|
I Didn't Change My Name When I Got Married
53 comments
Shrapnel from another "Mommy Drive-By"
47 comments
Aggressive + Competent = Bitch?
37 comments
When Am I Supposed to Work In a Work Out?
35 comments
The real secret to success? Multitasking
23 comments |
       |
-a1677f67c9e0342b5dd4dd69762a0c43.jpg)
On Monday, when Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin confirmed that her 17-year-old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant, leaders of both political parties agreed that the situation was not for political consumption, with Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama saying outright that the children and families of the candidates are “off limits.”
Makes sense. The kids didn’t choose to be in the public spotlight — their parents did. Their actions shouldn’t reflect on their parents’ qualifications or abilities. As many, many people have pointed out: Life happens. You deal with it.
That said, I think that if Bristol Palin and her pregnancy are “a private family matter” and off limits, 19-year-old Track and his decision to join the Army should be, too. Not to mention baby Trig and his special needs.
You can’t insist on excluding from debate the potential impact of a child who’s done something socially unacceptable if you’re willing to use another child’s “good” behavior or medical disability to bolster a candidate’s political image. If one kid is off limits, then all of the kids should be off limits.
Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that Palin was the one who announced Bristol’s pregnancy to the national media to begin with. (Is a candidate’s child still off limits if the candidate is the one who’s disclosing the sensitive information about the child?) Let’s ignore the “happy family” publicity photos and all of the politicians who parade their children and grandchildren in front of the television cameras (”Hi, Daddy!”). Where, exactly, do you draw the line when declaring family and children “off limits” in politics?
Now, I’m a working mother of five myself. My older kids aren’t out on their own yet (I’m assuming that Bristol and her new family aren’t going to be moving with the Palins to Massachusetts Avenue), though they’re not with us year-round, either. My younger kids aren’t tiny infants anymore, as Sarah Palin’s youngest is, and the special needs we deal with have to do with Autism, not Downs Syndrome. But, let me tell you, my kids affect my life daily in one way or another. Juggling work and family is hard enough without the intense public scrutiny that comes with running for office in general, let alone that of second in command of a global superpower during a time of war.
So, if we’re not to question how Bristol’s pregnancy affects Sarah Palin’s stance on abstinence-only education or discuss how Palin will be able to be there for her daughter while also presiding over the Senate as our nation’s VP, it’s only fair that people also stop holding up Track’s Army service as an example of Palin’s patriotism. And, while we’re at it, her campaign should stop using baby Trig to help her appeal to social conservatives, stop touting his very existence as testament to his mother’s morals and values.
Yes, the kids should be off limits. Everyone’s kids should be, no matter what they have (or haven’t) done. But you can’t evaluate a candidate — male or female — without considering the impact their children’s lives have on their own. To truly do that, you’d have to look at this admirable working mother and take her parenthood out of the political equation. And I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm and is filed under Parenting, The Juggle, Working? Living?.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Bravo. The kids ARE off limits, but questioning whether the candidate can deal with possibly running the country, let alone being V.P., when she has a teenage daughter about to give birth and marry a “redneck” who doesn’t want kids, and a young child with Down’s Syndrome, should be acceptable. MORE than acceptable.
The idea of her running the country terrifies me. Her lack of experience and questionable background (taking money from Big Oil when she claims to fight it; “troopergate;” asking for the most outrageous earmarks for Wasilla; etc.) are all things that need to be discussed without accusations of “sexism” or any other derogatory label.
Examining her background and questioning how she can raise a family with special needs while serving her country (in the No. 1 or No. 2 position!) is all fair game and has nothing to with attacking her children.
Funny, if it were a Democratic candidate, I think the right would be saying all these things, but with more fervor.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
You’ve made some good points, but before Palin was nominated, I don’t remember seeing a single post about any of the other candidates and their children.
It’s never questioned if a male candidate can juggle work and family.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:12 am
In one sense, yes, the children are off limits. That is, minor children should not be harassed or placed unnecessarily under a microscope. That is, the children THEMSELVES should NEVER be attacked.
In another sense, I agree with you completely that if one is running on a platform of “family values,” chooses to endorse abstinence-only sex education, and then publicly announces one’s 17 year old daughter’s pregnancy and appears to endorse it, one cannot then claim “hands off” any critique. You can’t have it both ways.
When candidates use their children as a supposed reflection of their own capability and character, they cannot then cry foul if the opposite proves true.
