In the following exchange, a reader challenges my comments about Sarah Palin. I present what I believe to be the traditionalist woman’s case against Palin for president.  

Elizabeth P. writes:

Many of your comments I find great rapport with, until I read the one concerning Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and their husbands [see preceding entry].

It is perhaps stretching it a bit to say that Sarah Palin is a dedicated mother in the light of the unhappy events surrounding her daughter. But there have sadly been many families who have had a daughter go astray in the area of morality, and hopefully everyone is sadder yet wiser and forgiven as well. So to out-and-out say that she is not a dedicated mother is, I believe, a bit uncharitable.

 I would like to make a further comment: There have been women who have found that their spouses or other men are unable or unwilling to step up to the plate and do their jobs as men. Yet the jobs must urgently be done. This has been the case with my mother and one of my sisters. My father was unwilling to be the “heavy” and raise his children in good discipline, so finally my mother realized she had no choice, time was slipping by and we were growing up, so she stepped into the role. My sister snatched her family from the brink of financial ruin because my brother-in-law would not deal with the family’s financial matters (and she waited seven years for him to do something before she realized she had no choice). 

In the realm of politics, it is the same: If a female candidate is the one who is standing up for the rights of the unborn, the preservation of our Christian values (and for that matter, rolled up into that could easily be our right to homeschool our children, our right to express our Christian Faith without fear of reprisal or the ACLU, and so forth), and the male candidate is the very antithesis of these things, then we should vote for the female.

 Now, this is not the norm. But women throughout history have “come through” in a time of crisis. Both Esther and Judith of Old Testament days saved their entire nations through inspiration from the Lord. Later in history, St. Joan of Arc — at the age of seventeen — snatched France from the hands of the British, which in later years would prove to have been a saving grace. They did not fulfill what would be called a “normal female role,” particularly in the case of St. Joan of Arc. But they did God’s Will for them in their particular lives. Some paid the price for following it, as with St. Joan of Arc and her terrible death. 

For the majority of women, marriage and motherhood are the ways to sanctify themselves. Other women will remain single because that is God’s Will for them. But others, and I think more so in this day and age, will now be called upon for a more difficult role in publicly defending that which cannot defend itself — unborn life. Sarah Palin made her commitment to protection of unborn life very clear with her Down’s Syndrome son. And we shouldn’t be tearing down those who are in the public eye and are doing what must be done by speaking disparagingly of them on blogs. For all I know, they could be living a holier life than I, what with having to juggle their responsibilities in so many places. 

I would like to close with a beautiful quote with which I’m sure you will also agree: 

“Wait not to be backed by numbers,
Wait not until you are sure of an echo from the crowd;
The fewer the voices on the side of truth,
The louder and stronger must be your own.”

Laura writes:

I agree that women must occasionally “step up to the plate” in many areas of life.  There are also important exceptions to the rule that men make better political leaders. In response to Elizabeth’s points, I would like to justify my statement that Palin, who seems to be preparing for a presidential run, is not a “dedicated mother” and explain in more detail why I think she is not good presidential material despite her obvious charm and ability.

It disturbs me that one of Palin’s major credentials for higher office seems to be that she decided not to abort her Downs Syndrome baby. What does it say about the anti-abortion movement if a woman is a heroine – a heroine worthy of being elected to the highest office – simply for doing her duty and carrying her child to term? It’s as if the Army decided to give Purple Hearts to soldiers not guilty of desertion. There were moments on the campaign trail when Palin reportedly held up little Trig before a crowd of supporters. Was she using her infant as a prop? If so, this would be a terrible indictment of her motherly inclinations. She also made statements about her desire to look out for “special needs” youngsters if she was elected. This struck me as more grand-standing, a tasteless attempt to use the mere fact that she had given birth to a handicapped child (he was still only a few months old) as a public credential and moral badge.

Palin is clearly a loving mother. I have no doubt of that. But she spends little time raising her children; indeed it’s an impossibility given the demands of her schedule. Of course, children can be raised well by other family members or hired help, and I am sure the Palin children are not woefully neglected. But, doesn’t the statement that Palin is a “dedicated mother” suggest that dedication is all a matter of proper sentiment and not of actual work and sacrifice?  In fact, this exact view is very common today. A woman merely needs to state publicly how crazy she is about her children to justify casual abandonment of them to the care of those who are not their mothers. This would be no big deal if it were a minor occurrence, but it’s a major trend. Palin shares the feminist conviction that public achievement comes first; home and family life are beautiful hobbies. 

