Questions for Palin supporters
After Bristol Palin had a child out of wedlock two years ago, she became a spokeswoman for an organization that decries illegitimacy. She traveled around the country saying it was a mistake for a woman to go to bed with and conceive a child with a man outside marriage, and that she personally would not have sexual relations with a man again until she was married. She seemed, in short, to be taking on the classic role of the reformed sinner, saying “Don’t do what I did.”
Yet from the start there were cracks in this front. If Bristol really was a penitent, shouldn’t she simply have withdrawn from the public eye and quietly straightened out her life, rather than become a figure on the lecture and tv talk show circuit? For a penitent, she seemed to be enjoying herself far too much. As a result, her verbal message—having a child out of wedlock will damage your life—was contradicted by her real message—having a child out of wedlock leads to stardom and fun. But the contradiction, which I pointed to several times, became much more conspicuous when, with her mother’s approval (her father always seems to be irrelevant in these situations), she accepted the invitation to be a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, gave up her job as a dental assistant, and moved from Wasilla to Los Angeles for several months. Now she was becoming an actual star in an entertainment program involving lascivious, sexy dancing (see video). How could this be seen as compatible with her message that out of wedlock birth leads to personal ruin? Clearly, she was now saying, again, with her mother’s enthusiastic blessing, that out of wedlock birth leads to hip-wiggling TV stardom. Bristol says that being on Dancing with the Stars is the most exciting thing she has done in her life. I’m sure it is. But did that make being on the program right—or just the opposite?
However, instead of my making these points and criticizing Sarah Palin and her family again, let me ask the Palin supporters what they think about it: Given Bristol’s message that out of wedlock motherhood is a big mistake that will damage one’s life, was it right for her to appear on this program, thus making it appear that out of wedlock motherhood is a smart move? And was her mother’s support for that decision right? And was it compatible with conservatism?
David H. writes:
I agree with you that Bristol’s situation does not conform to conservative values and that Sarah is not a strict conservative. However Bristol and Sarah did not create the Twilight Zone that today’s liberal world is. In the past families were able to keep this kind of thing private,not any more. Bristol told her mom that she would be criticized no matter what she does so she might as well dance. By today’s standards DWTS is considered family entertainment. As you may see I like Sarah in spite of the obvious liberal faults that you have pointed out. I like Sarah because of her love of country and her firm belief in the free market economy and her outspoken pro life stand.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 15, 2010 06:02 AM | Send