And when said 17 year old parades her daddy baby on the national stage, she opens herself up to comment. Actually, I blame her mother and the RNC for that. After all of the hullabaloo and condemnation of Jamie Lynn Spears in the media, it’s ironic that Republicans are saying that this girl’s situation should be immune to comment. The whole thing was in horribly bad taste, in my opinion.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
KeegsMom: I absolutely agree — there’s a huge difference between attacking a candidate’s children (waaaay off limits) and questioning how a candidate reacts or will deal with something hisor her children have done/will do, in my books.
LisaN: You bring up a very good point. As far as I know, though, I haven’t seen a male candidate who has introduced himself to his supporters (or the public in general) as a “hockey dad,” a “PTA dad,” a “working dad,” or a “father of ” any number of children. I think how men juggle work and family is rarely questioned (I say rarely, only because Biden even questioned it himself, about himself, for one) because, for the most part, the male candidates don’t make fatherhood a big part of their political or public identity. Has McCain ever refered to himself, during his campaign, as a working father of six? And yet his campaign refers to Palin as a working mom or a mom of five constantly.
Personally, I’m kind of offended by all of the “I’m voting for the hot chick” McCain/Palin campaign buttons I saw last night. “Hot Chick”? Come on… not that she’s not attractive, but why define her by her looks? We don’t do that to male candidates, either…
Robyn: I agree with how you’re defining “off limits.” And as for Jamie Lynn Spears… interesting how her mom got slammed for being a bad parent, and the 16-year-old herself was held up as an example of the unraveling of American moral fiber (even though she kept her baby and planned to marry the father) while Bristol’s situation is being held up as a shining example of family values.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
very well said.
I think the trend toward younger politicians is making the children of those politicians much more in the spotlight. However, with a woman it seems to be a bigger issue. Why is that? I’m not hearing a public outcry asking how Obama is going to care for his young children in office…
September 4th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Brenda: Thank you! I think it’s always a bigger issue for women (in general) because motherhood tends to be tied in to our identities (if not by us, then by others) more tightly than fatherhood is to a man’s. I’m not saying that’s right, I’m saying that I think that may be one explaination.
Also… I’m not sure if, in Palin’s case, the public outcry is over how she’ll care for her children once she’s in office as much as it is how will she care for her special-needs child, who is still an infant, and for her still-living-at-home pregnant teenager… those are two major life stressors, no matter whether you’re a working mom or not.
As for Obama and his kids… don’t know what to tell you, really. I’ve wondered the same thing. Maybe it’s because he and his wife have spoken constantly about how her mother helps with the kids — they’re clear about having childcare in some form, whereas we don’t know how the Palins handle it now, let alone what they’ll do later. I have heard that the dad is planning to stay home if Palin is elected… unfortunately, instead of that being a satisfactory answer and ending the question once and for all, it’ll probably trigger a bunch of new questions. That’s not fair, either…
September 4th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
When one decides/chooses to be in the public eye as a public servant, one becomes a celebrity, than, unfortunately, “no holds barred,” your entire family, friends, associates will be scrutinized. One must make the decision that when one serves, all will be looking, digging, for “dirt,” instead of focusing only on the good, but, where there is good, there is usually the bad as well.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
It’s inevitable that Ms. Palin’s effectiveness has been called into question with respect to her daughter. In fairness, if a male candidate had a 17-year-old pregnant unmarried daughter, then this would be seen as a reflection of his effectiveness as well, and this would happen to both republican and democratic candidates.
Perhaps that’s why no politician has previously had the guts to go before the country with this particular type of baggage - at least not in my lifetime. That’s not to say they had a better handle on parenthood. More likely, some of them have had this very problem, but they either chose not to run for office, or forced their child into an abortion or otherwise covered up the evidence, or, in the case of a VP pick, were not selected because previous presidential candidates never had the balls to deal with such an issue.
OK, so things got a little out of hand at the Palin residence, or beneath the high school bleachers, or wherever. Well, I’ve seen this happen in the best and worst of families. More often than not, it happens where the mom is a SAHM. And as often as not, it happens when the youngster is openly sexually active, knows about birth control, generally uses it, and ends up pregnant anyway.
Just because Ms. Palin doesn’t believe schools should be teaching all the details of sex and, in particular, how teens should do it, doesn’t mean she hasn’t had those talks with her own daughters, or that she doesn’t believe we should all do so. We don’t know, but it’s interesting to see how many have drawn the conclusion that poor little Bristol never heard of a condom. I highly doubt that.