No mother is perfect and no mother has complete control over her growing children. The outcome of parenthood is not always a reflection of the love or dedication of parents. But, Palin seriously mishandled her daughter Bristol’s affairs. Not only did she not provide suitable supervision for Bristol or instill her with the idea that sex before marriage was wrong, she put her, pregnant and unmarried, in a public role before the nation at a time when unmarried motherhood is arguably the single most serious domestic problem. Nearly forty percent of children are now born to unwed mothers; children raised without fathers have poorer outcomes in life, a fact proven by countless studies. Palin could have declined the vice-presidential nomination for the time being out of deference for traditional standards. She then would not have put the Republican Party in the awkward position of sanctioning something that so clearly contradicts its family values platform.

Palin claims she is “a pit bull with lipstick” when it comes to her family. This strikes me as inaccurate and as more of the same feminist posturing. Her acceptance of the nomination made things much worse for her new grandson, or so it seems. Bristol and Levi were thrown into the spotlight. There is now serious animosity between Levi and the Palin family. One can’t help but wonder whether everything might have turned out better if there had been more privacy. Perhaps the Palins could have adopted their grandson so that he would have both a mother and a father. As it is, he has a mother and a father who are estranged and at odds.  Bristol will stay in the spotlight as long as Palin is a candidate or holds office and though Bristol has stated teen motherhood is no picnic, it’s hard to refute the appealing image. Bristol and her baby have been pictured with glowing smiles on the cover of People. For the young unmarried women who may be encouraged by her example to go ahead and have sex or to raise their babies instead of putting them up for adoption, things are unlikely to turn out so well.

Why was Palin nominated for vice president? She had a very thin resumé and was virtually unknown nationally. It seems clear that she was nominated in part because she was a woman. It was a way for conservatives to play liberals at their own game. If this is true, isn’t it fair then to judge her candidacy in light of what it means for a woman to become president?

I agree that she is more than just an affirmative action candidate. Palin is an attractive cheerleader for Red-State America and has undeniable charisma.  But, her charm and lovely appearance do not alone qualify her for the presidency nor does her brief and abruptly terminated stint as Alaska’s governor. These do not compensate for her lack of experience or brain power nor guarantee her genuine agreement with Red-State America on many issues. Wishful thinking seems to be a major component of  her popularity.  Palin publicly touts the public school system as one of the greatest forces in American life. Is she truly a champion of conservative values?

If it is true that no one else in America can so inspire right-of-center voters or infuse them with confidence as can Sarah Palin, something very significant will have to be  sacrificed in return. The country’s conservative party must once and for all shed its longstanding respect for traditional sex roles. In a country so populous, is the the shortage of leadership so dire that millions of men cannot produce a single worthy presidential candidate? Is Palin really a latter-day Joan of Arc?

Traditional women will lose out if a mother of young children is elected president. Yes, Palin is anti-abortion and that is a good thing. But, she is not supportive of the spirit behind traditional family life and obviously does not find the feminine role personally satisfying.  For her, family life is all ‘improv.’ It’s hard enough for traditional women to convince husbands, family and friends that raising children and running a home are a full-time job. If a woman can be a “dedicated mother” and a president at the same time, their arguments will receive no moral support even from the country’s leading conservative party.  But, my concern is not that traditional women themselves will lose out in the long run. It’s the young and the powerless who stand to lose the most.

Rita writes:

The most poignant part of your post was “It’s hard enough for traditional women to convince husbands, family and friends that raising children and running a home are a full-time job. If a woman can be a “dedicated mother” and a president at the same time, their arguments will receive no moral support even from the country’s leading conservative party.”

People need to get their dictionaries out and find out what “dedicated” means. My dictionary says: wholly committed to something. Palin is NOT wholly committed to parenting. She is partially committed. That makes the whole thing a lie.

Certainly if not one man in this country can be found to run for president, there must be some single woman somewhere with nothing better to do. Why does it have to be a woman with so many children, one who has a disability and a family that is going through some problems with at least one of their older children? WHY?

Perhaps that’s why Palin dropped her governor’s job. Maybe she realized that she was headed in the wrong path. Let’s hope so, for the sake of that family.

 Laura writes:

There is no sign Palin resigned because of her family. She is traveling far and wide making speeches and has written her memoir, which is due to hit the stands soon. Though it is unlikely she wrote the book herself, she appears to be as busy as ever. If she did quit to be with her family, she owes it to those who voted for her to say so. She was elected governor and left without filling her term, a highly unusual move for someone not facing either scandal or higher elected office.

Please follow and like us: