethics. Most of the democrats I know are not going to think any less of Palin because she has a pregnant teenage daughter, and most dems aren’t going to judge Palin for balancing a career and motherhood. Dems expect and hope that Palin’s harshest critics will be the religious right. It is always interesting watching moralist sharks eat their own in a grotesque feeding frenzy, but is it ethical for us to chum the waters with their children?
The child didn’t choose her mother, and she doesn’t have power in this situation, yet now she finds her private tragedy on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers. Would it be ethical to pick some random pregnant teen and turn her private situation into public fodder against McCain/Palin? Why should Bristol pay for her mother’s poor choices?
Why should Bristol pay for her mother’s poor choices?
Well, to a large extent, this is unavoidable. But yes, Bristol’s suffering in the glare of the media cycle is unjust and really pretty awful. My heart really goes out to her, and I hope she can salvage something positive from the path she has “chosen” in dealing with this pregnancy.
Bristol’s mom is a piece of work, though. Here’s the WaPo reporting that she slashed funding to organizations that help pregnant teenagers who aren’t the daughters of powerful pro-life Republicans.
12: I think it’s (albeit problematically so) ethical in this case. I get that you don’t, which I totally understand. Perhaps since I’m not a parent I have a greater degree of disconnect that you do on this one. I think I articulated my position as well as I’m going to. If you don’t find my arguments convincing, that’s fine. You’re probably just a better (and maybe less bitter) person than me.
Here’s the height of hypocrisy, in my book. Using a line-item veto, Palin personally cut by 20% the funding for a state-run home for troubled teens, including unwed girls who have chosen to keep their babies. If you’re so opposed to abortion that you think no one should get one, you should also pony up and support the teens who follow your policy, especially when it has alienated them from their families and boyfriends.
Not all teenagers who choose to keep their babies have the good fortune to have mothers who are running for VPOTUS and need to support them and get them married for publicity reasons. I know this is the depths of cynicism, but if Bristol actually is five months pregnant and actually wants to marry her guy, why aren’t they already married? Why weren’t they married 3 1/2 months ago, about the time she would have known for sure that she was pregnant? Why did the wedding have to wait until her mother was chosen by McC. and then until after the RNC?
I agree with Scotty on this one; when you make your private personal background — god, family, guns — your political platform, you should expect and even welcome the scrutiny.
Palin wants to universalize the kind of sex education that has been proven (through many studies, and in the example of her own family) to increase teen pregnancies. It’s dangerous to the public to legislate ignorance; it is harmful to teenagers and to their unborn children.
Suppose one of the Palin clan gets ahold of Mommy’s hunting rifle and goes on a shooting spree? Should we not then question the success of her policies? Or is that a private, personal matter, too? Has not the public been harmed? Cannot it be argued that teen pregnancy can and does harm the public?
P.S. Buy your own damn new shirt, Zitter. You should know never to question the Wager when he’s wild-eyed.
Oops, when I started my comment Dave’s comment with the link to the WaPo story wasn’t up yet. Second!
P.S. Dave, I had a dream last night that you were on your way to Burning Man. I wanted to contact you, but you weren’t responding to my texts. I think I was trying to warn you not to go. It’s okay, though, if you really want to go next year. I won’t try to stop you.
16. Did any Whatsiteers go to Burning Man this year? My teaching schedule has kept me away for two years now, but I will go back to Black Rock City.
10-her mom is the one who made her situation a national issue by accepting the vp nod-question her mother’s ambition rather than those who rightly point out the contradictions between what palin would legislate for others and what she deems appropriate for her own kids.
my point is that republicans want to judge others-so let them be judged by their own brutal standards. just because we are the thoughtful, tolerant, and informed ones we’re supposed to lose an election because we won’t seize on something that the other side would have an absolute field day over? i understand wanting to do the right thing but chalk it up to the larger good-they’ve been screwing us over for years with their racist, sexist, homophobic garbage and now it’s time for them to pay the price in a national election.
once again, i ask you, if michelle obama was going to be a 44-year-old GRANDMOTHER would mccain/palin and their surrogates choose not to comment?
15. So Sex education reform is worth sacrificing the privacy of a pregnant teenager? Who even knows if lack of sex education was the problem here? Palin has only been governor for a short while. For all we know he daughter had decent sex education. Her pregnancy and the quality of public sex education might be entirely unrelated, and yet we are willing to sacrifice a minor’s privacy for that? To make a political point that might be entirely unrelated?
