More of the same…hubris. Much to the consternation of historians everywhere, Palin switches the order of the ticket. Miss Manners is none too pleased either.
Stay tuned for the “Palin/Palin Administration.” (I see you, Todd, eyeing that Oval Office…)
Let me start by saying I understand fully that there’s nothing I, or anyone else seriously interested in the following issues, will be able to do to avoid the attacks by the Bill Hobbses, the Robin Smiths, the Steve Schmidts, and the social conservative commentariat of the world, who will tear apart anyone who is not an evangelical for going anywhere near the issue of the recent revelation of a political pregnancy. But the shredding of the cynical veil of ignorance and arrogance these people wield is long overdue, and if I can so much as nick a thread, I will have contributed to a necessary discussion. So let’s begin untangling this narrative.
One could feel the crackling political romance begin a scant 6 months ago when they met. As if in response to McCain’s profound POW virility, his selected vice presidential candidate’s daughter (to name her would, of course, be to become part of the DailyKos liberal blogosphere smear machine that loves nothing better than to destroy the lives of young mothers everywhere) shortly thereafter found herself pregnant. And this was, of course, no fault of her own. From strict parenting and conservative values straight to the heroism of young motherhood and proper decisions, like marrying the young father. The messy stuff in the middle is just a trap for stupid liberals who just like attacking life!
Let’s review the turn-backs, shall we?
That’s right. If we only could’ve delayed public knowledge of this celebration of life till after the election, the world would see it for what it is: a triumph of humanity and the miracle of life.
Life is a miracle! In fact, to quote top McCain spokesperson Steve Schmidt, “Life happens.” Why, we barely even need sex at all! Liberals would have us believe that pregnancies could ever be unwanted. They not only hate pregnant people, they hate children. In fact, they hate life itself! Why do liberals hate America?!
Yes, from the Palins themselves, we have this:
“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned.”
That’s right. Because when one has values, one doesn’t need planning, even though if the values had worked the on the first pass, then we wouldn’t need to promote our values so much right now. Because if we don’t promote our values vigorously at the moment, people might notice that these values only work for us, the well-off and comfortable, and not so much for the 20% of Americans in poverty. But, really, in the end, they’ll just have to work a little harder. And they can always talk about their values!
Remember when Bill Clinton committed adultery? And John Edwards? And how that ruined a presidency and then terminated a political career? And remember how Newt Gingrich was in the middle of an affair as he was taking down Clinton and how Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were embarassingly unfaithful husbands and were finalists for the Republican nomination and how McCain ultimately won? Well, that’s because Republicans actually understand sexual morality, so they don’t really have to live it. But because Democrats are morally inferior creatures, they must not be allowed anywhere near public office because they’ll force the Palins to get abortions!
The Palins don’t need to communicate to the world that premarital sex is wrong because it turns out, secretly, we’re all human! *wink wink* Get it? It’s only wrong in the Bible! Not when we conservatives actually do it. (But when Democrats do it, watch out!!!)
We have our tinniest foil hats on the case right now to reveal the scandal that both of Obama’s daughters are pregnant!!!
(Beat.)
Okay. To borrow a phrase from Bill O’Reilly, “Fucking thing sucks!”
In reality, Sarah Palin’s outlook on life is to leave teenagers everywhere, both male and female, unequipped to deal with their own biology. And let me be clear: My biggest pet peeve from some promiscuity-accepting progressives is hearing, “Teenagers have sex!” Right. We just have to accept that. There’s nothing we could possibly do to demagnetize these raging skin-covered hormone balls! If I were one, I’m sure I’d be having sex right now! With the closest post-pubescent human near me! That said, failure to combine biological instruction with moral and even, really, social instruction is a recipe for failure. And for some reason, we’re content to keep cooking it.
I think a common failure of progressive discussion of sexual issues is founded in liberation rather than deliberation. Too often, the discussion assumes that all teenagers will try to have sex and that we should at least ensure that they’ll get it on safely. I reject the implicit anti-abstinence assumption in these discussions, especially after learning that teen intelligence was correlated with decisions to wait to have sex. I firmly believe that if we tackled this discussion aggressively and talked about morality, culture, and health, we would get somewhere with our ability to have mutually acceptable (and often different, but better understood) sexual mores as a culture.
Ms. Palin’s social conservatism, on the other hand, is itself a tacit promotion of promiscuity. When, for instance, will we get to the part where her next youngest daughter learns that what her older sister did was considered morally wrong? That doesn’t seem to show up in the public statement anywhere. Where is her actual leadership on abstinence other than in forcing the families of others to have no dialogue about anything else regarding sexual activity? This is, by their request, a private moment of celebration for the Palins. There’s no disappointment; only support. Is disappointment and punishment a private matter while support and unconditional love can be public?
