We Can't Have it Both Ways. Neither Can Republicans [Guest Post by Madeline Holler]

The MOMocrats extend a warm welcome to Madeline Holler, writer and contributor to Babble where she pens the "Political Nanny" column.

We Can't Have it Both Ways. Neither Can Republicans

Just hours after VP pick Sarah Palin’s name was released, my favorite Southern California radio show took a call from a self-described feminist and liberal. "Larry," she said, "Sarah Palin is a terrible pick." The caller listed inexperience, belittled Alaska, the usual. Then she closed with something like this: "She's the mother of young children! She should focus on raising them, not trying to run the country!"

Uh, Phyllis? Mrs. Schlafly? Are you making prank phone calls again? A liberal from West Hollywood -- a feminist! -- ordered Sarah Palin back to the hockey team carpool? This caller wasn't the only progressive claiming to feel worried about the fate of Palin's children. There were plenty of Obama supporters questioning the Republican VP pick's priorities in agreeing to join the GOP ticket.

Days later (perhaps after considering, with horror, their blatantly sexist comments) the sentiment had been refined to explaining the role of a mom who has kids with special needs. By then, the message morphed into, "her baby has Down syndrome. She should focus on his needs."

Oh, so now all but the mothers of kids with special needs should be home? They don't get to build careers, powerful careers, once-in-a -lifetime, take-it-or-leave-it careers? Because of the (special needs) children? Should only moms be the designated parent to take sick days when baby runs a fever, too?

Let's step back to last week, the Democratic convention. Let's recall the tears shed when Joe Biden's son spoke of his father as a young man: elected to Congress; wife and daughter die in car wreck; two, young, motherless (dare I say "special needs") sons survive. Biden wanted to quit, to take care of what was left. He didn't ... hurray! He took the express train home every night to kiss the boys and, eventually, his new wife and daughter. Didn't everything turn out great!

We totally ate that up.

In fact we Democrats are dining regularly on the whole Barack Obama husband/dad narrative. His family is front and center. We love his smart, strong wife (she, ahem!, now stays home with the girls). We love his daughters. We love his focus on the family. (Democrats! We've got family values!) So what about Obama's situation -- and Biden's before -- makes us so comfortable with them both as big leaders and family men? And why were so many so quick to condemn working mom Palin?

Duck: we've got a conundrum! And I've got some bad news, Democrats: we can't have it both ways.

We can't call Sarah home to raise the kids if what she wants to do -- is called to do -- is raise hell on the campaign trail. Can we go after her for other reasons? Oh, yes, please do! That stance on abortion? Drilling in ANWR? Creationism ... in public schools? Lack of experience in matters of importance to a nation -- the world -- not just a state obsessed with fossil fuels? Totally worth talking about. So please. Talk!

But Democrats can't pick on her for being a vacuous former beauty queen (a large number of voters in California take Arnold Schwarzenegger seriously, after all). We can’t laugh at her degree from a state school in Idaho (is that the acrid stench of lefty elitism I'm smelling?). And we can't call into question her dedication and abilities as a mother. That's just so, so ... Republican.

In fact, Dems undermine their own stated goals of choice when they admonish her for carrying a child with Down syndrome to term -- something I'm hearing/reading with surprising frequency. Progressives who crap on Palin's former life as a hockey mom/housewife only push her deeper into the arms of women who made similar choices and are looking for a party to call home (and a relatable woman they can call Madame Vice President for an elderly man who could easily die in office. Eek!).

It's as if all that extra room Obama so carefully created in his acceptance speech -- the room he made to include all Americans on both sides of these divisive issues -- was suddenly filled by one and only one body: the narrow-minded, judgmental, clubby liberal archetype!

Of course, Republicans are trying to have it both ways too, since Palin has created a shifty little problem for them as well.

The GOP suddenly gets to (has to?) burn bras and bust through glass ceilings and claim feminist Hillary Clinton, as one of their own. Recall Sarah Palin’s coded speech to Dems "don't worry, we'll clean up this mess you all made of Hillary's bid!" As if her party is the true champion of equal rights for, well … anybody? Nevermind that John McCain has more in common with Hillary Clinton than his female running mate does. That's saying something! We all know he's got nary a strand of feminist cred left in his sold-out shell of maverick soul.

The conundrum Republicans face is that they can no longer ignore women and mothers. Yes, Palin's a token, but a captivating and now prominent one. They've got a real, live working (self-described feminist!) mom who they want to entrust the country with.
See, Palin doesn't get to be the spit-fire, barracuda, breaking through the glass ceiling, busting up the old boy's network VP candidate without addressing John McCain's -- and the GOP's -- lack of support for (where to start?) ... the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Surely Palin disagrees that a lack of education (or lack of ambition or kids) are what keep women from advancing and earning like men. If she doesn’t, then how is it that she feels entitled to a governorship, much less the vice presidency?

