Category Archives: Sarah Palin

John O’Sullivan sees Margaret Thatcher in Sarah Palin

Posted on by | No Comments

Thanks to Joseph Russo for posting the link to this—it’s a great piece.  (Since it’s 1 AM and I can’t sleep, I also appreciate my computer working well enough so I could read it.)  O’Sullivan writes,

I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common. . . .

Mrs. Palin has a long way to go to match [the world-historical figure who today is the gold standard of conservative statesmanship]. Circumstances may never give her the chance to do so. Even if she gets that chance, she may lack Mrs. Thatcher’s depths of courage, firmness and stamina—we only ever know such things in retrospect.

But she has plenty of time . . . to analyze America’s problems, recruit her own expert advice, and develop conservative solutions to them. She has obvious intelligence, drive, serious moral character, and a Reaganesque likability. Her likely Republican rivals such as Bobby Jindal and Mitt Romney, not to mention Barack Obama, have most of these same qualities too. But she shares with Mrs. Thatcher a very rare charisma. As Ronnie Millar, the latter’s speechwriter and a successful playwright, used to say in theatrical tones: She may be depressed, ill-dressed and having a bad hair day, but when the curtain rises, out onto the stage she steps looking like a billion dollars. That’s the mark of a star, dear boy. They rise to the big occasions.

Mrs. Palin had four big occasions in the late, doomed Republican campaign: her introduction by John McCain in Ohio, her speech at the GOP convention, her vice-presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden, and her appearance on Saturday Night Live. With minimal preparation, she rose to all four of them. That’s the mark of a star.

If conservative intellectuals, Republican operatives and McCain “handlers” can’t see it, then so much the worse for them.

John O’Sullivan knows whereof he speaks.  Check it out.

A few tips of the hat

Posted on by | No Comments

We’re having some internet problems here—no connection at the church today at all, and a pretty poor one here at home—so I haven’t had much success with any online work; but I thought I might be able to get a relatively quick links post through.

Jared Wilson has a couple strong posts up, “The Kingdom is For Those Who Know How to Die” and “Faith, Hope, and Love is About Proximity to Jesus.” I’ve also been meaning to note his excerpt from Skye Jethani’s new book The Divine Commodity, which I think dovetails with my recent post on worship.

Not to leave the rest of the Thinklings out, Philip has a good post on communicating the gospel, Bird makes a good point about repentance, and Bill asks an interesting question:  is the American church actually too macho?

I love Hap’s retelling of the story of Abigail.  If you’re not familiar with it, you can find the original in 1 Samuel 25.

Pauline Evans, to whom I haven’t linked in far too long, has a nifty little post up on the development of computers, and how the comparisons we use are in some ways quite misleading; she also has one up, I just discovered, on a couple children’s fantasy books that I think I’m going to need to read.  (This may follow nicely on our recent discovery in this household of Tamora Pierce.)

Debbie Berkley posted something last January that I’ve kept meaning to write about, reflecting on the uncertainty we face these days in the light of the wisdom of a fellow Christian from India:  “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.”  Sage counsel, and certainly no less applicable now, two months on.

And, on the subject of politics (and specifically political dirty tricks), Andrew Breitbart has had some interesting things to say of late about the online war liberals are waging (and winning) against conservatives.  Barack Obama promised to elevate the tone of political discourse in this country, but you don’t have to be a Sarah Palin supporter to recognize that some of his followers didn’t get the memo.

This isn’t everyone I’d like to mention, but I’m only linking to pages I can actually pull up, and it’s pretty hit-and-miss at the moment.  Still, I’m glad to note these, and maybe I’ll do another one soon to highlight the ones that wouldn’t come up.

I have to admit, this makes me smile

Posted on by | 6 Comments

I’ve been a fan of Law & Order almost since its inception.  Like most folks, my favorite characters over the show’s life are the two big ones, Det. Lenny Briscoe (Jerry Orbach, RIP) and EADA/DA Jack McCoy (Sam Waterston); part of that, probably, is that both actors have always struck me as people I’d enjoy knowing in real life, quite aside from the people they play.  Also like most folks, my favorite character after those two was ADA Abbie Carmichael (Angie Harmon), whom I really wish had had a significantly longer run on the show (especially as I didn’t care for her replacement at all)—which meant it was a very pleasant surprise (dare I pull a Chris Matthews and say a thrill ran up my leg?) to read that she’s a fan of Sarah Palin:

I admire any kind of woman like her. My whole motto is to know what I stand for and know what I don’t stand for and have the courage to live my life accordingly and she does exactly that. The fact that this woman has made the decisions she’s made and literally lived her life according to that and takes heat for it is absolutely disgusting to me,” she added. “People cannot look at this woman. I really think they’re afraid of her and her morals, ethics and values and the fact that she hangs on them.

