I returned home from my run to the announcement that John McCain has selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It’s a bold choice from a man who has often made bold choices, though it’s obviously a calculated one as well.
There are many things that could be said, but here’s one thought. Palin has several children, and just gave birth to her youngest son, Trig, in April. Trig has Down’s Syndrome.
From a feminist standpoint, I’m thrilled that a candidate who is the mother of a very young child has been nominated. One of the standard tropes of social conservatism is that mothers of young children should not work outside the home. If Sarah Palin is the vice-president, one heartbeat (a septuagenarian heartbeat at that) from the presidency and also the mother of a special-needs toddler, that sends a powerful message about the compatibility of motherhood with career. However right-wing Palin’s politics are, the narrative of her life today reflects a deep feminism. She embodies, literally, the notion that women ought not be forced to choose between family and public duty. That’s a deeply progressive message, even if it’s sent by an ostensibly conservative woman.
What will the Phyllis Schlaflys of the world say about this? How will they ever be able to make the case that for the mothers of young children, the primary place to be is in the home?
I’m voting for Barack and Joe, but I honor this choice. From the perspective of one who wants to engender social change, it’s a fine selection indeed, and sends a very good message.
On Facebook, I have a Flair button I posted as a joke: McCain/Hillary ‘08 — because I like to watch people’s heads explode!
In some ways, this choice is almost as likely to make heads explode, at least in some quarters — as you’ve mentioned. So much the better.
BTW: Technically, it’s Down Syndrome. John Langdon Down, MD did not have the syndrome — he discovered it. In Brittish English, it’s correct to say “Down’s Syndrome,” which probably adds to the confusion.
Why can’t I see stuff like that when I’m proofreading the church bulletin? Sigh.
But Hugo, isn’t Palin’s ability to be both a parent and a governor (or VP) totally contingent upon her wealth? This is a class issue for sure. I take your point, but you need to be clearer taht the real obstacle isn’t social conservatives but a lack of resources.
I agree with Sheena completely, and emailed this to Hugo shortly after he posted the blog…
While I respect your view that she should be commended on her willingness to work outside the home as a mother, I am not sure that her circumstances embody the spirit of a typical working class mother. And unfortunately, sometimes money can make all of the difference.
I think that one of the areas that this is particularly evident is her decision to have a child with Down’s. It is my understanding that she knew about this condition from an early point in her pregnancy through prenatal testing.
I have terminated a pregnancy and it was the most gut wrenching decision I have ever made. My third child was 8 months old when I became pregnant again. My two boys were four and three years old. I have always been pro-choice, but never thought it was a choice I would have to make. The emotional consequences that I have endured will be with me forever, and are something that I would never wish on another woman, yet I remain pro-choice. I was lucky in that my pregnancy was caught early, literally on the first day that a home test would show a positive result. Therefore, it is unfair of me to presume to completely understand the decision making process that would be necessary in a later stage of pregnancy.
Palin’s hobbies include hunting (moose), ice-fishing, and snowboarding. Her family owns a float-plane. These are not the hobbies of a typical working class family, whether you live in Alaska or not. I think it’s a safe assumption that to engage in expensive hobbies, you have the economic means to do so. I think it is also safe to conclude that she has the economic resources to hire adequate help so that she is able to work in public service. Children are expensive, and having a special needs child compounds the expense.
You wrote, “She embodies, literally, the notion that women ought not be forced to choose between family and public duty.” While this is a noble concept, the reality is that the majority of women are forced to make the choice. While there are numerous factors that must be considered when making such a decision, economics surely come into play. Morals aside, women have to consider whether or not working outside of the home in a job they enjoy will generate enough income to provide for adequate (if not exceptional) childcare in their absence. And for many, the decision is not a choice but mandated by circumstances.
I am sure that Palin shares many of the emotional and moral decisions that many women must face. I am just not sure that she represents the majority of the women who must choose whether to stay home or not. Should she really be commended for her decision when her affluence gives her the freedom to make such a choice?
It is easy to believe that women can manipulate their circumstances so that the decisions they make will not depend on economics. After all, you can buy a smaller house, cut back on your bills, and take other pro-active measures to save money so that the decision isn’t based largely on economics. It isn’t always that simple in today’s economy.
Perhaps many women stay home because the cost of childcare is more than they are able to make working. I think that probably applies to me. As a mother I expect my children to have the best childcare I can possibly provide, and that means for us, fifteen days out of each month, I am the sole provider.
Had we had the economic means to afford another baby, I imagine I would have chosen to do so. My husband’s salary is near the upper tier at his airline, but with three children already, money is tight. Medical bills, food, and diapers cost a lot. And with him traveling, I need a break sometimes, and paying a babysitter for a few hours of downtime is expensive. I would argue that I was not truly free to make the choice whether or not to have a fourth baby.
Yet I believe Palin did.
And yes, I realize some of my post is not specifically related to the working mother issue, but I think should be taken into account nonethelss.
Palin is anti-choice, pro-creationism, thinks we can drill our way out of our energy issues, and apparently only vetoed that one anti-gay bill because her AG flat-out told her it was unconstitutional.
She’s perfect for McCain, at least. She certainly acts as a foil for Biden (defeating a woman in a debate is mean, according to the idiot media).
Don’t read this as an endorsement of Palin, folks, please. Anon and Sheena, I completely agree. I posted ten minutes, after all, following the announcement!
There’s an important message about the vital importance of access to childcare that we can create here. We need to make the case that it is affluence and privilege that allows Sarah Palin to be a mother of five and a full-time politician. We want every mother in America, married or not, to have the same access to choices that Sarah Palin has had.
And we want to continue to drive home the point that motherhood v. career is a choice imposed not by biology but by a societal unwillingness to provide adequate childcare that is available to all. Sarah Palin’s life illustrates that.
I would also point out that Palin’s knowingly having given birth to a Down syndrome child is widely interpreted on the right as a deliberate pro-life statement on her part.
Any pro-life woman who has a Down Syndrome child (when about 80% of diagnosed DS children are aborted) is demonstrating that she can “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk.”
i think it’s pretty transparent that McCain chose a woman to try to gain the Hillary voters who don’t want to vote for Obama. That means she was chosen merely for her gender, not for her skills, experience or suitability for the job. THAT is not good for women. THAT is denegrating to women. from this perspective, she is simply a token being used to lure her own kind (women). her inexperience is totally inappropriate for an office such as VP. there must have been NO other women or black men or black women McCain could latch onto to try to manipulate women voters?
I think it’s pretty transparent that McCain chose a woman to try to gain the Hillary voters who don’t want to vote for Obama. That means she was chosen merely for her gender, not for her skills, experience or suitability for the job.
I agree with SweetPea. I have to do a bit more research on Palin before I take the position that she is a bad VP candidate, but on the surface, it does seem like McCain picked her to sway even more PUMA supporters towards voting for him. Her dedication to campaigning while having a baby is a good feminist statement, but I am annoyed that this action may sway potential Obama supporters to voting for McCain.
Lots of women with small children work outside the home–not always because of want, but often because of financial need. To equate a woman obviously of means with these mothers obscures the challenges of working mothers.
Craig has already given the biggest talking points about Palin’s social conservatism, so all I’m going to add is that every wildlife group I support is outraged by this choice because ANWAR is obviously not going to be hands-off for long any more. Also, check out Palin’s stance to abortion post-rape: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html
It’s pretty clear what McCain thinks about women. And now he’s found a woman who thinks about women in exactly the same way. Bravo, I suppose.
bmmg, if she had aborted a child with Down’s, it would certainly make her a hypocrite. But giving birth to a child is not a statement of agreement with anti-choice philosophy. It means that she’s a mother. And really, unless she’s publicly trumpeting the birth of her child as some kind of political credential, I think it’s in extremely poor taste to speculate about how her baby having Down’s reflects on her values.
Hugo, the Phyllis Schaflys of the world have ALWAYS said “do as I say, not as I do”. They’re happy to tell other women to stay home - keeps the competition down, you know. I’m rather surprised that you don’t remember Susan Faludi’s profiles of a number of antifeminists in Backlash.
Whatever one thinks of her politics, Palin is a member of Feminists for Life and she appears to be living that out in her own life. I appreciate the opinions expressed about Palin’s ability to be involved in politics as well as a mother being contingent upon class/wealth, but I doubt that her choice to keep her down syndrome child is any less exceptional in her social class–if anything, it maybe more so.
Mythago, you’re right — I just pulled out my battered old copy of Backlash, and Faludi nails the Palin phenomenon. There’s a lot more to be said here.