Tim’s point about Palin cutting funding for help to unwed teen mothers seems like the right angle from which to address this issue.
I’m not entirely sure who you mean by “we” here, Rogan. Is “we” the American public? The mainstream media? The Left? The contributors to this blog?
Bristol Palin’s privacy has been sacrificed.* We (you, I, anyone) cannot undo that. We (you, I, anyone) *can* choose not to participate in discussing her private dealings, but her privacy will continue to be sacrificed, no matter what. I, for one, do not relish participating in sacrificing the privacy of a teenager, but to some degree it has been brought upon me. How I personally respond — refusing to discuss it any more or boycotting media sources that circulate the particulars — is of course my responsibility.
I, however, choose to participate in discussing her private life. Here’s why. Let me ask the question: How was her privacy sacrificed? I would begin by looking to where and how national scrutiny of the Palin family began. Her mother decided to bring Bristol and as many of the Palin clan who were available onto the dais with her when she accepted McCain’s choice of her as VP. She did this (and I’m sure was encouraged to do this by McC. and the RNC) because she wanted to project an image of herself as superwife and supermom. This is her platform. In fact, she numbered some of the accomplishments of her husband and offspring in her acceptance speech.
To some degree, then, Palin’s family became part of her credentials for the job. She and McC. made her family life a reason to vote for her. She brought them in and put them up on that stage. She took pride in them and their accomplishments.
Fine, wonderful, bully for her. However, she actively sacrificed the privacy of her family when she did that. You can’t make your private beliefs and accomplishments a part of your public credentials without coming into further and rightful scrutiny, or run to the shelter of “privacy” once you have sacrificed it so brashly for political gain.
To me, Palin’s announcing that this is now a private family matter smacks of Rumsfeld’s calling on the Geneva Conventions when the bodies of US contractors were desecrated by an Iraqi mob, after he had dismissed them so casually in relation to US soldiers’ treatment of Iraqi citizens.
PEE ESS: The RNC is also now flying the father of Bristol’s child to the RNC, presumably to appear with the family in a show of family solidarity. This is a further political play using the “private family matter” of Bristol’s pregnancy. If they really wanted to keep it private now, they would have flown Bristol back to Alaska to be with him, instead of the reverse. Oh, I forgot, she would have had to take her first child, Trig, with her, too, thus undoing the other charade that her mother is most likely forcing her to participate in. That hasn’t gone away, you know.
*Perhaps this sentence can reach the iconic status of Freud’s classic, “A child is being beaten.”
You know, I’ve never been to Burning Man, but I’ve been thinking about it lately. Maybe next year. Don’t stand in my way, Tim.
20. By “we” I mean us — the good people of TGW. I don’t think there is any problem with discussing the issue. I think we run into questionable ethical territory when we seek to benefit from Bristol’s problems.
But you definitely make a good point. By bringing the pregnant daughter and future-son-in-law onto the public stage, the issue ceases to be about the teenagers’ privacy. Why are they doing this? Because in the right wing Christian play book, Palin and Bristol are making the very best out of a tough situation, and Jesus will forgive them.
Pressing the Bristol issue is risky for the Left. We (the Left) can’t expect the Christian Right to eat their own when Bristol is ‘choosing’ to marry and make things right, and we (the Left) run the risk of looking like we are seeking to benefit from a girl’s troubles. If the Christian Right is going to devour its children, they will do it without our prompting.
By putting Bristol & her boyfriend at the center of the spectacle, risking the larger messages the Republicans hope to broadcast with their abbreviated RNC, they have to be hoping that libs are going to pounce on that bait. Its a trap.
21. We could host ‘Camp Whatsit’ as a test of the viability of a Whatsit commune.
23. Would it be televised? Who would be the judges?
24. That isn’t how it works. Basically we would all have to build a giant geodesic dome inside of which we would sit around drinking beer on plastic lawn chairs, and talking shit. At night we would don feathered leotards and dance our asses off until we passed out. The next day it would be back to lawn chairs and beer with intermittent sleep. During the day we would go out and visit other camps, drink their beer, smoke their product, make out with their people and check out their feathered leotards. We do that for a week, and then they burn the man, and we all go back to life as we know it.