Of course, Fox News felt the need to conclude the article with a bunch of celebrities telling them how wonderful Barack Obama is and what a great job he’s doing; but Angie Harmon got the bulk of the piece to praise Gov. Palin (and also to express her dissatisfaction with President Obama, and with being accused of racism for not being liberal), and that’s an enjoyable little spark for the day.HT:  Joseph Russo

To lure independents, nominate a conservative?

Posted on by | 9 Comments

In yesterday’s open thread on HillBuzz, the poster made an interesting argument that I’ve been mulling ever since:

We don’t believe Republicans can win the White House with a moderate—they need a conservative, and should not try to court moderate Democrats like us. Paradoxical, we know, but hear us out. We believe Independents don’t know what to do with a moderate Republican like McCain . . . there isn’t a clear line of distinction between Republican and Democrat in that case, so Independents don’t see a good choice to make, and seem to default vote Democrat in that case. But, those Independents had no trouble voting for Bush . . . and Republican turnout for Bush in 2004 was higher than it was for McCain in 2008. Without Palin, a true conservative, that turnout would have been dismal.

As fellow Palinites, those folks are of course offering this in support of the proposition that Sen. McCain did considerably better with Gov. Palin on the ticket than he would have if he’d picked someone else—something which I argued last summer would be the case and am convinced was indeed the case, despite the MSM’s best efforts to bring her down.  As someone whose political convictions are fairly described as conservative, I of course believe already that the GOP ought to nominate a conservative for the White House next time rather than a moderate.  As such, the perception-of-intelligence problem (our tendency to judge as “intelligent” anyone who comes up with a good argument for what we already believe, or want to believe) is clearly in play here.  The fact that I have, and know I have, a predilection for counterintuitive arguments such as this only reinforces that.  So as I read this, I have to try to filter all those things out.Having done my best to do so, however, this still makes sense to me—and the evidence, such as we have, does seem to bear it out.  When, after all, was the last time a Republican won running as a moderate?  Wouldn’t it be Eisenhower in 1956?  Broadly speaking, Nixon ran as a conservative in 1968 (talking about the “silent majority”), George H. W. Bush ran as a conservative in 1988 (“Read my lips:  No new taxes”)—before losing in 1992 after his time in office proved him nothing of the sort—and George W. Bush ran as a conservative in 2000.  Reagan, of course, inarguably was a conservative, if a rather more pragmatic one than many sometimes remember.   Meanwhile, even if you don’t blame Gerald Ford for his loss in 1976, the Republican Establishment types didn’t do much in 1996 or 2008.The first read, anyway, does seem to suggest that independents are more likely to vote for a conservative Republican than for a moderate Republican, at least at the national level; this thesis seems to me to support further investigation even if I do find it appealing.  Not being a statistician (except for a certain amateur interest when it comes to sports), I have no idea how to investigate this to see if it stands up to more rigorous examination—but I hope someone puts in the work, and if so, I’ll be interested to see their conclusions.

Here’s a noteworthy admission

Posted on by | No Comments

God bless them. . . .  Over 50 million people voted for me and Sarah Palin—
mostly for Sarah Palin.—John McCain
That, courtesy of CNN’s PoliticalTicker blog, was one of Sen. McCain’s comments today at the Heritage Foundation.  It’s a remarkable comment—remarkably honest, I think, and really remarkably gracious, too; it reminds me again of all the things I really do like about the man, for all the issues I have with him.

We should have seen Sarah Palin coming

Posted on by | 15 Comments

When I started this blog, I lived in a small town in the Colorado Rockies—and when I say “small,” I mean it; to give you an idea, there are more students in my oldest daughter’s new elementary school than there are people living in Grand Lake.  (Full-time, anyway.)  If you’ve never lived in a small town in the mountains, you need to understand that it’s a different world up there.  You might have the idea that mountain towns are full of colorful characters, and it’s true; they also tend to be fiercely independent, even more fiercely stubborn, and not always so good at compromising and playing nice with others.  As I’ve written before, the downside of that is that you tend to get communities that range from mildly dysfunctional to complete trainwreck towns like Leadville was (and maybe still is, for all I know).I’m not just going on my own experience in saying this, either; during my five years up there, I compared notes fairly frequently with other mountain pastors, because we were all dealing with similar issues that our flatlander colleagues just didn’t understand.  All our communities were different, to be sure, but we shared common root issues and struggles.  Our town made the headlines twice during my five years there:  once when one of our residents sought redress for his grievances against the county’s commercial hub in the cockpit of the 60-ton Komatsu D355 bulldozer that he’d turned into a 75-ton tank, and once when our church’s oldest and most-beloved member died of an unprovoked attack by a rogue bull moose, something which really isn’t normal moose behavior.  None of my colleagues had anything quite that out of the ordinary happen, but they all had some pretty strange stories of their own; that’s just how it is in the mountains.  Or as my organist from Colorado would say, that’s life in a tomato can.All of this is the reason why I found myself starting to write in an e-mail yesterday, “If there’s a Patrick Henry left in this country, he lives somewhere in the Rockies”; but as I wrote that, I suddenly remembered how many of our most characteristic people—the sort of folks who were still climbing fourteeners in their eighties and musing that when they died, they’d have their bodies autoclaved and set out to fertilize the roses—spent significant time in Alaska every year, and/or had lived there in the past and loved it.  It occurred to me that outside of Anchorage and Juneau, the spirit of our little mountain towns, which is the spirit of the old frontier folks who just had to get out from under the conformity of society, is also very much alive and well in Alaska.  (Maybe even in Anchorage and Juneau to some degree.)That having occurred to me, I suddenly realized that that said something very important about Gov. Palin.  Her emergence was a complete shock to most of the Washington elite—of both parties, which is why she took some heavy hits from many who should have had her back—but it shouldn’t have been; the fact that it was says a lot more about them than it does about her.  I don’t say that we should have expected someone as purely gifted as Sarah Palin to appear on the scene, because she’s a once-in-a-generation political talent (yes, I think she’s a level beyond Barack Obama in that respect, for all his evident gifts as a campaigner), but in a more general way, we really should have seen her coming.  In particular, the very elites who were so scandalized by her arrival on the landscape should have seen her coming, if they were actually doing their jobs.Why?  Well, what is the Republican base looking for?  Another Reagan—and by that I don’t just mean a “real conservative.”  Newt Gingrich was more conservative than Reagan, and I don’t believe we’re looking for another Newt (or even the return of the first one, though many folks would accept that in a pinch).  No, the base is looking for a common-sense, common-folks, common-touch conservative, someone who’s conservative not merely pragmatically or even philosophically but out of an honest respect for and empathy with the “ordinary barbarians” of this nation; we’re looking for someone who understands why Russell Kirk, the great philosopher of American conservatism, lived his entire adult life not in one of the media or academic centers of this country, but in rural Mecosta County, Michigan (the next county south of where my in-laws live)—and who understands that that fact has everything to do with his conservatism.  We’re looking for someone whose conservative principles are anchored in the bedrock of this nation, and who understands our conservatism not merely as an intellectual exercise, but out of shared life experience and a common worldview.That, I think, is why George W. Bush won the GOP nomination in 2000, because he projected that—and indeed, he has many of those qualities; he just wasn’t all that conservative, and so he disappointed many.  For all the Texas in him, he still had too much of Harvard and D.C. in him, too, and so was too prone to play by the rules of the political elite.  It’s telling that the great success of his second term (the surge) came from standing up, not to the mandarins of his own party—some of them, yes, but they were balanced somewhat by John McCain, who’d been arguing for the surge for years—but to the senior leaders of the U.S. military, whom he could approach on very different terms.  He could tell the Joint Chiefs to shut up and soldier; he doesn’t seem to have had it in him to do so to the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the White House correspondents, and in that lay much of the malformation of his presidency.The problem is that the qualities the GOP base is seeking aren’t qualities which are rewarded by the political process in most places; in most of this country, to achieve the kind of prominence and to compile the kind of record that are necessary to justify a run for the White House, it’s necessary to compromise those qualities.  To get to Washington, you must increasingly become like Washington—that’s just how the political process works across most of this country.The exception to that—the only great exception I can think of—is the remaining frontier communities in the American West; and of those, it may well be that the only one that’s really large enough for anyone to rise to political prominence without extensive exposure to the elite political culture in America is Alaska.  I don’t hold our mountain communities up as any sort of ideal—I know well from experience that they’re no Shangri-La—and I’m not going to try to do so for Alaska, either; but if anyone in this society was ever going to rise to political prominence as a true champion of conservative ideals, of the spirit of us “ordinary barbarians,” without being co-opted and corrupted by the spirit and outlook of the political elite, it was going to have to be from someplace like Alaska.  We aren’t going to get another Reagan from Massachusetts, or Minnesota, or Arkansas, or Florida; from Alaska, we have a chance.  The fact that few in the elite would be likely to take such a person seriously is actually part of the point, since they didn’t take Reagan seriously either; the revolt against elite opinion (which is not, mind you, the same thing as populism, for all that many in the MSM confuse the two) is part of what the base wants, and someone willing to lead it and stick to it is one of the qualifications.All of which is to say, we might not have predicted specifically the remarkable and gifted woman who is governor of Alaska, or that she would arrive on the scene exactly when she did (though as bizarre as the 2008 presidential election was, when would have been a likelier time?), but we should have expected someone to come out of Alaska, and probably fairly soon.  The “can anything good come out of Nazareth?” sort of incredulous reaction that we got from so many in the punditocracy was not only unjustified, it was a clear sign of their myopia, that they’re so burrowed in to being insiders that they’re largely incapable of looking out the window to see what’s going on outside.  The GOP base wants another Reagan, and won’t be truly happy until it has one; and where else could such a figure come from?Update:  Welcome to all of you coming over from C4P and HillBuzz—it’s good to have you drop by.  The moose stew should be ready in a bit.  If you want to check out a few more of my posts on Gov. Palin, the links post is here.