With the GOP’s new interest in women – that glass ceiling! The noble cause of raising a baby with Down syndrome! Lady maverickness! – they can’t pretend they’ve done anything but hurt families through the party's tremendous lack of support for working families, often headed by women. Palin gets praised because she wears her baby in a sling and knows the cost of a gallon of milk and gets what it’s like to raise a large family without a huge income. But ... is she going to share that information with her boss? Will he care?

Finally, there's Trig, the baby with Down syndrome. Palin has, enviably, made the boy a part of her work-a-day life (swing in the office, changing diapers after her speech). Will the GOP back family friendly workplace policies, starting with federal employees? What about FMLA -- can we get that paid?

Further, Trig's all fun and games and pro-life votes now, but he's going to keep growing and eventually he'll rely on government funded programs for kids (later adults) with special needs -- schools, specially educated teachers, a bus that comes to the front door. He'll collect SSI; he'll be carefully mainstreamed. He'll hold a job, which will garner him a paycheck that is largely subsidized by taxpayers. Good for the Palins, great for Trig. What about the rest of us?

The GOP now has to recognize that special circumstances -- special needs -- are the norm for nearly every family? I'm thinking of kids whose special needs are asthma and its expensive treatments, or kids with parents who have cancer. How about kids with hungry bellies? Kids with middle-income parents who can neither afford college nor qualify for help (same goes for childcare). I'm thinking kids with special needs, like a single mom who's not making as much as her male counterpart and wants to sue but the Supreme Court says she can't. Or special needs of adult children now saddled with taking care of their parents in old age?
Do Republicans get to praise the values of one family and then continue to limit the progress of others just because it costs money?

No. No, they don't.

Which is why Democrats can't let them get away with it. But not by running down Sarah Palin's choices and life as a woman and a mom. Rather, we need to stay focused on her choices and life vis-a-vis her party, its promises and actions.

Editor's Note: On MOMocrats, we've been very clear in our support of Sarah Palin's choice to be a working mother. We'd rather focus on her politics.

Comments

[Backpacking Dad]

As an at-home dad I'm annoyed that some progressive critics are still assuming that SHE needs to stay home if her child needs care.

[Natalie @ Politics for Moms]

Well said!

[Natalie @ Politics for Moms]

Well said!

[Zoot]

I've been thinking along the same lines these last few days since the announcement. Thank you for putting it into words for me.

[Donna]

I have nothing but admiration for Sarah Palin's ability to govern a state while being a mom to five children, including baby Trig. I am happy for her that she has the support of her husband and family so that she can do this.

But I have nothing but contempt for the idea that she is ready to be President, should anything happen to a President McCain. She doesn't have the knowledge. She doesn't have a grasp of the issues. And if she's at the head of the team of advisors in a McCain Presidency, I am very, very scared.

I don't see that as trying to have it both ways.

[blogversary]

Refreshing post on your website. I appreciate your call to focus on politics and issues.

[Annie]

Wow! I think this is the most thorough, and fair, analysis of this whole maelstrom that's been blowing around since Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's VP pick.

[Victoria]

Standing up and applauding.

Thank you.

Suddenly flip-flopping and weasling out on progressive feminist tenets because a non-liberal dares to embody them is weasly.

I see nothing wrong with applauding her living our feminist ideals even if she's not preaching them herself. I can only see this tension ad disconnect within the Republican party leading to all kinds of real cracks in all kinds of ceilings and boxes and walls. Something exciting will happen if we don't fumble the ball on this and succumb to fear of a woman who is not a progressive still living progressive ideals. We can't start redefining what we've fought for. The truth holds and the rest will fall away.

Thank you. Brilliantly said.

[GraceD]

Greetings! I respectfully disagree with you on this issue.

This is not a simplistic, black and white, can't-have-it-both-ways issue. This is not an-all-or-nothing principle we as a member of any political party must hold on to no matter what. The issue of whether a parent (of both genders) should make their family/spouse a priority over their own ambitions is a movable target.

For example, I don't think Governor Palin should have to give up the VP nomination because her infant is a special needs child. It is my understanding that Gov. Palin is fortunate enough to have an extended support network and the means to provide for this child's care, development and well being. That she can carry on with this campaign is a no brainer for me.

But I do object to a parent who puts their unwed, pregnant teenage daughter in the spotlight. Throwing Bristol Palin under the microscope of the 24/7 media scrutiny is not understanding what it means to be in that kid's shoes. I believe this is insensitive, ignorant and unkind.