I’ve already alluded to Kathryn Jean Lopez’s celebration of unplanned pregnancy as an unpunishable state. There is no accountability in the post-Bush world of conservatism. There are only transitive values. The collapse and failure of those values that have consequences (like, say, pregnancy) don’t matter because the values now apply to the consequences. And when those values fail (like, say, underfunded children’s services), we get to transfer the values neatly to the people who don’t share them with ideological fervor: liberals.
I’ll be glad to grant the Palins their privacy. But the circumstances they wish to keep private, they, and others like them, keep foisting on the public through cynical public policy that fails. And when public policy fails, Ms. Lopez’s thoughts notwithstanding, government does, in fact, punish its people. Failing to equip teenagers with appropriate sex education puts them at greater risk for sexual abuse, leaves them unprepared to understand why abstinence could be important (whether for religious or broader social and health reasons), and ultimately raises the cost of running both a family and a village.
Planning is important. And implementation of plans is even more important. And though Ms. Palin and her ilk would have us all believe otherwise, Planned Parenthood is not an abortion factory; it is an organization that promotes the very family planning the Palins failed to do. Sex and pregnancy and childhood development are not simple issues. They are extremely complicated. And because of that, they deserve our best and most considerate and considered efforts in public policy not bound by orthodox ideologies. Also, unplanned pregnancy is not de facto punishment. But those, like Ms. Palin, who propagate their non-mainstream ideas through public policy that results in high social costs ought to be punished.
Here’s something for some people, including the candidates, to keep in mind during Rick Warren’s purpose driven forum:
U.S. Constitution: Article. VI. Section 3.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Perhaps John McCain only gets a measly allowance from his $6 million dollar wife and that’s why he must also get one from the federal government:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain cashes his monthly Social Security checks despite calling the federal program “a disgrace,” the Associated Press reports.
“I’m receiving benefits,” McCain told campaign reporters, but added, “the system is broken.”
In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.
McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65.
Last week, McCain told observers at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers … and that’s a disgrace.”
B.J. Jarrett from the Social Security Administration said that individuals can refuse retirement benefits.
In 2006, McCain’s wife Cindy earned $6 million, and has a net worth of approximately $100 million.
Taibbi of Rolling Stone on John McCain’s favorite author, stated as such at his Nashville Town Hall meeting:
Standing at the meeting, I didn’t write Osteen’s name down in my notebook — apparently because my brain refused on some level to accept that McCain had actually said it. Of all the vile, fake, lying-ass, money-grubbing shyster scumbags on the face of this planet, there is perhaps none more loathsome than Osteen, a human haircut with plastic baseball-size teeth who has made a fortune selling the appalling only-in-America idea that terrestrial greed is actually a form of Christian devotion. “God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny He has laid out for us,” Osteen once wrote. This is the revolting, snake-oil-selling dickhead that John McCain actually chose to pimp as number one on his list of inspirational authors. So much for “go, sell everything you have and give to the poor,” and all that other hippie crap from the New Testament.
So funny I spit club soda out my nose. Tickles.
More important, though, is the subtext of this article. Each time Taibbi asks someone who spews the anti-Obama talking points they got from their sister’s best-friend’s neighbor’s uncle to elaborate on, they are stymied. What we can learn from this is to take the time to press these right-wing echo chamber minions. Don’t roll your eyes and walk away. Ask the “why” and the “what” and “what do you mean, do you have any specifics?” And no, we might not change their minds, but it sure will be fun to watch them squirm.
You want to talk about bitter? OK, let’s talk about bitter.
And so, is it surprising then that I cling to my martinis and my Constitution and my antipathy towards a government who doesn’t represent my values as a way to deal with my frustrations?
UPDATE: Thank you, Robert Reich (and hat tip to Freddie), for being more eloquent than I and spot on with your blog post, “Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics.”
Tonight I attended one of the final installments of Vanderbilt’s Iraq War Series, a screening of No End in Sight. This caps off an intense week of politically-themed viewing. Fortunately, I squeezed in a few episodes of the British version of Creature Comforts, so I’m not just completely depressed.
No End in Sight was a very different animal from Bush’s War. There was some overlapping footage. Both were bleak. But No End in Sight focused on how some very bad decision-making in the early days of the war led to an occupation that has been much more difficult than it might’ve been. The cast of characters was slightly different, too, as this documentary focused much more on the people who actually have been involved in the occupation and reconstruction efforts.
Considering the news out of the Green Zone this week and the abundance of films that have come out of Iraq in the past five years, I think it’s still a difficult argument to make that anything construed as negative ignores everything that’s positive. There have been positive developments in Iraq, and I’m optimistic that we won’t be there for John McCain’s 100 years. But I’m also optimistic that another generation has lost its stomach for war, which we should all come to view as much less necessary than Dick Cheney, with his One Percent Doctrine. But my optimism doesn’t mean there’s an end in sight. And the movie didn’t seem to share my optimism.
