WITH ONE important exception, what we have learned about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family does not reflect badly on any of them. What the Palin family story does do is underscore the flaws in the political philosophy that was critical to her being selected by John McCain.
Normally I would not be writing what appears to be yet again another Palin diary. But the words I have just quoted, which appear on the op ed page of today's Boston Globe, were written by the man most consider the smartest person in Congress, Barney Frank. His piece (which has the same title as this diary) offers a perceptive observation of how we can best approach the nomination of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate.
The one exception noted by Frank is of course the abuse of office that as we now realize may not actually be fully explored before the election. The divorce that led to that scandal and Bristol Palin's out of wedlock pregnancy are, according to Frank,
the sorts of things that occur in many American families, and those involved are entitled to be treated with compassion. But that is precisely the point that makes this a relevant political issue.
There is no contradiction in what I have just quoted. Frank is saying clearly why he thinks both issues are relevant in a political campaign. In his very next sentence he writes
Palin was selected by McCain in substantial part because of her high standing as a leading advocate of the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party.
Frank reminds us that the selection of Palin was sufficient to persuade James Dobson to become an enthusiastic supporter of the now Mccain-Palin ticket. Dobson is, after all, perhaps the most prominent - and important - advocate of a right-wing social viewpoint that believes
divorce, teen pregnancy, and other lapses in family values are the fault of liberals. According to this political movement, respecting the right of gay and lesbian people to formalize their relationships; refusing to censor the Internet, books, television or movies; supporting age appropriate sex education; and refusing to allow religion to be inculcated by official government means, are the causes of social dysfunction in America. And every indication we have is that Palin believes this viewpoint.
Frank acknowledges that the individuals in the Palin family involved with divorce and teen pregnancy are entitled to compassion, but so are the millions of others similarly situated who are almost always greeted with hostility and who face hostile public policy influenced by such right wing thinking. There is a clear hypocrisy from those who insist on such an intolerant and unforgiving approach except when their own, for whom they can always find excuses are involved. Clearly these conservatives do not believe in a Kantian categorical imperative, or else they would agree with Frank when he writes
Respect and compassion should extend to all who find themselves in similar situations.
After all, there are millions who daily confront "the stresses and strains, moral dilemmas, and difficult choices of contemporary life" as Frank puts it. Palin and others like them are inclined to blame such people for their failure to accept the moral view espoused by the Palins, Dobsons and their ilk for the situations in which they find themselves - unless, of course, it is they or their families or their close acquaintances who confront the problems.
Frank is in some ways too kind. He never labels this as hypocrisy. I do. Frank limits his language to calling it "a glaring inconsistency" between the social philosophy which blames liberalism for things like divorce and teen pregnancy and the actual facts of the Palin family. That does not make either Palin's sister or daughter "fair game," because they are still human beings facing difficult personal decisions and hence worthy of our compassion.
The relevant political point about the existence of these incidents in Palin's family is not that they reflect badly on her or her relatives, but that they further reveal the central flaw of the harshly judgmental and intolerant philosophy she exemplifies: She advocates restricting the personal freedom and right to fair treatment of many Americans in a fruitless effort to eradicate the kind of behavior that, as her own experience shows, does not lend itself to this sort of approach.
The words immediately above are Frank's final paragraph. And to me they offer a key idea. We should acknowledge that Palin has appropriate concern for her sister and her daughter (although the actions towards the former brother-in-law are clearly beyond the pale). We should praise Palin for her concern, and use that praise as the weapon which which we confront her failed philosophy. This applies to all aspects of social and moral policy, including that of choice.
There used to be a political consultant in New York named Arthur Finkelstein, a closeted gay man who helped many a politician on the right attack their opponents. He was fond of demonizing the term liberal, perhap by running an ad like "Hey, buddy, you're a liberal." He was as much responsible as anyone for some on the left fearing the word, seeking to replace it with terms like progressive.
I suppose one could use his approach and go "Hey, Sarah, you're a liberal." But I don't particularly like that negativity, even as I would greatly enjoy seeing Palin and others of her ilk hoist by their own petards.
What does appeal to me is using the facts of the Palin family to argue for a politics of real compassion, a compassion from which the members of that family benefit. And I would place it in a clearly biblical frame, from the Sermon on the Mount: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Rather than ridiculing Palin for her advocacy of the failed approach of abstinence only sex education, I would talk about how many families encounter, as do the Palins, the difficult decisions cause by a teen pregnancy and try to use that to advocate for more generous policies - in sex education, in choice, and so on. The issue becomes how we can best achieve the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies and on that basis we can acknowledge that is something greatly desired by almost everyone, regardless of positions on choice or of political and social orientation.
Family values should not be a political stick with which to bash those who disagree with your social perspective. The government should not impose, but should support families. And the facts of the Palin family provide an opportunity to reach out to those concerned with the pressures on their own families to find common ground to bring us together rather than political rhetoric intended to divide and demean in the hopes of gaining political power.
The greatest family value is compassion. Allow me to again offer a Biblical illustration, from Luke Chapter 11:
What father among you, if his son asks for bread, would give him a stone, or if he asks for a fish, would give him a snake instead of the fish?
When our children are in need, in crisis, punishment and judgment are stone and snakes, love and compassion are bread and fish. And if that is what we would wish for our own, how can we deny it to others?
Let me remind you of two expressions I have already quoted from Frank:
People are not "game," fair or unfair. They are human beings who often face difficult personal decisions.
and
Respect and compassion should extend to all who find themselves in similar situations.
I hope in our own politics we remain mindful that whatever satisfaction we may gain from tearing someone down for their apparent hypocrisy is far less valuable than using the very human inconsistency on display for the purpose of teaching - both them and others - of the importance of a generous heart. It is more in keeping with the political approach of a candidate who insists that we all matter, that we must bring all of us along. It would be an important example of the audacity of a hope that believes it is possible to bring us together on a common basis of compassion for one another, in spite of the very human failings to which we are all subject.
Peace.