In the recent flurry of discussions about Sarah Palin, the arguments often concentrate on whether she is a good mother. She is a good mother because she raises her children while having a career. She is a bad mother because she took an airplane after going into labor. She is a good mother because she chose not to abort a Down's syndrome child. She is a bad mother because she chose not to abort a Down's syndrome child. She is a good mother because she supported her pregnant teenage daughter. She is a bad mother because she has a pregnant teenage daughter. And so on, and so forth. My only question is: who cares?
A person's parenting skills (or whether they are faithful to their spouses, as happened in Sanford's case) should not, in my opinion, be a part of the discussion on whether they are qualified to do their job. One can be an amazing parent and a horrible politician. One can be a cheating spouse and a wonderful governor (president, senator, professor, auto mechanic, etc.).
It's true that Palin kept trotting her family out for political reasons. But her family or whether she even has a family are not relevant to what she was like in her job or what she would have been like as a Vice-President. Whatever she did, we should not be buying into this silly idea that being a nice person and a good parent (spose, child, sibling) in and of itself qualifies anybody for any kind of a job.
As people might have guessed from my previous posts, I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. I'm happy she resigned and hopeful that we will never see her again on the political scene. But saying that she was a bad choice for a Vice-President because she is a bad mother is not a valid argument. Who cares about her personality, her family, and her hobbies? Her political agenda is all that matters.
The Nation's Paul Wachter recently published a great article on Sanford titled "Mr. Sanford's Wild Ride." Instead of harping on Sanford's affair, this journalist presents his readers with a brilliant resume of the governor's political views. It was incredibly refreshing to finally read about what Sanford is like in his capacity as a politician, instead of as a lover, a father, or a husband. I believe it's time for all of us to stop focusing so much on the politicians' personal lives and start looking more carefully at their political decisions and voting records.
13 comments:
Some decisions politicians have to make while in office have not only technical, but also moral component. In that sense the personal affairs track record of a politician is not irrelevant.
Of course I do not mean "moral" in narrow puritanical sense. I do not care who sleeps with whom in which combination. But all other things (first and foremost qualifications required to do the job, of course) being equal, I'd rather vote for somebody who openly admits to having an open marriage, for example, not for somebody who cheated and lied about that. It is actually not so much about being "moral", it is about being grown up and owning one's choices.
V.
It's hard to own one's choices when people go into public fits of hysteria over perfectly normal things. Yesterday I read an article where a journalist said about Sanford: "He not only cheated on his wife. he cheated on his children." Urrgh! What's with this hysterical self-righteousness that goes to really weird extremes?
Journalists are as outraged as if he'd cheated on them. So disgusting.
I'm with you on this one, Clarissa. Sometimes I just wish this soap opera about our leaders' children, spouses, parents etc. would just go away. I don't care about their sex lives, I care what they will do for ME as a citizen.
i think you have to be a really evil person to treat your child the way Palin treated Bristol. And that does matter. We can't have somebody so evil as one of our nation's leaders.
If we start throwing around words like "evil", if we make them part of our political discourse, then how are we different from Bush?
Well said, Clarissa. I agree completely. The private lives of public figures should be off-limits for the media until and unless they become so extreme or outrageous as to limit their effectiveness. A good example of that is former congressman Wilbur Mills, whose alcoholism and brazen affair with Fanne Foxe, a married stripper, led to his downfall.
Things weren't always as they are now. The press knew all about JFK's serial philandering, but they didn't report it because it was personal behavior. Maybe we just have too much media now with too little real news to report.
I'll never understand why people would want to publish and read Sanford's emails to his lover. First, I would be really uncomfortable intruding like that in somebody's personal affairs. Second, why would people even want to waste their time reading something like this? Life is definitely too short for this unhealthy curiosity.
Why do people read "People" and other similar gossip magazines?..
I am more interested in who the hell sold those e-mails to the tabloids... Sanford should sue them. Maybe that would teach them something...
---It's hard to own one's choices when people go into public fits of hysteria over perfectly normal things.
Of course it is hard. But I would prefer to have political leaders who are capable of that...
V.
"I am more interested in who the hell sold those e-mails to the tabloids... Sanford should sue them. Maybe that would teach them something..."
-I've read some very ingenious arguments by journalists about why people have the right and the need to peruse these emails as a matter of public policy.
"Of course it is hard. But I would prefer to have political leaders who are capable of that..."
-What should Sanford have done, though? Issued a statement "people, voters, citizens! I'm planning to cheat on my wife with the Argentinian woman. The deed will occur at such and such time. The sexual positions will be as follows"? :-)
If we follow this line of reasoning, we can say that I owe it to my students to reveal my sexual "transgressions" to them.
This reminds me of a funny story. A student was talking about the dangers of sleeping with strangers. In conclusion, she turned to me and said in a very forceful way and looking me straight in the face: "This means that you shouldn't sleep around!" I wanted to be funny and responded: "Are you offering this advice to me personally?" the student got so terrified that she kept apologizing for days. :-)
Well, I dot know how exactly the truth came out about Sanford. Did he use state money to fly to Argentina? I was talking about politicians in general. About Clinton's "oral sex is not really sex", etc... They all admit to cheating only when cornered, and before that they lie. I just assumed Sanford did the same. And of course I did not mean one should make preemptive announcements. :)
V.
"Did he use state money to fly to Argentina? "
-Actually, he did. Now he is swearing he'll reimburse. :-)
"About Clinton's "oral sex is not really sex", etc..."
-For many Americans that's true, though. Don't ask me why. :-)
"I did not mean one should make preemptive announcements."
-Imagine, we could watch the act itself on UTube. People have the right to know how their leaders perform in this important area. :-)
----Imagine, we could watch the act itself on UTube.
Yes, I also prefer amateurs to professionals. :) :)
v.
Post a Comment