As for the choice to have a baby, that’s what it was — a choice. Honoring choices, especially difficult ones that tear at the heart and impose huge emotional burdens, is something we ought to do more of. Giving greater moral heft to one choice over another is something none of us is a position to do. The “above my pay grade” remark that BHO made was spot on, a mark of humility rather than of evasion.
i think it’s pretty transparent that McCain chose a woman to try to gain the Hillary voters who don’t want to vote for Obama. That means she was chosen merely for her gender, not for her skills, experience or suitability for the job.
Except, there are quite a few women in politics. It’s not like he picked the only one. Even if he sat down and said, “I want a female VP” and then looked at all the female Republican Senators and Congresswomen and governors, etc., he still would have had to make a choice based on who was the best.
I’m on “Team Obama” all the way, but I don’t think it’s fair to consider the selection of Palin as being chosen only for her gender. She’s so amazingly right-wing, far more right than McCain, even, that I find it impossible to believe that Hilary or Obama supporters will switch to the McCain ticket now. The things that embody the Democratic ticket - Palin does not have. If anyone votes for a woman simply because she’s a woman, shame on them. That’s not what elections are about. I don’t think it will happen, though, because enough people said, “I want a woman in office…but that woman is not Hilary.” I said it. I won’t be touching Palin with a 10-foot pole.
What “B” said.
I don’t think McCain is going after disgruntled Hillary supporters. That demographic is lost to him, since he has very little to offer them. He’s really after a far larger demographic - conservative women that are married to men they don’t hate.
That demographic is lost to him, since he has very little to offer them.
Shortly after Clinton’s chances collapsed altogether, there was a pretty significant bloc of her supporters who threatened to vote Republican rather than for Obama. That seems to have been…oh, 99.9% empty bluster, but McCain might have taken it seriously enough to at least influence his veep choice, in the hopes of driving some wedges between the Democratic voters, if nothing else.
As for policy, that McCain is diametrically opposed to Clinton doesn’t seem all that relevant in the face of petty vindictiveness.
And if it were up to Palin, it’d be a choice no other women would get to make.
Do we honor the choices of those who wish to take them away from others?
Contrary to what SweetPea and Mermade said, I think the choice of Palin was intended to shore up support from conservative Evangelicals, who have not supported McCain as much as they did Bush. About moose-hunting, ice fishing and snowboarding, these are very typical activities in Alaska, and do not require more than a middle class income (whatever that means). As far as the float plane goes, private aircraft are far, far more common in Alaska than in the lower 48. If you compare the cost of a plane to the expense of going out to movies a lot, eating out, attending the theatre, ballet, symphony, and Opera, owning a plane does not require wealth remotely close to what McCain calls rich.
Hugo, I’m dissapointed to see you supporting what seems clearly to be cynical political pandering.
I think, Grupetti, that “cynical pandering” can have many unintended consequences — and in this case, a message about the potential compatibility of motherhood with fulltime work outside the home is one of them.
Auguste, of course we honor the choices of those who would deny choice to others. We simply challenge them to consider that their choice was not the only right or plausible one in the circumstances.
Auguste, of course we honor the choices of those who would deny choice to others.
Tolerance of intolerance only legitimizes the latter.
Or is this Hugo speaking primarily as a pro-lifer? Do you “honor the choices” of people who want to rescind female suffrage as well?
Craig, I’m honoring Sarah Palin’s personal choice to have a baby. I would honor a woman who didn’t believe in voting choosing not to vote. I can honor private decisions exercised while fighting like hell to prevent the justification for those private decisions to become binding on everyone else.
Auguste, very nicely said. Thank you.
Grupetti, I think you underestimate the financial resources available to her family. My husband is a pilot. The expenses of owning a private plane are considerable. There is gas, insurance, inspections, storage, and upkeep. Yes, it is more difficult to travel in Alaska, but they live close to a major city. Hunting equipment is also expensive. I don’t think its comparable to dinner, movies, and attending cultural events. Though this occured many years ago for Palin, my cousin was in the Miss America pageant, and those competitions are incredibly expensive. I imagine her parents paid for those, but it seems to indicate she was privy to more than a typical middle class upbringing. Once again, an economic issue…
here is a little something relevant to this discussion from Katha Pollitt’s blog “And Another Thing” at thenation.com:
Palin is a blatant pander for the women’s vote. He must think we have the collective IQ of a Tampax.
