Offensive Line-Crossing
by KTKAugust 31st, 2008
The Sarah Palin nomination is so ludicrous it’s hard to grasp. People are still trying to get a handle on what it means, and what the relevant aspects of her tissue-thin background are. There’s been a lot of good commentary so far, including her relatively minor political experience, all of it in (literally) bush-league environs, and the obvious pandering - to pro-Hillary defectors and religious-right goons - that constitutes the only justification for her nomination. There is also her utter lack of background or preparation for assuming the Presidency without warning - as is her most important, and almost sole, Constitutional responsibility. And there is her apparent penchant for using her office and state agencies for personal vendettas. No doubt all of this will get more thoroughly aired, as it should. (My only fear is that McCain will come to his senses before the official nomination and force her to “reluctantly withdraw” to “spend more time with her family” - I want her on the GOP ticket!)
But there has been some other stuff entering into the discussion that I think is very ugly and ill-advised. Of course there have been some idiotic sexist remarks (and some equally idiotic attempted defenses of her “women’s work” as a qualification for President that are just as sexist in their condescension); that’s bad enough. And it’s hard to know just how to evaluate her “life story”, since much of her qualification for office - according to those who support her - is that she hunts moose and has a passle of kids. If they really think those are qualifications*, then it’s fair game to point out that they are not.
But there are other personal issues that are not fair game.
I hardly like to even bring the subject up, but it should be confronted. There are all kinds of weird rumors going around about Palin and her kids. Many people have suggested that her last child, born when Palin was 44 years old and not known to have been pregnant at the time, was actually the child of Palin’s oldest teenage daughter, who had dropped out of school claiming illness for over 6 months leading up to the birth. In addition, that child was born with Down Syndrome, and some other clown is now posting suggesting that that condition was the result of Sarah Palin’s behavior during the pregnancy. Alan Colmes has suggested Palin could have endangered the fetus by traveling more than 9 hours to a rural Alaskan hospital, rather than go to any of the many larger and closer hospitals, while supposedly in labor. (Note that the two rumors conflict with one another.)
Aside from this being a highly personal issue (and, if the rumor about the teenage mother is true, then apparently something the family does not want to acknowledge), it’s hard to see what legitimate relevance it has. Once, this would have been a career-killing scandal; thankfully, as the result of progressive social activism and the victories for women’s reproductive freedom that Palin herself opposes, there are now many options for forming families, and one’s personal choices in that regard are granted much more respect. Ironically, it is only Palin’s own base that would find anything scandalous in this. But it can certainly be used to create discomfort for the candidate and her family, and, again, among all the irrelevant lightweight issues Palin brings to the campaign, this seems to bear no relation to the question of her fitness for office.
To deliberately pick on an uncomfortable and private issue for the purpose of embarrassing or harassing a candidate is despicable. And to use women’s reproductive choices as weapons against them only involves us in the worst abuses of the right wing. This is absolutely the sort of thing we - decent progressives who support women’s freedom to choose their reproductive pathway - must not be doing. Yet highly-visible blogs like DailyKos and Andrew Sullivan (not a defender of choice, it’s true) are pushing the issue, and others are spreading it with their concern-trolling.**
There is perhaps one argument that makes the issue sound relevant, and that is the question of hypocrisy. The religious right and the GOP are on hair-trigger to judge other people’s lifestyles, family structures, and reproductive choices, so when one of them finds themselves enmeshed in a “non-traditional family” saga, perhaps we are entitled to some schadenfreude? And perhaps we are, but the only decent response is to welcome that family to the community of freedom of choice and freedom from condemnation. Palin, as far as I know, has not been one of the overt persecutors of others in that respect, and does not deserve to be persecuted in return.
Lee Stranahan, of the Huffington Post, offers this odd defense:
The whole story is based on an insulting view of fundamentalist Christians; that they’d be so freaked out by a teenage pregnancy that they’d have the Governor — the most highly visible and public women in the small fishbowl of Alaska — fake a pregnancy to cover up the sins her of daughter Bristol.
