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.
Posts
6 comments:
I would argue that Sarah Palin was most likely the best choice for John McCains running mate, but not for her "pro-life stance" or her small town strong family values. It's simple. Palin is a WOMAN, and a possible WOMAN Vice President was the only thing that could compete with Obamas increasing popularity. In this election, it seems that society does not value the issues as they do the "culture wars."
When you compare Clinton's path to Palins path, it is true that we see two completely different women. Clinton took the strong woman route while Palin took the noble wife and mother route. This does not mean that Clinton does not hold family values, nor does it mean that she is any less loyal to her husband and daughter.
We know that Palin is pro-life. She says it, and to our knowledge, she lives by it. However, when it comes to family, presidential candidacy does not play a part. If we were to have a pro-life president and vice-president it would not change everyones view to pro-life. If Clinton, a woman candidate who may have prolonged marriage and children, were to have gained presidency, it does not necessarily mean that it will change the views as a whole of the nation. We are raised from birth by our gaurdians. Culture is inherited.
In the essay “Small Town vs. Big Town,” it is argued that Sarah Palin was a surprise candidate for the Republican Party and her stance on pro-life is different than that of the world. I do not agree that she is necessarily the most capable candidate for the job. It is true that her road to politics was unorthodox, as she wanted to see change in her neighborhood, city, and eventually her state. But from reading this I get the notion that, because Palin is a nice person with good intentions she should get the job. When it comes to choosing a VP, I would like someone who is highly capable in handling foreign affairs, and well versed with the countless aspects of society. We need someone who in the event will be able to run this nation. It is evident that Palin wants to make a difference, but I’m not certain she is ready to make impact on a National scale. I felt there was an attack made on Hillary Clinton, because she is not the traditional “barefoot and pregnant” woman. She is a “go getter” who strategically moved through the political arena, in hopes of one day being the president of the United States. I do not particularly care for her persona. The disdain for her attitude is a pre-conceived gender role that has been ingrained from American Society. But, Hillary has worked to prove that it’s ok for a woman to do whatever a man does. And I respect that. When it boils down to who will win the November election, it is a battle of the cultures, and which one America is most likely to accept is uncertain. Will people choose the party most congenial or the one most knowledgeable?
Kristen Haley
(not for post, thanks!)
In "Small Town vs. Your Town" it is stated that Palin's pro-life stance and family oriented experience appeals to voter's in a way that makes her an impressive running mate. However it seems to me that Palin plays on her family ties and family experience so intensely that she down plays larger qualifications necessary to be a VP. Many stay at home mothers can relate to her but these same "hockey moms" know that they would not have the government experience or know how to assist in running a country. What stands out to me most is why McCain chose Palin opposed to someone with government experience on a larger scale. Therefore most are left to assume that he is targeting women and families in his decision. This to me in a way undermines women ability to separate "family and state" and insinuates that women are so caught up on family oriented aspects of the election we won't take the time to consider the meat of the issues and use government experiences with other policies and procedures outside of family oriented issues to factor into our decision. Family issues are very important in the election but it takes much more to win a vote.
-Destinee Moore
While Green claims that Sarah Palin is an excellent choice for vice presidential candidate in the Republican race for the White House based on Palin’s morals and personal life choices, she fails to consider the important point that we are not voting for one candidate or the other based on the personal choices that the candidates have made in the past. Therefore a more accurate reason to vote for Sarah Palin would be based on her views on foreign policies, the American healthcare system, the war in Iraq, etc.
Green rejoices over McCain’s choice for vice president because Palin is a pro-life activist who is against sex education in schools and pro-abstinence. However both Green and Palin have failed to realize that the lack of sex education is schools directly contributes to the rate of teenage pregnancies in the Unites States. Such cases can be exampled by Governor Palin’s own seventeen year old, unwed daughter who is five months pregnant. Palin’s daughter, Bristol, and the unborn child’s father are “set to marry,” yet have not done so. In Palin and Green’s stance against sex education, they fail to grasp the fact that just because school aged children may be taught to practice abstinence until they are married, all children will not follow the practice of abstinence because a simple suggestion has been put in place. The same goes for any law or rule set in place in contemporary America. To murder another human being is definitely against the law and is punishable in court, which people know of from the time that they are young children, however many children grow up to become murders. The smartest decision for Palin would be to fully support and fund sex education in public schools in order to create awareness of becoming sexually active. If Governor Palin is worried about the cost of providing sex education in public schools, in the future, wouldn’t it be better to use tax payers’ money to pay for sex education for children so that they may be forewarned of the possible consequences of premarital sex than to have to use tax payers’ dollars to have to fund welfare programs for unwed mothers of multiple children?
-Justine Burke
When reading this I was somewhat taken back. All in all, this piece definitely offered me a different point of view to consider.One I disagree with but it is still good to know how the other side feels. McCains decision to choose Palin as his running mate was not out of her morals or family values, it was because she was a female. It was simply strategic. Her views on foriegn affairs, public policy, and the like are what we choose a candidate for and that is what I disagree with.
Like many other informed voters, I have been frustrated by John McCain's choice of running mate. Sarah Palin is a token pick. She is vastly under qualified compared to all the other VP candidates that McCain had to choose from. Just because this woman goes around toting a bible in one hand and a rifle filled with neo-conservative ammunition in the other, does not make her a good candidate. Just because she is a mother, she is not a good candidate. Some of the same people who admonish the Black community for voting for Barack Obama because he is a Black man, will say that they are voting for Sarah Palin because she is a mother (i.e. woman). This race should be about the issues and integrity, not personality and the number of children you have.
I respect Sarah Palin's decision to be a pro-life activist, however anyone who threatens to overturn such a key piece of legal precedent like Roe v. Wade is infringing upon my personal rights. If Sarah Palin has her way, women will go back to the days of back alley abortions and coat hangers. Palin has even expressed her opposition to abortion in the cases of rape and incest, an exception universally agreed upon by conservatives and liberals alike. This type of right wing, evangelical Christian stance is incompatible with the world that we live in. Just because Palin believes something, it should not be forced upon the whole country. Procreation is like many things, a choice. Some may call it irresponsible for someone to have five children in a world with dwindling resources and an already fragile ecosystem, but that was Sarah Palin’s choice. She wishes to deprive others of this very choice that she made. America is a melting pot of different cultures, values, and religions. To impose Sarah Palin’s extreme fundamentalism on the citizens of this country would be a disservice to women and men alike. This race is not about a battle between small town traditionalism and big city liberalism. The nomination of Sarah Palin has made this race to the White House about an assault on reason and a likely knock down, drag out war between closed mindedness and the freedom that our democracy rests upon.
Post a Comment