Why America needs Sarah Palin, cont’d.

Posted on by | No Comments

Other Republican governors, such as Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, raised concerns about the “stimulus” bill just as Gov. Palin did, and announced their intention not to take all the money alloted to their states; and when the time came, they followed through on their promise not to take all the money, though they did take most of it.  Gov. Palin, on the other hand, told the feds, “Sorry, but we only need about half of that.”Seriously.

Protesting federal “strings,” attached to stimulus funding, Gov. Sarah Palin said she doesn’t want nearly half the estimated $930 million Alaska is eligible for.”Will we chart our own course, or will Washington (D.C.) engineer it for us?” Palin said.She expected to file an appropriations bill this afternoon accepting about $251.5 million in stimulus funds, coupled with allocations of $262.6 million already requested for transportation and aviation projects for a total state take of about $514.1 million. . . .

The Anchorage Daily News had this quote from the governor explaining her reasoning:

We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government. We are not requesting more money for normal day to day operations of government as part of this economic stimulus package. In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government.

The written statement released by the governor’s office contains a pretty pointed critique of the “stimulus” bill and the reasoning behind it.

Governor Sarah Palin submitted her federal economic stimulus appropriation bill to legislators today to provide jobs and needed infrastructure improvements in Alaska under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Governor Palin is accepting just 55 percent of the available stimulus funds, all for capital projects. This amount includes the funds the state accepted last month for Department of Transportation projects.”We will request federal stimulus funds for capital projects that will create new jobs and expand the economy,” Governor Palin said. “We won’t be bound by federal strings in exchange for dollars, nor will we dig ourselves a deeper hole in two years when these federal funds are gone. For instance, in order to accept what look like attractive energy funds, our local communities would be required to adopt uniform building codes. Government would then be required to police those codes. These types of funds are not sensible for Alaska.”The legislation does not include funding requests for government operating programs. . . .”The law requires me to certify that the requests I forward for legislative approval will meet the requirements of the ARRA to create jobs and promote economic growth,” Governor Palin said. “Legitimately, I can only certify capital projects that are job-ready. Alaska has seen unprecedented increases in the level of state funding for education because that is our priority. I don’t want to automatically increase federal funding for education program growth, such as the National Endowment for the Arts, at a time when Alaska can’t afford to sustain that increase.””Simply expanding state government under this federal stimulus package creates an unrealistic expectation that the state will continue these programs when the federal funds are no longer available,” said Governor Palin. “Our nation is already over $11 trillion in debt; we can’t keep digging this hole.” . . .”Our desire is to foster a discussion about what is true stimulus and what is just more federal interference in Alaskans’ lives through the growth of government,” Governor Palin said. “We think stimulus items devoted to government agency growth and program expansion ought to be examined in light of the funding needs already being addressed with our pending budget requests.” . . .”We need to ensure that these stimulus dollars are used for job opportunities for Alaskans, while preserving the regular operating spending decisions through the normal budget process,” Governor Palin said.