Actually, I find that perfectly possible to believe. But it’s just as much none of our business as it is none of theirs. We’ve got to stop making political fodder out of people’s health and reproduction, out of their attempts to just live their lives as best they can by their own lights, without interfering with anyone else. I have little hope that this story - whatever is behind it - will have any such effect on the GOP; in fact I have little hope that it will even encourage Sarah Palin to think that women who make different reproductive choices from hers might deserve the kind of privacy and respect that she wants for herself. But if we’re going to see a future in which people have the freedom and security to live their own lives and make their own choices, we have to let everyone do so, even those who oppose that freedom for others. We can’t let ourselves be the thing we oppose and expect anything good to come of it.
Update: Palin herself has just announced that the rumors her 17-year-old daughter had the baby (Trig) in May are false, because . . . the daughter is pregnant now.
ST. PAUL (Reuters) – The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.
That would seem to lay the other rumor to rest. It also explains why the daughter was seen wearing an engagement ring - she’s marrying the father of her expected baby (yes, 17 years old, with a baby and a husband, neither of which she planned for). Palin has requested privacy for her family over that issue, and again it seems to me they ought to have it. This does raise the tantalizing question of how her insane fundie supporters are going to react, but I think we know the answer to that already: they would be screaming and howling at any Democrat who made the same announcement, but nothing matters if you’re a Republican, so it’ll be just fine.
* I’m highly suspicious that any of her supporters actually believe she is qualified for this office, or that they really mean the things they say in claiming so.
** I hope that’s not what I’m doing here, also. That’s not my intent, at least.
[Crossposted to KTK's bioethics blog, Sufficient Scruples.]
Update: Revised description of one of the rumors; my original explanation was wrong.
Categories: Bloggin, Church & State, Culture, General, Media, News & Current Events, Politics, Privacy |
You really don’t see legitimate relevance in the possibility that the governor _may_ have been walking around with a (small) pillow under her suit, maintaining an elaborate public deception for months? What else is she willing to lie about?
If Palin feels so strongly about the moral issues involved with abortion and teenage pregnancy that she’d be willing to maintain this deception, how would we be able to take seriously anything she said, as candidate or VP, on these subjects ever again?
If the rumors are false and her own account true, she exhibited shockingly poor judgment - as a 44 year old woman in premature labor and expecting complications in delivery (many Downs infants require immediate, major intervention to survive) - by not seeking medical attention when she went into labor in texas. That would be of legitimate interest to the public, also.
Nope, not buying it Matt. Private matter. We should just leave it alone.
Your argument is all well and good EXCEPT Sarah Palin is using the fact that she had this child to prove that she lives the anti-abortion philosophy she promotes. If she is the mother of this child, that shows an integrity that can be admired. IF (and I do mean IF) this is her granddaughter, then SHE did not make the choice. Her daughter may well be a person who follows her conscience and SHE should be commended. Or her daughter may have been pressured into following her mother’s conscience, which is less impressive. Or her daughter may have waited until too late to do anything and there may have been no choice to make. Sarah Palin announced the pregnancy at seven months, the third trimester. Abortions are legal at that point only for the life or the health of the mother. If Sarah Palin is not the mother of this child, and always intended to protect her daughter in this way, the most logical thing to do would have been to tell the world as soon as she found out about the pregnancy. Then she could have discretely “started showing” at 4-5 months and none of this would be an issue.
This is more than a private family issue, because Sarah Palin is using it to shore up the anti-abortion agenda. As such, it deserves some scrutiny.
Matt:
I think both how she handles her family’s private affairs and how she makes decisions about her own medical care are none of anyone else’s business. She’s entitled to keep her family’s affairs private - including by deception if need be. I don’t think it carries over to public behavior, or that we have a right to pry into it just in case it might.
One of the classic cornerstones of liberalism is the “public/private distinction”. This issue cuts at that in an almost unprecedentedly literal way - and I think we need to rise to the occasion to reaffirm and maintain that distinction, even, or especially, where political advantage might be had by violating it.