Sure, Palin is cool — she’s pretty and vivacious and athletic, a former beauty queen who runs marathons, hunts , fishes and eats mooseburgers, plus she’s got five kids with unusual names like Willow and Track, including a newborn with Down’s syndrome. I feel tired just thinking of what her daily life must be like, and if she were my neighbor I would probably like her a lot. It shows how deeply feminism has penetrated American culture that even anti-choice right-wing-christian women are breaking out of the old sugary-submissive pastel-suited stereotype.
I think it’s highly insulting that a female politician is first and foremost considered a “blatant pander.”
Of course she has nothing to offer of herself! She’s a woman! It’s not like a woman could REALLY be a good politician!
Every single VP choice is calculated to maximize votes. Obama himself picked an old, white dude to counterbalance himself. Every single element of a VP pick is weighted and considered to figure out what might attract people to the ticket that the Presidential candidate himself can’t offer. McCain clearly needed someone more right-wing than he is in order to try to reassure the right-wing voters who find him too liberal. He needed someone young because he is not. Of COURSE he has ulterior motives - picking a VP isn’t about being nice and finding a new buddy. It’s about WINNING.
“Giving greater moral heft to one choice over another is something none of us is a position to do.”
Every law in the books makes a moral judgment: “You are not to do this.”
her inexperience is totally inappropriate for an office such as VP.
This may well be true. Of course, Senator Obama’s inexperience is totally inappropriate for an office such as the POTUS. Interestingly, Obama tends to be viewed on this blog as some sort of saint. Inexperience is inexperience, so let’s at least be fair about this and not give someone a free pass just because he’s the darling of the political left.
Ryan, you don’t read my blog regularly. Obama was — get this — my FOURTH choice for Democratic nomineee, behind Kucinich, Edwards, and Clinton. (And he was tied with Bill Richardson there for a while.)
But he’s my candidate in the fall, based not on his charisma or his oratory, but solely on his position on the issues. He’s better on the environment and women’s rights than McCain, and I’m pretty much a two-issue voter.
Hugo, could you clarify this point please?
Do you mean the choice to have a child in general or the choice to have a child with Down Syndrome in particular?
I mean both. And again, I’m not presuming to say that there is a right or a wrong response to discovering that the fetus inside of one has Down Syndrome. I’ve had friends who’ve chosen abortion in those cicrumstances, and a family member who had an even more serious problem (Trisomy-18) with a fetus that they chose to carry to term. (The baby died at one day old.) I honor all of these as painful and difficult choices.
Choosing to have a kid, even without any issues with the baby’s health, is worthy of praise. Walking bravely through a pregnancy termination is also scary, and worthy of being honored.
I long for a world where every time an egg gets fertilized by a sperm, it is wanted by the ovulator and the ejaculator. I long for a world where every fertilized egg becomes a healthy blastocyst, embryo, fetus, and then a healthy, happy child.
Until and even after that happy day, women need reproductive choices.
As something of a political junkie whose been actually a bit bored with the current election on the GOP side, I found this pick rather interesting, and thought that I’d chime in. A few observations:
1) The Republicans have an ongoing bench problem, not surprising with a Congressional minority and no-one from the executive branch (no VP as anointed successor) running. McCain owes his incipient nomination to that fact. The people held to be his top two choices for a running mate before Friday included Romney, who failed as a contender for the nominee, and Pawlenty, who doesn’t have that much recognition and is said not to have that much spark. Palin is, if nothing else, fresh.
2) Fresh also looks fresher next to Obama’s pick: Biden, which, if one was so inclined, might invite invidious comparison to another candidate of questionable resume, who picked an old party hand whom many accused of actually being the one running things. Biden has the clear appearance of an electoral balancing pick, to buck up Obama in Pennsylvania. A straight-up electoral balancing act against an ideological (and maybe identity) one: interesting match-up.
3) If nothing else, the announcement, given within 12 hours of Obama’s speech on a Friday, appears to have effectively smothered most hope for a post-convention bounce for Obama (what effect Hurricane Gustav has now is anyone’s guess: maybe no one gets a convention bounce this year).
4) The media and oppo research on her is non-existent, and it shows. The first response by the Obama campaign and the media has been to assume that McCain was acting in desperation and/or making a play for the Hillary PUMAs. The story coming out now about the vetting process seems to belie this, and grass-roots Republicans have been tossing Palin’s name around since last year.