You can catch the final installment of the Iraq War Series on Sunday night at 7:00 p.m. at Sarratt, where they’ll be screening In the Valley of Elah.
Fred Kaplan, writing in Slate, incisively addresses a fundamental question I ask repeatedly: What the hell does “victory” constitute in Iraq? He discovers that the goalposts have moved repeatedly throughout the war. Most frustratingly, he concludes that in their current position, the goalposts are so far down the field as to make winning essentially impossible.
Republican hawks, like the neoconservative establishment that swarms like vultures in the upper echelons of the Bush administration, probably are drooling at McCain’s hints at 100 years of occupation and permanent military bases. There is a strain of foreign policy enthusiasts that equates our military with our democracy overseas. This idea should concern all Americans.
But Bush’s war should especially concern Democrats. Frustrated anti-war types who think we’re not withdrawing quickly enough should get ready for an infinite Indian summer. Obama’s “judgment” about going into Iraq might have been courageous and sound, but his track record in the Senate reveals just how unstable the ground in “on the ground” really is. And though Clinton reassures us that, as president, she never would’ve taken us into Iraq, she did, in fact, with her vote, do just that. And she, too, with subsequent votes, has had difficulty backing away from the fire that her 9/11 patriotic pyromania caused her to help spark.
Because the Bush administration has been so undefining, so abstract, about its vision for what it is on the ground that would allow us to consider reducing and ultimately removing our military presence from Iraq, Democrats and paleoconservative Republicans are going to find the hawkish mouthpieces in as much of an uproar as the conservative judicial establishment was when Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. These are the same people who cry out in patriotic pain when our military spending doesn’t increase fast enough to overtake our WWII levels and pushes us to outspending every other country in the world on defense combined.
Ultimately, I think Obama’s vision of engaging the world and returning to non-cowboy diplomacy with a rich diplomatic establishment could be the most refreshing restart of the 21st century for America. Using the State Department rather than the Department of Defense for strengthening democracies around the world would return us to a position of advocating our values without doing it at gunpoint. And while he does this, he’s actually going to go after terrorists, which would be a nice change of pace. Remember Osama bin Laden?
But even Obama is going to have to stare down the post-Cheney neoconservative bullies with tremendous courage. The Rush Limbaughs and Bill Kristols and Sean Hannitys of the world have tasted blood, and like sharks, they love it and are ready to frenzy. For these men, violence and aggression are so much the means that one is left to wonder whether they are also the end.
For those who, like me, would prefer to dismantle the military industrial complex (without sacrificing our national security) to honor Eisenhower, I present a short listing of resources worth a look as we pursue alternative pathways to peace:
Unfortunately, the anti-war movement always seems to draw from anti-establishment crowds (ANSWER, anyone?) that have no interest in ever engaging with mainstream Americans. If you know of any other credible organizations that specifically advocate forcefully for a reduction in our defense spending, please let me know.
In a visit with the Grey Lady today, Bredesen offers a prescription for his party: a superdelegate primary.
It’s particularly interesting to see Bredesen calling for a common sense solution to help the Democratic Party considering his own comments on his party’s shallow bench in the upcoming race to challenge Lamar Alexander for U.S. Senate, which almost portended Hillary’s own remarks that McCain has made it more clear than Obama that he’s ready to serve as commander-in-chief. If his party mattered that much to him, Bredesen could’ve encouraged some young Democrat he’s impressed with to make a challenge to a statesman he admired. Or maybe he’s got his eye on a bigger prize…
Personally, while I don’t think Bredesen’s proposal is particularly problematic, I am not a fan of changing rules midstream after a lack of foresight has yielded an unexpected and unwelcome result. After all, does choosing a nominee sooner mean choosing a nominee better? Based on the closeness of the primary competition through and after Super Tuesday, I’d be surprised. I think any Democrats in either the Hillary or Obama camps who will unite behind any Democrat are going to do that regardless of whether they are asked to do so in August rather than June. And I think any undecideds are going to see a series of attacks and issues relating to both Hillary and Obama continue to be expressed by conservative mouthpieces well beyond the appearance of a clear nominee.
Ultimately, though, I think Democrats frustrated with this year’s process, where many, many states had their primaries and caucuses under the magnifying glass, need to scrutinize their nominating process to avoid, say, treating Republican states better.
The last thing my friend who is supporting John McCain yelled to me on Sunday afternoon as I hopped into the car and headed for the airport was, “Did you hear he’s in Iraq?” The twinkle in his eye emphasized the implication in his words – John McCain has the foreign policy experience to be president and he’s not afraid to show it.
I can’t help but wonder what my friend thinks now after hearing of McCain’s monumental foreign policy blunder.
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.â€
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.†A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.â€
Iran is ruled by Shites and Al Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim extremist group. Shites and Sunnis don’t like each other very much. Haven’t for years.
Recent Comments