Kathleen Parker has a terrific column that serves up a ton of red meat analysis of the political swirl around Sarah Palin. Excerpts (emphasis mine):
And there again we have the same sentiment that I mentioned earlier today: the reason the liberal, feminist Left is trying to destroy Palin is that she didn't need them to succeed. This article clearly illustrates how Palin should be the poster girl for everything feminism supposedly seeks for women, but their blind, backwards ideology refuses to acknowledge reality.
I also want to specify what seems to be an unspoken theme of this article: abortion is the crucible of liberal membership. You can say what you want about pretty much everything else, but if you're not pro-abortion, you are an enemy of the Left. The Left often talks of litmus tests for right-wing candidates, but it can't be denied that abortion is their own litmus test of choice. Their treatment of Palin is evidence of that. One wonders what they'd be saying about her if she'd decided to abort Trig, or was encouraging Bristol to abort her own baby. Fortunately, we'll never know, but I think we can make an educated guess...
I also like how Parker calls out the irony that these ridiculous, slanderous accusations coming from the Left. This is precisely what America needs to know about the liberal Left - it's nothing but a bankrupt philosophy of death, and exists not on real accomplishment or moral principles, but rather on smears, lies, and destruction.
There's my two cents.
Every day has brought a brand new buzz — and that was before the convention got started.
Republicans who were euphoric about vice-presidential pick Sarah Palin hardly got to enjoy a news cycle before Hurricane Gustav stole headlines and resurrected the ghosts of Katrina. Then came the news that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant.
...Republicans have rallied their best angels. Thus, Gustav wasn't so much an unwelcome interruption as an opportunity to demonstrate priorities: People matter more than agendas. And so all eyes and resources turned to the Gulf Coast.
Bristol Palin, too, quickly became a humanizing symbol for reckoning and prioritizing. Most Republicans rolled up their sleeves the way families do when trouble comes. Such is life.
To social conservatives within the party, the Palin situation merely underscored the family's commitment to life. Bristol is marrying the father — and life, indeed, goes on.
Politicizing Bristol Palin's pregnancy, though predictable, is nonetheless repugnant and has often been absurd. It may be darkly ironic that a governor-mother who opposes explicit sex ed has a pregnant daughter, but experienced parents know that what one instructs isn't always practiced by one's little darlings.
We try; we sometimes fail. There are no perfect families and most of us get a turn on the wheel of misfortune.
Would anyone ever ask whether a male candidate was qualified for office because his daughter was pregnant?
Some also have questioned whether Palin, whose son Trig has Down syndrome, can be both a mother and a vice president? These questions aren't coming from the Right — so often accused of wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen — but from the Left.
Palin is everything liberals have always purported to want for women — freedom to choose, opportunities for both career and family, a shot at the top ranks of American political life. With five children and an impressive resumé, Palin should be Miss July in the go-girl calendar.
There's just one hitch: She doesn't believe in abortion except to save a mother's life. That's hardcore, even for pro-life Republicans, most of whom allow for abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Women who won't budge on abortion have hit fast-forward in their heads and, given McCain's age, consider the risk too great that a President Palin would load the Supreme Court with pro-lifers who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Whether that is a realistic concern is debatable, but what's perfectly clear is that feminism today is not about advancing women, but only a certain kind of woman.
There may yet be reasons to find Palin an unacceptable vice-presidential choice, but making pro-life decisions shouldn't be among them. Her candidacy, meanwhile, has cast a bright light on the limitations of our old ideological templates.
Should Palin and McCain prevail come November, feminism can curtsy and treat herself to a hard-earned vacation. The greatest achievement of feminism won't be that a woman reached the vice presidency, but that a woman no longer needed feminists to get there.
Republicans who were euphoric about vice-presidential pick Sarah Palin hardly got to enjoy a news cycle before Hurricane Gustav stole headlines and resurrected the ghosts of Katrina. Then came the news that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant.
...Republicans have rallied their best angels. Thus, Gustav wasn't so much an unwelcome interruption as an opportunity to demonstrate priorities: People matter more than agendas. And so all eyes and resources turned to the Gulf Coast.
Bristol Palin, too, quickly became a humanizing symbol for reckoning and prioritizing. Most Republicans rolled up their sleeves the way families do when trouble comes. Such is life.
To social conservatives within the party, the Palin situation merely underscored the family's commitment to life. Bristol is marrying the father — and life, indeed, goes on.
Politicizing Bristol Palin's pregnancy, though predictable, is nonetheless repugnant and has often been absurd. It may be darkly ironic that a governor-mother who opposes explicit sex ed has a pregnant daughter, but experienced parents know that what one instructs isn't always practiced by one's little darlings.
We try; we sometimes fail. There are no perfect families and most of us get a turn on the wheel of misfortune.
Would anyone ever ask whether a male candidate was qualified for office because his daughter was pregnant?
Some also have questioned whether Palin, whose son Trig has Down syndrome, can be both a mother and a vice president? These questions aren't coming from the Right — so often accused of wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen — but from the Left.
Palin is everything liberals have always purported to want for women — freedom to choose, opportunities for both career and family, a shot at the top ranks of American political life. With five children and an impressive resumé, Palin should be Miss July in the go-girl calendar.
