Thursday, September 4, 2008

Knocked Up

I think it unfair for a vocal minority of mad-dog Democrats to use the pregnancy of Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol as dagger with which to attack Governor Palin herself. We have no idea whether Sarah Palin has ever talked to her kids about sex, safe or otherwise (though admittedly, her socially conservative views would suggest she probably hasn’t, except to urge them to save themselves for marriage). Even less do we know whether Bristol and her boyfriend—whose own MySpace page makes him out to be something of a douche bag—ever talked about sex before having it, whether they had unsafe sex, whether they tried to use protection but used it incorrectly, or whether they used it correctly but it nonetheless failed. Without that information—without knowing how much the pregnancy had to do with Sarah Palin’s purported parental irresponsibility—it makes little sense to use Bristol Palin’s pregnancy as a battering ram against her mother. With that information, mind you, it might be fair game. But somehow I doubt that’s one body of facts we’re likely to come by.

The pregnancy, however, might make a more reasonable anecdote in an argument in favor of sex education in schools. I myself support sex ed and oppose abstinence-only education, mind you, though it strikes me as reasonable and prudent for such programs to encourage teenagers to preferably abstain. But as a former college classmate of mine argued convincingly today, the finding that even teenagers who have been taught to abstain not only at school but also in the home are still having sex would seem to undermine the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs, if not necessarily their soundness in principle. And as a staunch pragmatist, I firmly believe that a policy that has been shown not to work in the real world—however well-motivated or morally just it may be—should be discarded.

Also, can we all learn a lesson from this, and treat claims made by the fire-breathers at DailyKos just a liiiiiitle more skeptically? Whatever criticisms are to be made of the major media outlets’ coverage of Sarah Palin’s candidacy so far, they are to be commended for refraining from picking up the original hateful rumor DailyKos spread about young Trig Palin being Bristol’s daughter, not Sarah’s, and the latter’s “pregnancy” being a lie to cover up her daughter’s impregnation. Some folks just aren’t cut out to be reliable journalistic sources.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

...I very respectfully disagree. Generally, I don't think candidates' personal lives should enter a political debate. But, since Sarah Palin has adopted a platform or moral righteousness in specific "family" issues (and the "family values," as defined by the Republican party, are not to be taken on their face), I don't think there is anything wrong with talking about her daughter's pregnancy. Off the television networks, but on the blogs maybe.

That might just be part of my bias showing. I've told my friends, this race reminds me of high school...each candidate reminds me distinctly of a "group" of people in high school. But hey, that's me generalizing.

Akil Alleyne said...

I agree that discussing her daughter's pregnancy isn't "off-limits" (to quote Obama) in all cases. I just think that there are right ways to use it as an anecdote, and wrong ways as well--that's all. One old-line feminist slogan I've actually always dug is "the personal is political"--because it all too often is, and fundamentally personal issues such as sexual behavior, reproductive choices etc. do necessarily have an impact on the wider society--and therefore on politics.

And btw, I'm desperately curious to know which group of high school classmates of yours each candidate reminds you of! C'mon--spill the beans, Aseem!!

Anonymous said...

haha, reminds me of the ones who went to churches that prohibited gay marriage and proper sex ed, then fucked their brains out on the weekend.

btw, a brilliant video that is really pertinent to your post:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

check it.

Etienne said...

I don't think kids are getting pregnant because they don't know where babies come from. Here's one good relevant bit from FT:http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1108

As for your main point, I basically agree. And I agree with many bloggers who have said that people who think this a sign of 'hypocrisy'don't understand what social conservatives are getting at. The most confused response to this (which was cheered by the audience) is John Stewart's. Because the Palins released a statement saying that they were proud of Bristol's 'decision'to choose life (and under current Alaska law it was her decision)Stewart somehow got the idea that they valued her freedom to choose in the abstract. Therefore Palin would be hypocritical to 'remove that choice from other families'. This is barely intelligible nonsense. If heroin were legal then decent people would be proud when those they love chose not to take it. This would not imply that they value their loved one's legal freedom to choose wrongly.