Studies have shown that abstinence-only education neither increases nor decreases teen pregnancy. Statistically, Palin’s daughter was no more or less likely to get pregnant regardless of Palin’s views on this matter. Regardless, I don’t see the benefit of people saying things like “how’s that abstinence education going.” It’s mean and personal and serves no purpose. I hope it made some of the commenters feel better about themselves. There is always room for improvement in any curriculum, and we as a country are still working on figuring out what the Fed government’s role in this should be, if any. Alternative views should be welcomed, whether you agree with them or not. Unless your past history has proven you 100% right about everything.
Is a fat politician - or doctor, for that matter - allowed to recommend that people follow healthy diets and exercise? I think so. Likewise, Palin has the right to her opinion.
It is perfectly idiotic to state that only a perfect person with a perfect family has a right to an opinion on values. Since nobody rises to that standard, that would mean no discussion of family values is allowed ever. I guess we should extend this to work values, health, etc. All discussions about how to make our nation better must be abolished. Get real.
I don’t mind it so much that Palin’s kids are being scrutinized and used as an argument about Palin’s effectiveness in that area of her life. But what I do mind is, the press, etc. are respecting Obama’s family as he requested, and Palin is not getting the same deal. In addition, people are overgeneralizing. Yeah, her kid snuck out and had sex, or however that happened. That doesn’t mean everything she ever does is gonna suck. She does have a record in Alaska that shows she is doing something right. She even has a mostly-together family. So let’s at least pretend to be a little objective here.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Ekela: Thanks for the point about the good and the bad — I agree!
SKL: Thank you for your thoughtful comment! You made a lot of good points. This one, in particular:
“Statistically, Palin’s daughter was no more or less likely to get pregnant regardless of Palin’s views on this matter. ”
Very true. I think that the only way Bristol’s pregnancy is relevant would be in asking Palin where she stands on Abstinence-only education — not whether she thinks it works or not in general, but whether her own point of view has changed, because I think that anything that could cause a candidate to change his or her point of view is worth asking about.
I think it’s possible that Obama’s kids aren’t being scrutinized in the same way at least in part because of their age — they’re really too young to make their own decisions. Notice that no one has really said anything about Palin’s youngest daughter, 7-year-old Piper. I think that’s for the same reason. I mean… what is anyone going to dig up on a 7 year old? That she’s a bad speller? That she once cut in line during recess? That she watches too much TV or ate her dessert before she finished her veggies?
My issue with the whole “kids are off limits” thing really centers on the fact that, for whatever reason, it’s OK for both political parties to use the kids to bolster their candidate’s images but it’s not OK for the media to question whether the kids’ or their actions will impact the candidates. I thought it was very wrong to hand Obama’s kids the mic during the convention; yeah, it was cute and all, but it was using them as props for the candidate and I think that’s inappropriate. Similarly, I think that Trig is becoming a prop for the Republicans, and I think that’s wrong, too.
You also said “It is perfectly idiotic to state that only a perfect person with a perfect family has a right to an opinion on values.” I’m assuming your speaking generally here, because I agree with you — I think those questions need to be asked, and I’m annoyed that we’re being told that the shouldn’t be or that asking them is sexist or unfair.
Sorry this response is so long! Thanks again for your comments… I really appreciate them.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Thank you!
I think ultimately the press will subside on any issue if the person under scrutiny doesn’t engage. Perfect example is George Bush refusing to answer questions about what he had done in the years prior to 19__ (something) in the 2000 campaign. Eventually the press just stopped asking about it.
It is curious to me that Palin went from describing the father as Levi and wanting to protect his privacy, to having him attend the RNC last night in the span of a day.
Secondly, on the John McCain website there is a blog by Megan McCain that includes photos and and even videos of the 7 yr old Palin. That is not the action of someone who wants no attention on the children.
I do not believe for one second that these kids are not used being used as political tools. I have no problem with them being used as politicial tools - it’s a part of politics.
I don’t think it makes anyone a bad parent. Ultimately, their exposure to America is controlled by Palin and her choice is clear. She and the kids will need to learn to deal with the down side of that, which is going to be criticism whenever the kids do something out of step with the picture of perfection.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
On Obama’s kids at the convention - yes it struck me as cheezzzy when the young one had the mike. I am sorry but no family is natural acting in that situation. All the I love you sweetie’s, and Daddy where are you was a little over the top. (IMHO)
November 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
[...] Can a candidate’s kids really be off limits? [...]