Here’s video of her press conference:

For those who may have forgotten, since it’s been a while:  that’s what conservative government looks like.Update:  OK, there was another 14% of the money, allotted for Medicaid funding, which the state had already accepted; Gov. Palin’s actually only proposing to reject 31% of the “stimulus” money.  The point holds.

Parading your ignorance and calling it “reality”

Posted on by | 3 Comments

or, The Irony of Ignorant Palin-Bashers Bashing Gov. Palin for Being IgnorantAs I noted yesterday, “echo-chamber types are once again pushing the canard that this is all because Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in teaching contraceptive use in schools”; today saw a particularly egregious example, courtesy(?) of Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson, who smugly declares,

This isn’t an argument for abortion, but one for reality—drop abstinence only, make contraceptives available and consider adoption, relying on grandparents, or single parenting until the child herself grows up.

OK, so if we’re making a parade about “an argument for . . . reality,” let’s consider what the reality actually is here, shall we?  Unfortunately for Carlson, if we do that, she doesn’t come off very well.First, she says, “drop abstinence only.”  One problem:

Abstinence-only education doesn’t actually exist. It’s a term used by critics of abstinence education rather than purveyors, who prefer, simply, abstinence education. The term “abstinence-only” attempts to create the perception that abstinence education is a narrow and unrealistic approach. While such loaded terms are to be expected of activists, the media usage of the term is regrettable.

In other words, Carlson’s beating a straw man, asking conservatives to drop something that we don’t advocate; she’s busy feeling smugly superior to people who do not in fact exist.  Good for her ego, bad for her argument, and worse for her understanding of what’s actually going on (which might be a trade she’s happy to take, for all I know).Second, as Mollie Ziegler Hemingway also points out, the smugly superior types like Carlson not only don’t know what abstinence education is, they don’t understand what it’s about.

The liberal caricature of abstinence education is of school marms rapping the knuckles of teens and telling them—day after day—not to have sex. In fact, a review of curricula for abstinence education programs shows surprisingly little about sex—and a lot about building self-esteem, understanding risky behavior, finding responsible partners, and growing a family.ReCapturing the Vision, one abstinence curriculum used for girls-only education, begins with a unit designed to help students see their bodies as beautiful and to accept themselves as they are. Other units teach them how to define their morals and values, resist negative influences, manage conflict and understand their emotions, and determine how to achieve personal, academic, professional, and financial goals. The final unit uses mock interviews, job searches, and résumé writing to help girls transition to adulthood.In other words, abstinence education isn’t only, or even primarily, about preventing teen pregnancy. It is about learning life skills, encouraging the formation of families, and taking responsibility for your behavior, which helps explain the cultural chasm between its supporters and those who saw Bristol Palin and screamed “hypocrisy!”

Third, when Carlson says we should “make contraceptives available,” she might be surprised to know that Gov. Palin agrees with her.  This isn’t speculation, either, as the governor is already on the record on this subject—and not in the way that her ignorant detractors assume from their bigoted stereotypes:

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself “pro-contraception” and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.“I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues,” she said during a debate in Juneau. . . .Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.

The irony of the whole thing is, that position put her at odds with both the GOP platform and her running mate, which is why the Los Angeles Times titled its story on this “Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education”; but when the MSM decided it was more politically advantageous to stereotype Gov. Palin and beat her for something she doesn’t actually believe than to use what she does believe to try to drive a wedge between her and her running mate, the truth was conveniently forgotten.Fourth, the implicit assumption that since Bristol Palin got pregnant, she must have been taught about sex in a non-liberal-approved fashion is just that:  an assumption, and an unwarranted one, at that, as Hemingway points out.