Refusing to recognize the public/private distinction is central to the worst offenses of the religious/anti-choice right wing. We should never be guilty of the same, and here is a prime opportunity to demonstrate that we’re not.
LindaH:
I have some sympathy for your point of view, but I still have some hesitations, for a couple of reasons. First, her views are well-known (or, at least as well known as she herself is, now); they can be countered directly without touching on her private life. Second, I’m not sure how much of an issue Palin herself has made of her pregnancy; I think it is largely the rabid right that has been talking it up. If Palin did explicitly cite her own decision to carry the pregnancy to term to increase support for her anti-choice stance, the issue would, arguably, become more relevant. But only if she herself makes it a public issue - if others do against her wishes (and not with her connivance), I would still regard it as private.
Also, remember that the Roe v. Wade decision did not prohibit abortion in the third trimester; it said only that states could do so. Shockingly, at least 40 states have done so, but Alaska is not one of them.
I’d just like to point out that Down Syndrome is the result of a chromosomal abnormality, not something one can generally cause by doing weird stuff whilst pregnant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
That is all.
I find the surreptitious breaking of bad laws by politicians while in office one of the hardest of ethical hard cases. I feel for the individuals involved, but I have a hard time arguing that their acts are entirely private.
If Palin did fake this pregnancy (and I assume she didn’t), I strongly suspect that she had to falsify at least one public document along the way in order to do so. If she did, and if she did, I think it does raise legitimate questions about her integrity.
Even more so, it raises questions about her judgment. If (once again) this story is true, it suggests a willingness to imperil her public responsibilities to further an bizarre private agenda. As with Clinton and Lewinsky and Spitzer and his use of prostititutes, it implies a recklessness that I find troubling.
By the way, unless I’ve missed something, I don’t think anyone is claiming that her son’s Downs was caused by anything she did in pregnancy. I have seen her criticized for flying from Texas to Alaska after her water broke, on the grounds that such an act might have placed herself or her baby at risk. Again, the charge is personal recklessness, and it seems to me that it’s a legitimate question to raise.
If this is the rumor you’re referring to, moreover, it doesn’t necessarily conflict with the other. If it was Palin’s daughter, not Palin, who went into labor that day, one can see why Palin would want to be back in Alaska for the birth. The question “why would a woman in labor get on an eight-hour flight?” is given a two-part answer: “She wasn’t in labor, and she wanted to be sure that she was in the same state as her ’son’ when he was born.”
When a person chooses to run for public office in America, she/he also chooses to open her/his life to public scrutiny.
It’s only with full information about a candidate that the voters can make informed decisions.
Why should Palin or any candidate be able to choose what the public can or can’t know?
I don’t think anyone is claiming that her son’s Downs was caused by anything she did in pregnancy.
You’re right. It was the question of her travel while in labor. At the time I posted, I could only find references to the claim, not the claim itself. (It was Alan Colmes.)
As for the “questionable judgment” thing, that also is a concern, but I can’t help feeling that there should be limits to what we can demand by way of satisfying ourselves about people’s judgment. Their judgment in purely personal matters ought to be purely personal. I’m also not sure how much it should matter: if there’s no better evidence of poor judgment in their public life, that in itself is evidence of how little the personal issue matters, and if there is public evidence of poor public performance, that evidence should be the focus of discussion. (Note that, in Palin’s case, there is plenty of evidence of poor judgment in her public life.)
I agree that the situation - if it is as the rumors have it - can only be the result of the bizarrely distorted values of her far-right fundamentalist background. But I don’t think we have a right to demand accountability from people for their values, but only for their insistence on imposing them on other people. And here again, there is plenty of evidence of Palin’s stance against (other) women’s reproductive freedom. How she handles a pregnancy in her own family is beside the point.
I guess I’m left wondering at what point private transgressions become matters of public concern.
“When laws are broken” seems like a reasonable standard, on its face. And it’s not obvious to me that a person could execute the kind of misrepresentation that Palin is accused of without breaking any laws. As I said above, I’m deeply skeptical that there’s anything to this story, and even if there is, I’m not at all certain that I care. But I don’t have a particularly strong rebuttal to someone who says that she expects elected officials to follow the law at all times, and that she considers it a matter of serious public concern when they consipire to violate any law.
