selectively off-limits
Comments: 0 - posted on September 3rd, 2008
Regarding whether Bristol's pregnancy ought to be outside the political fight, Daniel Radosh nails it for me:
Finally, let's dispose of this nonsense that Bristol's "condition" is out of bounds.
I believe the exact formulation of the rule is, if there's grass on the field, let's play. I know what Barack Obama said: "How a family deals with issues and you know teenage children, that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics." Um, in Europe, maybe.
Obama himself has made (other people's) parental responsibility a centerpiece of his campaign. And it's not just him. Is there a politician around today who hasn't mouthed off on the proper way for families to deal with issues regarding teenage children? Hillary Clinton wanted to ban Grand Theft Auto. Talk about something that shouldn't be the topic of our politics. McCain cited the example of his own daughter when he opposed Bill Clinton's sex-ed and contraception policies. But suddenly, our politics isn't supposed to touch on how families deal with teenage children? Or is the idea that it's OK to talk about "families" and "children" in the abstract, as long as we let actual families with children alone. Sorry, but every child impacted by lousy Republican policy is someone's actual child.
And as numerous people have noted, Palin has ensured that her daughter's pregnancy should be a political issue by repeatedly referring to her decision to keep the child. That opens up an entirely legitimate, and extremely important, question Palin should answer if and when she gets around to answering questions: "In praising your daughter's decision, aren't you implying that she has the right to make a decision? If this decision is a private family matter, why do you want to take that decision away from families and give it to the government?" Palin has also stressed that Bristol will marry her hottie boyfriend, and will have the full love and support of her family. But lots of teenage girls who aren't so fortunate in either respect. With the matter of "decision making," or "choice," as it's sometimes called, having been put squarely on the table by Palin herself, shouldn't she be obliged to discuss why it's right to take away the right to make that decision from less fortunate girls? Not abstract ones, but actual ones. Children who are every bit as human as her own daughter.
To this I'll add that if it were a Democrat's daughter, would it be off-limits? Of course not; it would be evidence of the moral perfidy of liberalism. Since the choice of Palin for the ticket was based in large part on her appeal to Christian conservatives, of course the unwed pregnancy of her teenage daughter is an issue. If this is unfair to her poor daughter, it is Palin who exposed her to it, accepting the nomination for Vice President knowing that it would shine a bright light on her family.