No one bothered to find out what type of sex education, if any, Bristol had received and assumed her mother—despite on-the-record comments supportive of teaching both abstinence and contraception—opposed sex education.

(As Hemingway further notes, even if the assumption were correct, “it is empirically laughable to judge the effectiveness or utility of abstinence education based on one teen pregnancy”; but folks like Carlson who are pushing an agenda don’t care about inconvenient truths like that.)Finally, Carlson asserts that people should “consider adoption, relying on grandparents, or single parenting” rather than allowing/encouraging teens to marry.  Her sweeping unfounded assumption here is almost too grandiose and simplistic to answer; this doesn’t qualify as an “argument for reality” because it shows no effort to understand what the reality is.  To wit, who says people don’t do all those things?  No evidence I’ve seen, certainly; and in the case of the Palin family, it’s been crystal-clear ever since the news broke that family support, not just from grandparents but also from great-grandparents and others, was very much a part of the plan for the care and support of little Tripp and his parents.  (As for her suggestion that single parenting is a better option than marriage, I can only conclude two things:  one, Margaret Carlson has never studied the issue in any meaningful way; and two, she probably wasn’t a single mother as a teen.)Taken all in all, I can only conclude that Carlson’s column on the Palins would be a good deal better if she actually had a clue what she’s talking about.  It’s a pity that the media we have now don’t care enough about such things to enforce them.

Sarah Palin through the spyglass

Posted on by | 4 Comments

My father-in-law is a sharp and perceptive chap, with a remarkable ability to think beyond what the conventional wisdom says is possible.  I’ll sometimes joke about myself that one of the biggest things I have to offer is my crack-brained ideas—I just need someone else who can tell me which ones are worth keeping once cracked; my father-in-law is like that too, except that he’s less inhibited than I am.  He started in February of last year trying to convince me that the first-term governor of Alaska was the best choice for #2 on the Republican ticket; by June, with John McCain the clear nominee for the top slot, he had me convinced.  Since then, my support for Gov. Palin has only increased.  Here are, I think, the most important posts I’ve put up about the GOP’s Great Northern Hope (updated through 5/20/09):Sarah Palin for VP
The post that started it allThe “I Am Sarah Palin” vote is mobilizing
For all my arguments for Gov. Palin on the ticket, this was one I didn’t see comingDisappointment is no argument against Gov. Palin
Defending her (and her daughter) against conservative complainersPalin rumors and Palin facts
Debunking the lies (and there have been many)British Palin envy
What some Brits realized that most Americans didn’tPositive feminist perspectives on Sarah Palin
Because those who were willing to see her for who she is were impressed, even as they disagree with her positionsThe speech they wouldn’t let Sarah Palin give
is a perspective on Iran that the current administration could useWhither Sarah Palin?
My $0.02 on the tack she should take for the next few yearsCamille Paglia on Sarah Palin
How to admire someone with whom you believe almost nothing in commonWhy America needs Sarah Palin
Her 2009 State of the State address is a model of conservative governing philosophy. . . and Sarah Palin’s biography matters, too
This links to an excellent biographical sketch of Gov. Palin’s life and its significance for her as a politician and executiveThe real meaning of the evangelical response to Bristol Palin
The Palin family as microcosmParading your ignorance and calling it “reality”
Correcting the misrepresentation of Gov. Palin’s position on sex education.We should have seen Sarah Palin coming
On why Gov. Palin is the candidate the Republican base has been looking for.Franklin Graham likes Sarah Palin’s coattails
Considering the significance of Samaritan’s Purse highlighting Gov. Palin in its fundraising.Political machines hate reformers
“That, in a nutshell, is the meaning of most of the news stories about Sarah Palin in recent months.”Mitt Romney, the Beltway GOP, and the meaning of Evansville
On the real significance of Gov. Palin’s appearance at the Vandenburgh County Right to Life banquet.Gov. Palin and the abortion shift
From the time of her appearance (and Trig’s!) on the national scene, support for abortion has declined significantly.  Hmmm . . .

The real meaning of the evangelical response to Bristol Palin

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I really didn’t want to write about the news of Bristol Palin’s broken engagement, which I found saddening and disheartening.  In analyzing it, I had two main reactions.  First, that this story is basically about a teenage girl who’s done some unwise things and made some bad decisions, both of which are pretty common at that age.  (I was going to write, “that age at which we tend to think we’re much wiser and more mature than we really are”—but as far as I can tell, that describes every age.)  If you’re honest, you’d have to admit that you did some really dumb things at 17.  For my part, at that age, I didn’t do much of anything besides go to school, go home, read, and go to church on Sundays—I didn’t hardly have the opportunity to do dumb stuff—but I did.  “Teenage girl does something foolish, pays consequences” is an afterschool special or a Very Special Episode; as “news,” it’s strictly dog-bites-man.  The only thing that makes this “newsworthy” is who Bristol Palin’s mother is.Second, am I the only one who read the piece in the AP and thought, “Wow, Levi Johnston’s sister is a real witch”?  It might not be fair, but I definitely got the vibe that she was jealous of Bristol, glad that Levi dumped her (since it also read to me like he was the dumper and she was the dumpee), and gleeful at the opportunity to shred her reputation in the national media.As far as national media reaction, though, I really didn’t want to go there.  As long as it was just confirmed PDS cases like Bonnie Erbe, I could let it slide; after all, the folks at National Review dispatched her quite handily.  (For those who might not know, PDS stands for “Palin Derangement Syndrome,” the official diagnosis for anyone whose rational processes go into violent spasms any time the word “Palin” is mentioned or a moose becomes visible on the horizon; for some reason the alternative name “Palin Madness Syndrome” never caught on.)  I didn’t see the benefit in giving Ms. Erbe’s commentary the unearned dignity of being treated seriously.  Granted, the fact that she and other echo-chamber types are once again pushing the canard that this is all because Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in teaching contraceptive use in schools (when in fact she explicitly supports doing so, though she does believe that sex education should encourage abstinence) deserved a response—but if I’d posted about that by itself, as I’ve been meaning to do, I could and would have done so perfectly easily without mentioning Bristol Palin.And then I ran across Jon Swift’s post, and I couldn’t let that one pass.Swift, a self-described “reasonable conservative,” asks the question, “Why is Bristol Palin different from Murphy Brown?” and comes up with the conclusion, “She is different because she is a conservative”—a conclusion which he then proceeds to argue and extend at tedious and tendentious length.His argument, to put it politely, is full of holes and rests on a number of unexamined assumptions; he gives a few examples of cases where conservative commentators had non-identical reactions to superficially similar situations and then concludes (without further evidence) that this is because of the political views of the people in question.  (Since one of his examples rests on the assumption that “Mary Cheney is a good conservative woman who will no doubt teach her children that they shouldn’t become lesbians like their mother,” this is particularly dubious.)  He then launches into what he apparently considers to be biting satire on Christian conservatives, writing,

We should have the courage of our convictions and not play the liberal game of moral equivalency. Instead of trying to explain away Bristol’s pregnancy we should be defending it, holding her up as an example of the difference between liberal teenage unwed mothers and conservative teenage unwed mothers. Because just as it is true that, as Richard Nixon once said, “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” when a good Christian conservative has a child out of wedlock, that means it’s not immoral.

The truth of the matter is, even if one concedes that he’s caught Kathryn Jean Lopez and Lisa Schiffren in the hypocrisy of which he accuses them—which I do not grant, but for the sake of argument—that doesn’t prove anything.  It doesn’t prove, first, that their hypocrisy is ideological at its root, nor second, that they would be representative of most conservatives in that respect.The first is, contra Swift’s evident assumption, something which does in fact have to be proven, since political persuasion is not the only difference between, say, Bristol Palin and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, and he doesn’t bother to examine Lopez’ and Schiffren’s arguments to see what they’re actually saying—he simply summarizes their positions and moves on to the ad hominem part.  The second rests on yet another assumption on Swift’s part, that evangelical attitudes toward teen pregnancy and unwed motherhood are still as hostile as old stereotypes make them out to be—and here’s where his argument fails altogether, because that’s simply no longer the case.I’m reluctant to give props to David Frum, who looks more like a giant wooden horse every time I see his byline, but he did a much better job than Swift on this issue in an article he wrote six months ago for Canada’s National Post.  He opened his piece in a manner Swift would no doubt approve—”Whoever imagined that we would see a Republican convention rapturously applaud an unwed teen mother?”—but then went on to actually think about what that really meant, and what it really tells us:

That moment confirmed a dramatic evolution in American politics: the transformation of the pro-life movement from an unambiguously conservative force into something more complex. . . .The pro-life movement has come to terms with the sexual revolution. So long as unwed parenthood is considered disgraceful, many unwed mothers will choose abortion to escape disgrace. And so, step by step, the pro-life movement has evolved to an accepting—even welcoming—attitude toward pregnancy outside marriage.