I’m also receptive to arguments that private behavior can shed light on a person’s character, particularly in a situation in which a relative unknown is being put forward for a position of great public trust. When Elliot Spitzer was caught having sex with prostitutes, my opinion of him as a politician plummeted, for two reasons. First, his willingness to squander the work of the supporters and allies who helped him win the governor’s office struck me as a tremendous betrayal. Second, his recklessness in doing so cast his judgment into serious doubt. And third, I find the use of prostitutes morally repugnant.
In short, this private act revealed Spitzer to me as an untrustworthy, reckless, pig. I can’t imagine setting aside those personal moral judgments in evaluating him as a political leader, and I don’t see any ethical reason why I should. I don’t want a selfish scumbag representing me in political office, if I have the choice.
You say that we don’t “have a right to demand accountability from people for their values, but only for their insistence on imposing them on other people.” But when a politician pursues a course of action that may well end in the destruction of her political career, she doesn’t just put herself at risk. She risks the hard work and effort of all those who have supported her, and I think it’s legitimate to hold her accountable for that.
If this bizarre rumor is true, there’s a significant chance that the truth will become known before election day. If that comes to pass, the Republican ticket’s chances of winning will be damaged, possibly fatally. Given that, if the rumor is true, then McCain demonstrated a startling ineptitude in choosing Palin, and Palin demonstrated a shocking self-centeredness in accepting the VP slot. Why would it be illegitimate for voters to take those failings into account when deciding who to vote for?
Looks like rumor might be false - daughter is now pregnant. Not sure of dates, but from what I read, implication was Trig could not have been daughter’s.
Not sure any laws would have to have been broken to pull off the switch, just a suppression of some facts, which supportive folks in administrative positions could probably do without straying outside the law. Not sure on this however. But in any case, I would still rather live in a country where people have enough privacy to do this age-old switch if they so choose.
The more I see Palin attacked, the more I like her.
Okay, BU, what do you like about her? Other than that she’s so laughably unqualified that it pisses people off?
Er… why? I’m not religious, but last I checked the Bible was relatively kind on the whole shotgun wedding thing, at least compared to the alternatives, and it’s not like Palin’s first kid was conceived in wedlock either.
I mean obviously the kid should have waited til she was at least 18, if not married, before going all the way, but it’s not like Palin was secretly passing her condoms and saying that they magically prevent every pregnancy (it’s a ~13-23% chance of pregnancy over 1 year with normal use, folks, no matter what your sex ed teacher says).
Oh, and thank you all for making it clear how hard it is to stand on the side of a woman’s right to sexual privacy, especially in a day and age where a single step away from the holy writ that was Roe v Wade leads to such a slippery slope that it might as well be a cliff.
Except she kept the slimy little CO2 producer, so now that NARAL doesn’t care, you should be digging through old photos and studying a 17-year-old girl’s body and possible virignity.
Hmm. Be sure to link when stating facts copied directly from the source, but when tossing out stats on condom effectiveness, (stats that are by no means generally agreed to, no worries. No link, no backup. Just state it and move on. After all made-up stuff isn’t subject to copyright law…
BK - what’s up, long time no (virtual) see.
Anyway-
I’m a little buzzed right now (you guys should be too, it’s a holiday) so I’ll sleep on some of my harsher thoughts.
But, I do want to call out one thing. The temptation to play an issue that one might feel is personal into the political sphere simply to score points is a function of sipping the two-party Kool-Aid. Regardless of my feelings on any of the issues, I applaud KTK for placing his personal beliefs above that which have the possibility of being politically advantageous in the false dichotomy of Reps. vs. Dems. Its cases like this in which those who claim to be fiercely independent (intellectually even moreso than politically) truly earn their stripes.