Oh man, so nobody gets voted off the dome? Way to take away all the meaning from our brief existence…
Godfree you can preach anytime –
great post and great discussion – I don’t have anything to add really – it has all been said – but I love the debate generated by this issue – interestingly from mostly male commentors. I think Palin’s personal life is up for grabs because she was chosen as a frankenstein-lego-pawn and her personal life is her resume. But I feel for the girl and the babies and the unfairness that is life in general. So I remain an avid reader and not a true pundit – the whole thing gives me a stomach ache.
Palin hit a home run. She is going to be a formidable opponent. Maybe Tim’s panties-knot is warranted.
Rogan,
I think your Burning Man idea sounds excellent. The geodesic dome sounds a bit challenging. What you say we rent a few RVs and circle those wagons into a proper camp formation. And the rest of your itinerary sounds perfect. I’ve been wanting to check out the Burning Man carnival for years. I think it’s a perfect TGW gathering place. Sign us up.
Also,
Palen. Damn, that was annoying listening to her talk shit like that. What’s up with her hot daughter Willow’s flat affect? She hardly cracked a smile all night. Weird.
Beta blockers.
Depo provera. (administered by McCain handlers while she slept.)
28 — maybe. She delivered her speech well and rallied the faithful. Up to this point having Palin on the ticket hasn’t made much of a difference to McCain’s numbers. People like her but aren’t necessarily persuaded to vote for McCain because of her. I think she isn’t the train wreck we were hoping for (yet). But tonight it’s back to McCain and his vision, and that’s that last impression the republican convention will make on Americans.
And now I’ll get back down into the mud — did you see the body language between Palin and McCain? Very stiff. It’s like she hates him and can’t stand touching him. And she makes him look so old.
Weirder was the body language between Levi and Bristol (Can we do a celebrity reporter combo her and call them Brivi?). The poor dude. I say that with real compassion, even though he looks like the kind of guy that would’ve kicked my ass in high school.
McCain’s biggest challenge now is to outshine his VP. Where Palin proved to be folksy, middle-class, healthy, bright and articulate (not the train wreck we hoped for), McCain is still the doddering old dude with terrible comic timing and a tendency to forget his lines.
My new theory on McCain — That giant growth on his face? That is where they are hiding the transmitter in prep for the debates! How do you like that for conspiracy theories Tim?
Thou hast learned well, Grasshopper. One last sip from the great font of Kool-Aid and your training will be complete.
Levi looked like he pooped his pants..
Yeah, all of the Palin clan (other than the youngest daughter) looked truly uncomfortable in the limelight. I’m guessing that at least some of them are secretly hoping that McCain doesn’t win so they can drift back into the shadows.
Last night’s chanting of “USA USA . . .” was really creepy.
I suppose most Americans don’t really think about Germany in 1937 all that much.
39. Those chants were prompted by the protesters. I was thrilled to see those protesters in the audience. Especially the Iraq vet up in the cheap seats. Brought a tear to my eye.
McCain’s speech had to be one of the worst nomination acceptance speeches ever. Whatever momentary panic I felt after Palin’s triumph, the world was set right by McCain’s fumble. We can beat MCCAIN/palin
…but can we beat mccain/PALIN? It seemed that the strongest applause lines came when he mentioned her name.
The reptile-brain “U-S-A” chants scare the crap out of me, especially because they are used to silence dissent; it’s a reflection of the belief that the US can do no wrong. The scariest part is that this misguided jingoism is mistaken for patriotism.
But who was applauding, Scotty? The people in those little red cowboy hats, that’s who. They are nowhere near the median voter. And yes, Palin means they’ll turn out at a higher rate, but that’s not enough.
Did you all see this from SEK over at Edge of the West? Take heart!
The Florida numbers give me some heart. Thanks for the boost, Mr. Barber.
U-S-A!
Exactly. It was pretty clear from watching the two conventions that there’s a significant enthusiasm gap this year.
I missed McCain’s speech, by the way; art opening and dinner with the boyfriend.
Dave, I really wish that you’d stop throwing around all of this “boyfriend” stuff. The PDA is getting a little gratuitous, don’t you think?
It must be pretty serious for you to miss the speech.
I loved reading this today after last night’s convention ending with the song “Barracuda” by Heart. God bless those sisters.