Small Town vs. Your Town

By Cantice

Like many other Independent conservative voters, I’ve been energized by John McCain’s pick for a running mate. On the day she was announced, I went home and searched the internet for every bit of information I could find on her. I wanted to discover her bad points before I had them blasted before me with added commentary by national media outlets. But, surprisingly, as I continued to read about her I was more impressed.

You can imagine my excitement when I heard that she is a pro-life activist. Many cite the governor’s willingness to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome as evidence of her pro-life stance. But even if her fifth son, Trig, had been born without the chromosome that causes Down Syndrome her pro-life position would have been apparent. Any contemporary woman that raises four or more children is likely a pro-life activist because it takes an intentional stance against an abortifacient culture just to pull it off. As a mother of five, she is subject to the ridicule of any person who is less than agreeable to the maxim that children are a blessing from the Lord; happy is the man who has his quiver full of them. But that attitude is rare today. Today the popular public health phenomenon overpopulation is producing a culture of women and men who believe it is environmentally irresponsible to procreate.

But these altruistic characteristics in Palin still do not endear her to most women. The question who is unexcited is answered as I recall my own pessimism about the possibility of Hillary Rodham Clinton becoming President. I liken the differences between Clinton and Palin to the differences between conservatism and progressivism, or altruism and opportunism. Palin’s road to public office began as a woman set out to make a life with a man as his wife. Palin’s is a story of an at-home mom who got stirred up over corruption in the community. Her remedy to the problem took the form of a run for city councilwoman, then mayor, then governor. Her gift made room for her as evidenced by John McCain’s selecting her as his running mate; she didn’t set out to buck the system or showcase the gift.

Clinton’s attempt to reach the White House is altogether different. She was groomed by her at home mom from childhood to seize the new opportunities becoming available to women who were turning 18 in 1965. Clinton decided to seize these opportunities at the delay, exception, or expense of marriage and familial development. Hillary Clinton lived with Bill and bought a home with him before they married. In fact, she repeatedly refused Bill Clinton’s marriage proposal. As the story goes, her initial decision to not to change her last name to Clinton was influenced by her wanting to keep their careers and accomplishment separate. Add to this her radical ideas suggesting that children from birth be treated as autonomous citizens, independent from parental jurisdiction, and you have the evidence of her disinterest for upholding all manner of traditional dependent family concepts.

As I watch the presidential campaign unfold, I am becoming more aware of the rift in ideals that exists in America. As one commentator put it, we have returned to the culture wars, pitting small town traditionalist against big city liberal. But in a postmodern society, things are not that simple. In this election we have a union-friendly Catholic believer and a churchgoing-Marxist-leaning-married-black-father of two against a Native Inuit (by marriage)-gun toting-God-invoking-beauty queen and an immigrant-friendly-fiscally conservative-POW-father of seven. One could speculate that any way you call this battle, culture wins. But is that also true of family? I’d say it depends on the kind. If it is relatively small and manageable, “planned,” then the answer is a resounding yes. But if it gets big, messy, evangelical and unpredictable one can’t be so sure.

Guest Response by Anonymous

In her commentary "Small Town Versus Your Town," Cantice argues that culture wins depending on where one comes from, as evidenced through the title. For instance, she opines that Gov. Palin, the Republican VP nominee, decision to have a fifth child proves her stance on prolife. While I agree that having a child with Downs is commendable, as well as difficult, I do not agree that it validates her claim and avid support of the prolife movement. Gov. Palin made a conscious decision to go through this pregnancy. This begs the question: had Sarah been prochoice, would she have decided not the have the child? Further, with the leaps and bounds made in genetic counceling and other medical advancements, it would be silly to postulate that her mere action of giving birth gives grounds to support a prolife stance. Instead, one would argue it was a political move buttressed by her extremist and orthodoxed religious views.

In addition, Cantice's claim that in today's culture child birth is seen as "environmentally wrong," is actually fallacious. In fact, the same arguement could be made if overpopulation wasn't an issue. The truth is that as people evolve and progress along with societal advancements, so do mindsets. If we rested on the ideas of "yesterday" we might quickly find ourselves behind on a myriad of issues like combating global warming and nuclear proliferation. Simply put, this claim is a misrepresentation of the grounds on which individuals decide to not procreate. Moreover, while Cantice claims Senator Clinton seized opportunities to promote her political agenda, it is more valid to point out that Senator Clinton, like any woman living during the 1960s and 70s, found optimism with change and progression rather than resting and depending on others for a hand-out. The comment that Clinton didn't initially change her name, denied Bill's marriage proposal countless times and even brought a house with him before being married, really hurt the writer's arguement. What woman would not want to take a chance at breaking the glass ceiling that has been dominated by white men for so long? Even Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain applauded the work of Senator Clinton. In her first VP speech, Gov. Palin thanked Clinton by for making "18 million cracks in the ceiling" which Palin hopes will break with her nomination.

This election's contest is not a question of traditional vs. progressive, but a question of the manifestation of years of long, hard, and dedicated work. Furthermore, Cantice's argument is riddled with relativistic rhetoric. Yes, Palin is a mother, councilwoman, mayor and Governor. However, does that negate the work of countless other women like Senator Clinton and her road to political accomplishment? I think not. In fact, Gov. Palin would not even be an issue had Sen. Clinton won the Democratic nomination or even been Barack Obama's VP pick.