Comparing these two delicate situations as the same is unfair and, quite frankly lazy, inflexible thinking. Governor Palin could have declined the offer of the VP spot, continue with her duties in Alaska, then run in 4 years, if she is indeed the rising star of the GOP. Hell, the GOP could groom and mentor her in the interim and in 2012 she could run not for VP but for President. By then, Bristol would be a married woman, maybe the mother of two kids and Trig would continue to be cared for in the best manner possible. Strategically, it also makes for a great narrative, all those personal family hardships and triumphs and more executive experience under Governor Palin's belt.

Instead, it took some tawdry and misogynistic internet rumors to get this information out. And, the MySpace page for the father of Bristol's child was revealed online last night. It's embarrassing for us, simply mortifying to a teenager.

Issues like these can never be reduced to "all or nothing" and "you can't pick and choose". This is about considering all the aspects of the situation, looking at the ramifications for now and certainly in the future, and weighing up a long list of pros and cons.

Finally, if the day ever comes that I give in to thinking only in absolutes as dictated by political ideology and so called principles, that's the day I stop thinking. When that happens, I would ask you kindly to shoot me like a horse in pain.

Thank you for introducing this angle and providing this forum for discussion.

[GraceD]

Hi! When I said

"The issue of whether a parent (of both genders)"

I really meant to refer to a parent of either gender. Not the parent of a child of either gender.

All righty, then. Hope that makes sense.

Be well,
Grace

[Victoria]

And when you know all aspects of the situation, then a personal judgment can be made. That still doesn't justify public judgment. It still doesn't justify getting into someone's home and deciding what is right or best for them. That's pretty clear.

To justify any of this via celebrity is tawdry.

[Jo-Ann]

GraceD, I think that you have a point about how her choices may affect her teenage daughter and it may not be as black and white as it may seem. However, I think that we open ourselves up for cries of hypocrisy and demonization from the republicans if we start attacking or questioning her as a mother. Even if it's just to call into question her overall judgment, which is absolutely relevant if she's a heartbeat away from the presidency (eeek!), we all know that just about any statement or criticism can be twisted to suit someone's agenda and the repubs are the masters. If we stay away from her choices and decisions as a mother, we do not make ourselves easy fodder for the republican spin machine. Why give them an opportunity to stand on their high horse and point the finger?

[Jo-Ann]

GraceD, I think that you have a point about how her choices may affect her teenage daughter and it may not be as black and white as it may seem. However, I think that we open ourselves up for cries of hypocrisy and demonization from the republicans if we start attacking or questioning her as a mother. Even if it's just to call into question her overall judgment, which is absolutely relevant if she's a heartbeat away from the presidency (eeek!), we all know that just about any statement or criticism can be twisted to suit someone's agenda and the repubs are the masters. If we stay away from her choices and decisions as a mother, we do not make ourselves easy fodder for the republican spin machine. Why give them an opportunity to stand on their high horse and point the finger?

[Carrie]

Thank you for articulating the connection between Biden's story and Palin's. I was thinking the same thing, and I too am a committed Dem.

[KimD]

Just as we can not have it both ways, neither can Sarah Palin. She cannot, not support progressive feminist ideas and expect people not to point out the hypocrisy.

Don't fool yourself, just because Palin has been selected does not mean that the GOP sees women and children as a priority in this country. The GOP sees the need for votes and they were trying to throw a bone to lure in the evangelical and disgruntled women voters. Policies won't improve for women and children with leadership that continually votes against improvements for women and children. The policies of the GOP are in direct opposition to low income families, working mothers, and children who need health care. Sarah Palin walks on the backs of feminist women in order to put women backward and at the bottom of the list.

[kkd]

Once again we, as voters, have had our attention diverted from the big issues. We have done it to ourselves though. We need to refer back to Obama's speech at the Dem convention:

"I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what - it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know."

[kkd]

But just as we can not have it both ways, neither can Sarah Palin. She cannot, not support progressive feminist ideas and expect people not to point out the hypocrisy.

[Lacie]

People talk about Palin's role as a working mother as if Vice President of the United States were just any old job in corporate America and as if life is the same for a mommy four and a half months post partum as it is 10 years after giving birth.