There's just one hitch: She doesn't believe in abortion except to save a mother's life. That's hardcore, even for pro-life Republicans, most of whom allow for abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Women who won't budge on abortion have hit fast-forward in their heads and, given McCain's age, consider the risk too great that a President Palin would load the Supreme Court with pro-lifers who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Whether that is a realistic concern is debatable, but what's perfectly clear is that feminism today is not about advancing women, but only a certain kind of woman.
There may yet be reasons to find Palin an unacceptable vice-presidential choice, but making pro-life decisions shouldn't be among them. Her candidacy, meanwhile, has cast a bright light on the limitations of our old ideological templates.
Should Palin and McCain prevail come November, feminism can curtsy and treat herself to a hard-earned vacation. The greatest achievement of feminism won't be that a woman reached the vice presidency, but that a woman no longer needed feminists to get there.
And there again we have the same sentiment that I mentioned earlier today: the reason the liberal, feminist Left is trying to destroy Palin is that she didn't need them to succeed. This article clearly illustrates how Palin should be the poster girl for everything feminism supposedly seeks for women, but their blind, backwards ideology refuses to acknowledge reality.
I also want to specify what seems to be an unspoken theme of this article: abortion is the crucible of liberal membership. You can say what you want about pretty much everything else, but if you're not pro-abortion, you are an enemy of the Left. The Left often talks of litmus tests for right-wing candidates, but it can't be denied that abortion is their own litmus test of choice. Their treatment of Palin is evidence of that. One wonders what they'd be saying about her if she'd decided to abort Trig, or was encouraging Bristol to abort her own baby. Fortunately, we'll never know, but I think we can make an educated guess...
I also like how Parker calls out the irony that these ridiculous, slanderous accusations coming from the Left. This is precisely what America needs to know about the liberal Left - it's nothing but a bankrupt philosophy of death, and exists not on real accomplishment or moral principles, but rather on smears, lies, and destruction.
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
Pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
I can't imagine too many people who are gung-ho for vacuum aspirations and D & C's.
But pro-choice, well, that's another stance altogether.
I personally hate abortion. I would not have one; I hope my children would not choose to abort my future grandchildren. But I am staunchly pro-choice. (Yeah, a Hillary fan.) And even though I am a practicing Catholic (and there's more than one way to be a practicing Catholic, a truth that non-Catholics cannot seem to grasp), I in no way consider it my "right" to tell other women what to do with their bodies. It certainly isn't the government's right to tell women what to do with their bodies.
And if Republicans are so anti-government, so "individual rights are everything," what sense does it make to try to legislate (overturn Roe v. Wade) on this oh-so-private of issues?
You may be pro-choice, but I believe Obama is pro-abortion. That is a personal interpretation, though, so you can take it or leave it. I believe his record and history warrant the assertion, but I'm sure plenty of other people don't. Regardless, I do believe there's a difference, as do you. I know a lot of people who, like you, say they would never have an abortion and don't support it, but who also don't want to 'force' their views on others. I think that's an extremely tricky subject to address, and I won't even attempt to do it here in a comment. Suffice it to say that I understand your position very well!
One thing I would point out, just for argument's sake. There are instances where government can legally tell women -- and men, for that matter -- what to do with their bodies (i.e. prisoners), but those are few and far between. However, it is the government's duty to protect its citizens from harm, regardless of age. When children are in danger, the government needs to step in and protect them, regardless of their age and location. This happens all the time in abusive families. I think we can agree on that, right? Now, here's where it gets interesting. I would argue that abortion presents just such a requirement for protection - there is no doubt in my mind that life begins at conception, and abortion is, by definition, the taking of that life. Without going into all the supporting arguments for that, I'll just acknowledge that not everyone agrees with the idea that life begins at conception. But, that truly is the key question, isn't it? If this is an independent life, regardless of age or location, then the government is duty bound to protect that life, isn't it? So, it becomes more a matter of protecting the life of a child than protecting the 'right' of an adult. If that's the case, which would you choose? That's the choice that is faced on this issue: which takes priority, the 'right' of the woman to have an abortion, or the right of a child to live?
Of course, it all comes back to that beginning-of-life question, doesn't it?
Anyway, moving on...
I grant you that I don't have a concept of different ways of practicing Catholicism, since I have no experience with it at all! I'm doing the best I can with the information I have, and if you can enlighten me, I'd love to learn more. Otherwise, I'll gladly take your word for it! :)
My position on Roe v. Wade is that it should never have been made a federal issue in the first place. The federal government is actually extremely limited in what it is supposed to do, but those in power have bloated it over the decades beyond anything the Founders would likely recognize. In my opinion, the only right answer on this issue is that the federal law needs to be overturned, which would then push the question down to all 50 states, and each state would deal with it individually. According to the Constitution, this is how these issues are supposed to be dealt with, because of the ultimate check and balance: if this issue is so important to people in a given state, they can leave their state (vote with their feet) and go somewhere else that agrees with them.
While I believe that abortion is morally wrong, I also recognize that this is a nation governed by non-religious laws. The nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles, but that doesn't mean the Bible is our legal guiding document. Rather, the Bible should influence our personal moral principles, and out of those principles, we create and reform our laws. As such, I realize that some states will inevitably make abortion legal, and that saddens me. But, that is how our Constitution was designed to work, and that is how I believe we should make it work. It is up to the people of each state to be persuasive when it comes to the state deciding what laws it should enact, so I would envision a nation in which all 50 states address the issue of abortion, and in all 50 states, a persuasive argument is made that it should be outlawed.
Just my opinion.
Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment