Saturday, September 06, 2008

Palin-Hate: Deeper Causes

At First Things, Beckwith advances a few thoughts. Another conservative blogger referred to these as "speculative." They are not speculative in the least.

...What is it about Sarah Palin that convinced so much of the left to objectify and assault her so quickly, and with such manifest maliciousness? There are many reasons, but four of them stick out in particular, each having to do not with Palin’s politics, but with her family.

1) Trig Palin’s Down’s Syndrome is a challenge to their ideas about what represents worthwhile life. The fact that this Down’s baby was carried to term and not aborted is statement that his life has the same value as all life. This is an idea with which the left vehemently disagrees...

2) Which leads, of course, to abortion. Palin’s family is a double-rebuke to the culture of abortion. First, there’s Palin’s decision not to kill Trig because he has Trisomy 21. Then there is seventeen-year-old Bristol Palin’s decision to not to kill her baby

3) Then there are Palin’s religious views. She is a lifelong Christian who belongs to an evangelical church...

4) Finally, there’s the fertility. The Palin family’s five children would have been unexceptional forty years ago, but today constitute something of a fertility freak show. They’re the type of people for whom the epithet “breeder” was invented

I referred to these as "deeper causes" because they are precisely "deeper." The somewhat inchoate and (frankly), silly objections to Palin that have been expressed are inchoate and silly specifically because the objectors--the Elite, the Supercilious--are unwilling to express directly what Beckwith has put into writing here.

So they come up with straw-man criticisms: "trooper-", "bridge-", and the utterly stupid "she can't care for the baby AND work...." lines.

(In the last case, are the Elite and Supercilious suggesting that "equal opportunity" be proscribed for mothers with large families, or mothers with challenged children?)

One does not have to be super-sensitive to know very well the quiet derision given to large families, or to those bringing a challenged baby into the world. And, mind you, those whispers and behind-the-back knives are thrown by "conservatives" as well as "liberals."

That's because a lot of "conservatives" have bought the line of Mammon: it's the money, honey, not the gift of life, that counts. It's the ease and comfort, not the sacrifice. It's the "sustainability", not the human beings.

Once again, it's eschatology.


KathyR said...

I agree. My husband and I have 7 children, and the youngest has Down syndrome. We got a lot of comments about the size of our family (not all favorable)
After our 4th child was born, a friend told me that I shouldn't have any more kids because "you won't be able to afford to take them to Disneyland. That son is now 19 yrs old, and is my middle child..and I wouldn't trade tickets to Disneyland for any of them;-)
The attitude of some people after our youngest was born with Down syndrome was, "well, it serves you right...shouldn't have had so many kids."
What they don't realize is that every child has their own unique gifts, and our son with Ds has brought a deeper richness to our lives.
I heard about Gov. Palin for the first time when she announced the news of Trig's birth. I had been hoping and praying that she would get the VP nomination, but didn't really think it was possible. I was a reluctant McCain supporter, but the addition of Palin to the ticket has made me excited about voting for them. She is capable, smart, and has a supportive family. I think that she would be a great VP, and no, I don't think that Trig will be neglected.

Amy said...


I think many in your shoes feel the same way. God bless your awesome family.

grumps said...

No, Dad. Sorry. It's about the earmarks, the abuses of power and the troubles she has sticking to the truth. She's free to have as many kids as she'd like and take every one to Willow or Washington or where-ever.

It's that she's the farthest right candidate from either major party in decades and anathema to whatever politics Mccain said he had last.

Her womb is her business. We've been saying that for a long time. Glad that you're starting to see the light.

Dad29 said... mean "abuses of power" like Clinton's wholesale massacre of US Attorneys?

Or Reno's Raid on a 6-year-old?

By the way:

McCain is not obliged to pick another Left-o-Pubbie; just like Obama was not obliged to pick a back-bencher loser like Biden.

As to "earmarks," Palin did what was best for her constituency. That's not the Democrat way, for sure. In fact, I don't think "the Public Interest" is in the Dem lexicon any more.

And YOU may believe that 'her womb is her business.' That's a credit to you. But as to the Published Left (and the zillions of Kos-Ites), can read, too, Grumps.