5) The reason that her name has been going around is that she is a darling of the conservative base: pro-life, NRA member, credentials (short ones, admittedly) as a reformer in the state from which the “bridge to nowhere” and Ted Stevens became running embarrassments for the GOP, and to no one more so than to their own conservative base. The Dems and the media have been jumping to block the “he nominated her just ’cause she’s a woman” pump-fake, and haven’t yet realized that she’s jazzing up a lot of enthusiasm, and money, very quickly, from a significant slice of the GOP in which support for John McCain has been weak throughout this campaign. That has consistently been McCain’s biggest weakness in this race, far more than any efforts to tie him to Bush. Had it been someone like McCain advisor Carly Fiorina or old-timer Kay Bailey Hutchinson, I might have bought the “cynical” meme.
6) A dust-up over “experience” doesn’t help Obama: it turns into a fight he loses in the main event, while at best maybe helping on the undercard (and that will be determined in large measure by the VP debates, and whatever gaffes, if any, Palin stumbles into). Incidentally, GOVERNOR Palin is the only candidate in the race right now with any experience in an elected executive position (and the only one out of four who is not a sitting US Senator, interestingly enough).
7) Alaska, and by extension, oil and drilling, are now likely to come even more to the front and center. Obama has been dancing his best on this one, but the tempo is likely to pick up a bit now.
8) In case no one’s noticed yet, for the first time since 1972 (Nixon-Agnew vs. McGovern-Shriver), there’s no Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate from the old Confederacy.
“One of the standard tropes of social conservatism is that mothers of young children should not work outside the home.”
I think it is in the best interest of children to have a parent stay at home when the child is young. Mr. Palin seems up to the job.
And when Mrs. Palin becomes President she will be working from home.
Tom that’s an interesting point about the eclipse of the South in the two national tickets.
Bill, I agree that having a parent around is often in the best interests of very small children. I also agree with your implication — and that made clear by the Palins — that what matters is the presence of a loving parent irrespective of sex. True social conservatives believe that mothers parent young children better than fathers do; if Mr. Palin is the primary care-giver in the family, then that’s a progressive message being sent by an otherwise un-progressive couple.
“True social conservatives believe that mothers parent young children better than fathers do; if Mr. Palin is the primary care-giver in the family, then that’s a progressive message being sent by an otherwise un-progressive couple.”
Is there any research into which gender is more important at different stages of life? That would be interesting.
Is there any research into which gender is more important at different stages of life? That would be interesting.
I understand that it has been proven conclusively that women are much better equipped to nurture a future child from conception to delivery.
There you go again, Hugo! Kick fathers around some more, why don’t you?
I know, I know, I’m terrible.
Even presuming you had honest scientists, instead of Gurian or Sax types, who wanted to study it - that’s a bit like saying “which is the best flavor of ice cream?” And, of course, it assumes that all parents of the same gender are exactly alike.
“America First” or “Family First” Which will it be?
Governor Palin may be able to take her baby to work with her and nurse during a meeting as Governor of Alaska - a state with a population of 626,000 people. It is a different story being the VP of the United States. No CEO in any corporation would do such a thing. I think a woman with children is certainly capable of being the VP or president of the US, but I do question the judgment and “family first” priority of a new mother with a newborn having special needs.
When it comes down to it, where will her allegiance be? With the MILLIONS of people relying upon her to lead the country, or with her children, whether they be pregnant, sick or whatever the issue? Will she be in the Middle East brokering a peace deal and suddenly have to fly home to attend to the health care needs of her infant son? She would be a cruel, heartless mother if she did no less, but she will be an ineffective, laughable joke of a world leader if she places her family priorities ahead of her country.
//Will she be in the Middle East brokering a peace deal and suddenly have to fly home to attend to the health care needs of her infant son? She would be a cruel, heartless mother if she did no less, but she will be an ineffective, laughable joke of a world leader if she places her family priorities ahead of her country.//
Why exactly could her husband not take over while she was on state business? My dad seemed to be perfectly capable of taking care of me when he was laid off and my mom was working when I was an infant — perhaps our family’s crises were not matters of state, but they were surely matters of putting food on the table.
Amen, Nav.
The day that the verb “fathering” becomes synonymous with “mothering” in everyone’s minds will be a nice day. It’s truly unfair to both mothers and fathers for fathers not to be asked if their family will miss them while they’re at work, while mothers often have to answer that question.
Nav - consider this another Amen