Contradict myself, or jump on the bandwagon and help Obama? If that’s even a decision, you need to reassess the amount of agency you claim to have in all the “decisions” you make…
One of the biggest things I like about her is her apparent willingness to take on her own party when it comes to legal issues and conflicts of interest. To me that shows her as someone who will take on the establishment at risk to herself.
From what I understand, that is something that a lot of Americans want to see.
Also, it is a pick that is consistent with McCain’s maverick persona. If he had picked a long-time establishment guy, then he gets ripped for same-old same-old.
Which makes it confusing to me how Obama campaigns on change and then picks a guy who has been in Washington for over 30 years. Seems to go against change.
Seriously though, I sense a real elite attitude amongst the left that they don’t like Palin because she is the “wrong kind” of woman. And to me that is offensive.
Keep in mind I can’t vote so my views don’t really matter one iota.
Ted, facts can not be copyrighted, especially when put in the user’s own words. Another person’s questions and statements automatically are. I assumed the values to be fairly well-known at this point, and only unusual or surprising claims to justify significant citation.
Guttmacher Institute (1992). “Choice of Contraceptives”. The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics provides 10-20%. Planned Parenthood says 15% in typical use (2% in ‘perfect’ use). I can look further for the outliers I used above if you want.
Big U:
Which makes it confusing to me how Obama campaigns on change and then picks a guy who has been in Washington for over 30 years. Seems to go against change.
Kind of like picking somebody with almost no relevant experience undercuts the whole “experience is important” argument?
I sense a real elite attitude amongst the left that they don’t like Palin because she is the “wrong kind” of woman.
I disagree. I’m sure there are some that are acting that way, but here I think we’ve done a pretty good job of pointing out that our problems with Palin concern her positions on the issues, not her gender. If anything, we’d probably be giving her an even harder time if she were a man, and if there’s any allegation of sexism to be made, it’s that we’re pulling our punches a bit because she’s a woman.
P.S. As KTK notes in a newer post, her supposed stance against corruption and earmarks? Not so much…
Feministing actually used those words “wrong kind of woman”. You guys on here are clearly on the left but avoid that kind of stupidity for the most part which is why I still come on here. I tend to get a decent perspective on what rational left-wing individuals think. Hopefully I provide the same from the right side.
You will note, by the way, that I don’t say much about McCain. I never thought he had much of a chance against Obama but if the left keeps going after Palin the way they are, they will lose a huge chunk of middle America which they need because it comes across as petty and vindictive and that doesn’t fly there.
Gatt @ 19,
You cite Planned Parenthood’s number for typical condom NON-use. 15% pregnancy rate if you “don’t always use condoms correctly“.
Yeah, a 2% failure rate is right in line with your 13-23% figure.
Try again.
Dan M, that’s called the typical use number; typical use assumes a certain level of improper use, breakage, leakage, slipping, et cetera. Again, the entire quote is :
The use of the number, especially tied to the phrase “normal use” or “typical use” is not unusual.
The pregnancy rate for the non-use of any form of birth control is usually set at ~85% over 1 year.
How many irrelevant sidebar debates would you like to participate in an attempt to dodge discussing anything substantive in regard to Palin, Gatt?
You’re acting like a libertarian version of Fred with a penchant for ten-dollar words.
Digg, that’s not fair.
Even if Gatt is being evasive or even duplistic, he’s not being the flaming asshole that is Fred.
I’m pretty sure that calling somebody Fred should be covered by the old common law “fighting words” doctrine. (That is, you can get your ass summarily kicked for it.)
In a post on pregnancy and contraception, repeatedly referencing Palin’s viewpoint on the matter as evil… it’s an “irrelevant sidebar debate” to discuss the effectiveness of contraceptives?
Gatt, you seem to have moved to sillyland. I don’t think copyright law is the main focus of this thread. However, the veracity of the data you toss out might be. I don’t want t a link to a source for your condom efficiency numbers to protect you from a lawsuit, it’s so I can see for myself how much stock I want to put in your numbers which are the lowest I have ever come across. Hope this helps.
[...] third what KTK and especially hilzoy have to say about it: there are plenty of legitimate policy reasons to be [...]