Sep 04, 2008 04:15 PM
by Stefan Beck
Initially, I was inclined to agree with Heather Mac Donald that John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin for Vice President represented identity politics at its worst, that his pick “ensured that the diversity racket will be an essential component of presidential politics forever more.” But I was struck by the conclusion of another recent piece by Mac Donald, this one about the role of “family bathos” in politics: “There is nothing to be done, I guess, but give in to the spirit of the age. I’m already looking forward to hearing how second wife Cindy McCain describes her first date with John during next week’s Republican convention.”
I can only assume Mac Donald wrote this in a spirit of irony, but there’s truth to it. In a political climate that has made the “diversity racket” an “essential component,” is it possible to win without playing the game? And if you have to play, why not pick an impressive female running mate? Why not have the best of both worlds?
In the wake of Palin’s speech, I have to give McCain the benefit of the doubt—and not only because, by and large, the media are doing the same. Of course, they are. Slate writes that “Democrats should worry.” The New Republic calls her speech “disrespectful, angry, and effective.” (If anything was disrespectful this evening, it was the prolonged laughter about Obama’s record as a “community organizer”—perhaps not a very convincing illustration of “experience,” but worthy of respect all the same, as another Slate contributor noted.)
The more we hear about “experience,” the more it sounds like a sinister euphemism for “reverence for The System.” Palin has none of that. Her “news flash” to the media, that she is “not going to Washington to seek their good opinion,” but rather “to serve the people of this country,” was one of the most stinging lines of the evening, and the evening’s only acknowledgment of the harsh treatment the Palin family has received from the media.
But that treatment should be an issue. Living on a college campus, I’ve been privy to some very deluded opinions about how conservatives view the issues raised by the Palin family. I’ve heard, for instance, that Republicans don’t want a woman in a position of power. I think the audience response tonight shows that for the fantasy it is. I’ve also seen intelligent people tie themselves in knots trying to figure out how Bristol Palin’s pregnancy can be construed as a liability or embarrassment. On a friend’s blog, one commenter allowed:
I have this feeling that this is only helping the GOP ticket. They get to tout that they live the rhetoric of choosing life again, in addition to Palin’s decision to knowingly go through with a Down Syndrome pregnancy. The right-wingers can still support them, advocating forgiveness and understanding for the imperfect of their fold.
They “get to” tout this because it’s a fact, and one demanding a sacrifice. And arguing that something—in this case, teenage pregnancy—isn’t ideal doesn’t mean that it’s unpardonable. Bristol’s pregnancy is a scandal only if one believes that conservatives secretly pine for the scarlet letter and are eschewing it as a political expedient. What I’ve seen in the gleeful reactions of my peers is a suspicion that no one would dare espouse a principle if they thought it might inconvenience or embarrass them down the road. To quote Peggy Noonan, “Bullshit.”
Meanwhile, on The Daily Show, things seemed a bit more frantic, desperate, and unfunny than usual. Jon Stewart grilled Newt Gingrich about Palin’s comment that Bristol had chosen to “keep” her baby. The “gotcha” was that Palin, a pro-lifer, would give her daughter a choice she’d deny everyone else. Stewart didn’t pause to consider that “keep” might refer to adoption, not abortion, but that’s beside the point. Palin governs a state where abortion without parental consent is legal. All her statement reveals is that she didn’t seek to deprive her daughter of her legal entitlement, that she understands her wishes and the law of the land to be distinct things. Some “gotcha.”
Expect a lot more Gotcha Lite in the coming weeks. The Obama camp’s limp response to the Palin speech—something about being “divisive” and “partisan”—is another example. Every decision or position is “divisive” in the sense that it rules out something else. And the prospect of a drippy, quasi-one-party rule is enough to make anybody wonder: What’s so funny about “divisiveness” and “partisanship,” anyway?