Having a baby is a huge life distraction for both parents but particularly for the woman who just spent 9 months with the baby in utero. It changes everything. A frequent topic of conversation among the mothers I know who have recently given birth is how much the process impacts you mentally, physically and emotionally at least for a time. Acknowledging that fact isn't about rebuffing feminism it is about embracing reality. I know I have an 18 month old toddler. I've been a lawyer for over a decade and last week I couldn't think of the common legal term "Rule 11 agreement" to save my soul. I'd like to think this is temporary but I have to accept I am somewhat distracted at the moment. If someone offered me a position on the Supreme Court it would be fair for folks to ask if now was a good time. Maybe Ms. Palin hasn't suffered or won't encounter problems with post partum depression, mommy brain, mastitis, milk production, sleep deprivation or preoccupation with SIDS, eating solids, toilet training or her new baby's future. However, I would be crazy if I didn't consider the possibility that she might. I want my Vice President or President focused 100 percent on the task of running the country. I don't have to worry about vetting a VP of Marketing but I should be able to consider whether the lady seeking to have her finger poised near a nuclear trigger might be otherwise distracted.

[Ron Ross]

Darn, just when I was going to compliment THIS Blog in particular on making a lot of good sense, I had to go and read the last entry. I'll ignore it and say it anyways. I'm impressed to see the goodness and realization, that letting Sarah be the mother she chooses to be, and not the mother You THINK she should be, is the moral thing. Well, minus you know who. { applaud ! ! }

[Lacie]

Ron

It is unfortunate you are so intent on sharing your own opinions that you don't take time to fully comprehend what you are reading before you start your response. My concern is not with the quality of Sarah Palin's parenting. If she wants to ship her children to China more power to her.

Over and above my disagreement with her political positions, I have a big concern with whether a Vice President with a new baby at home might find herself distracted by that baby during a crisis or while she should be focusing on important matters of state. I would have the same concern if her husband were running for VP.

[***********************************]

The problem is that you're lumping all Democrats into one "type of person." Not all Democrats agree on all the issues.

And the whole reason that bloggers are talking about Sarah's "choices as a woman and a mom" is because it effects (or should effect) her "choices and life vis-a-vis her party, its promises and actions."

That's why people are looking into these "very personal issues." When you're running for such a high office, your personal life will get looked into whether you like it or not.

I think Whoopie on the View today brought up the fact that everyone (Dems and Reps) will read into all of Brittney Spears' issues, but somehow Sarah Palin's parenting is off limits. Shouldn't we be more concerned about someone who has a real chance at becoming president over an uneducated young starlet?

I'm glad that Obama is taking the high road, but I would be happy if some decent journalist would look into some of these rumors: for the good of the Country.

[Leila]

I want to preface my comments with the fact that I work full-time, and my husband is a stay-at-home dad to our two very young boys.

I personally don’t think anything is out of bounds for evaluating whether someone is ready to step into the shoes of the President and be the “Leader of the Free World.” The Presidency is, arguably, the most important job in America, and I think we all deserve the very best information that is available to decide who we want. Some factors should weigh more (education, experience, stance on issues) than others (hairstyle, hair plugs, choice in clothing, how many children), but all of it should go into making that determination. And, particularly with Sarah Palin, who no one (including John McCain, it seems) knew much about, the less important factors take up more space because there is just less information overall.

And that’s part of the problem. Her normal, hockey mom-ness is being touted by McCain and crew as a reason we should vote for her. In her acceptance speech in Daytona, both she and McCain talked a lot about her family and about being on the PTA (along with other things) as a qualification for VP. She and McCain chose to put that out there as a substantive factor for choosing her/them. I think that, as voters, we get to pick apart anything she (or McCain) puts on her resume. And her role as a mother is a big section on that resume that they’ve typed up for us.

So for me, nothing is off limits; it’s a matter of how much weight to give. And how important do I think all these factors are? Not very (except education - I'm tired of having a stupid president). There are other things that get more weight for me (trooper-gate, bridge-gate, AIP-gate). But I reserve the right to throw the Palin-as-mother factors into the mix when I’m evaluating how good a job she would do, mostly based on Lacie's considerations. And I’m not going to give Palin the benefit of the doubt just because she’s a woman.

And this is exactly what I would do if Palin was a man -- look at everything. (Joe Biden’s hair plugs don’t get much weight either – but I do consider them.)

[Gunfighter]

I suppose how I feel on this issue can be summed up by saying that the difference between the way most Democrats are talking about this and the way Republicans speak to the issues of personal family decisions is that Democratic voters, meaning the person-on-the-street, will criticize a candidates family choices, but Republican leaders and candidates do the same thing.

Those two things aren't quite the same.

Or are they?

Personally, I believe there is enough political ammunition to shred McCain/Palin without having to involve her life choices. Having aid that, you can cut the Republican hypocritical bullshit on family values with a knife here.

[Trisha]

It bugs me that people are making an issue of her having young kids. That isn't relevant.

This democrat will be doing her best not to let them get away with it! Its the issues that I care about.