As I wrote about Frum’s article at the time, though I think “welcoming” is an overstatement,

Frum has captured and crystallized something of which I was aware—in my own attitudes and approach to ministry, no less than in the lives of others—but which I hadn’t consciously thought about. Put simply, when pro-life concerns cross with the concern for other issues, the tie goes to the baby.

The truth is, Frum is (if you’ll excuse the pun) dead right on this subject.  Sure, time was that conservative Christians in this country stigmatized teen pregnancy and disapproved of it as hard as we could; and then folks started pointing out that we weren’t really discouraging teenagers from getting pregnant—all we were doing was driving them into the ungentle hands of the abortion industry.  Collectively, we took a look at ourselves and realized that the critics were right; and over time, we by and large decided that we could live with teenage pregnancy and teen single motherhood—just don’t kill the baby.That’s the message on which most evangelicals in America have settled, when it comes to kids like Bristol Palin:  just don’t kill the baby, and we’ll do what we can to support you and help you out.  Why else have we started crisis pregnancy centers all over the place?  We didn’t have a utopian choice here, we had the choice of two evils; we stared it dead in the face, thought about it for a while, and picked the lesser one.  This is the bargain we made, and I believe it’s done more to reduce the abortion rate in this country than any government policy, even as it’s boosted the rate of illegitimacy.  Frum quotes the statistics:

As the stigma attached to unwed motherhood has diminished, the United States has seen both a huge increase in the proportion of babies born out of wedlock—now reaching almost 37%—and a striking decline in the incidence of abortions. In 1981, 29.3 abortions were carried out for every 1,000 women of childbearing age in the United States. By 2005, that rate had tumbled to 19.1 per 1,000 women.

Now, it seems to me likely that some of those young women wouldn’t have gotten pregnant at all if there were still the old stigma attached to unwed motherhood and illegitimacy; it also seems to me likely that for far more of them, that stigma wouldn’t have been enough to keep them from having sex, but only to send them running to the nearest abortionist to keep anyone from finding out they’d gotten pregnant.  I can’t prove that scientifically, to be sure, but that’s what my experience suggests to me, and many of my colleagues in ministry would say the same.I don’t remember exactly how many weddings I’ve done (it’s not a huge number), but I remember how many couples I’ve married who were virgins on their wedding night:  one.  Is this a good thing?  No.  Is it reality?  Yes.  Will it be changing any time soon?  No.  And if we’re going to make any headway against it, is it going to be through a return to older tactics?  Will we accomplish anything by trying to scare teens away from sex and making examples of girls who get pregnant?  No.  No, we’re not—it isn’t going to happen.Our culture is sex-saturated, we’re flooded with erotic stimuli, and there’s a powerful cultural push toward sexual activity—combined, alas, with other trends that are pushing the average marriage age later and later—and we aren’t going to be able to shovel our way out of this flood by making a negative case.  There is nothing to be gained by making a pariah and a target out of girls like Bristol Palin, and whatever you may think about evangelical Christians, we’re smart enough to see that.  We need to keep working on rolling back this tide, but we aren’t going to do it that way; we’re working on other approaches (including the abstinence-education programs Gov. Palin has been unfairly derided for supporting), but they’re going to take time.  And in the meantime, we have to live in this culture as it really is, not as we wish it were, and to do the best we can with what we have.What’s the difference between Bristol Palin and Murphy Brown?  Twenty years.  Twenty years’ bitter experience of the law of unintended consequences, that’s all.Update:  Welcome to folks coming over from The Point and C4P—I hope you take the time to have a look around.  Those of you from C4P might be particularly interested in today’s post responding specifically to Margaret Carlson.