Update - Where there's smoke there's often a flame if not exactly a full-blown fire. The Palins released the information today that their eldest daughter is pregnant, no doubt fueling rumor/attack mongers who were wrong tho' not entirely. Incidentally, Palin is reputed to have stated that she doesn't favor explicit sex education in high school and I'm sure that stance will come under (a) attack, (b) question and (c) revision. It's not as if sex education has reduced the number of teen pregnancies anywhere, let alone in Juneau, Alaska, but I'm betting she'll modify her position and I'm betting in the end it will make no difference.

All that aside, I quite wish someone would explain to me why our election contests have become such nastiness fests. Why can't we have important differences and examine the differences carefully but without nastiness? Do personal attacks advance understanding or help anyone assess the important conceptual and practical issues, and the people who champion one or another point of view?

At the beginning of this (endless) election cycle the argument statement was all over the place that "Obama is obviously an Arab [read: not a patriotic American] because his middle name is Hussein." You'd think that the biggest melting pot in the world could adapt to a name without having a national nervous breakdown and without engaging in guilt-by-name-association.

The latest example is about Sarah Palin and her baby. On one attack's hand is that the baby is really her eldest daughter's (and that such a heinous lie means Palin is unfit to be v.p.) and on the other attack’s hand is that she was irresponsible to have had the baby (and that such a foolish act means she is unfit to be v.p.).
The first attack was sparked by the fact that Palin supposedly never looked pregnant enough (?) and that she went back to work only a few days after the baby was born and that the daughter was carrying the baby during Palin's introduction last week. Since Palin is nursing the baby, the fabrication would require collusion with a doctor who induced lactation in a woman seven years after her previous birth plus padding outfits since there are photos that show an evidently pregnant governor plus distracting everyone from a salacious story which the Alaskan press would surely have glommed onto, not to mention that she seems like someone who would say it had happened and everyone should just deal with it, if it had. Not to mention that it's pretty unbelievable what the press will put forth without proof, a girl's feelings and reputation apparently be damned.
The second attack - that Palin was irresponsible to have the baby because it had Down's – is an illogical twist from people who call themselves pro choice. The pro-choice people I know and have discussed it with are pro choice, not pro abortion, believing abortion should be legal but not required. I am floored that the current attack mongers, presumably labeling themselves pro choice given their side of the political aisle, are basically saying Palin should have had an abortion. But doesn't having choice mean having more than one option, by definition? If so, what does the phrase "a woman's right to choose" mean to them?

(By the way, let's not get into a pro choice / pro life discussion here. I respect the belief that a fetus is a living being and that the logical consequences that follow from that mean never having an abortion. My own belief is that it’s never ideal but is sometimes necessary and preferable to alternatives. That discussion would be intense and better at a different time. At this moment, I am writing about my astonishment that pro choice supporters would be so illogical as to attack Palin’s choice to have her baby.)

We who call ourselves pro choice say that we want respect for our own freedom of thought and choice. Right? Well, then, that means we also have to respect other people's freedom of thought and choice. Right? Even if their choices are not the ones we would make ourselves. Right? So just as someone might choose NOT to have a baby – and that is their choice – someone might also choose TO have a baby. Right?

I am reminded of something I have maintained for years, supported by the early literature but somewhat lost recently. Women's liberation was not designed to force all women to work outside the home but, rather, to encourage all women to assess their own needs, desires and goals and then make individual and personal choices. It might mean staying home for one and going to work for another, marrying a stay-at-home-guy for one and being a stay-at-home-gal for another. Hear the words and realize the meanings of "individual" and "personal" and "freedom" and "liberation." Your choices might be very different from mine. I'm not at all sure we have any right to make judgments or get angry or disapprove of someone who makes different choices from our own.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, women