I Confess, I Paid Attention to the Election

     And that's a thing I'd sworn I'd not do again, trying to remind myself of the verse in Psalms, "Put not thy trust in princes."  That is what all the other peoples of the ancient world put their trust in, even while Samuel is saying to the Israelites, "So, you want a king, is that it?", and Jeremiah is saying to Zedekiah, "So, you think the Lord will not allow the Babylonians to destroy this precious city of Jerusalem, do you?" 

     Anyway, I did pay attention.  I'm not entirely sure why I did.  The kind of conservatism I espouse, one that is grounded in a metaphysic of the human person as made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore not simply a bundle of appetites sexual or otherwise, not to be managed by bureaucrats and technocrats from Susa or Alexandria or Nicomedia, and also not to be encouraged in sexual or fiscal solipsism -- that kind of conservatism, such as is to be found in the writings of Leo XIII, is hard to find now.  So I have to take my small victories where I can.  And I am cheered by the fact that we have probably elected four or five dozen pro-life representatives to Congress, at least two of them African Americans.

     Yet -- I fear that the battle, not always but all too often, is between a radical materialism and a softer materialism, a radical worship of Progress (to where, is never specified) and a softer worship of Progress.  For instance, I saw the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, on television with Geraldine Ferraro, the two of them commenting upon the difficulties of being a woman in national politics.  One of them said, "There are still some Neanderthals out there who believe that it is impossible for a woman to have a family and raise her children properly while embarking on a political career.  We hope that they will soon evolve beyond that position."  Those italics are mine.  Note the assumptions here.  People in previous generations were bigots.  What they actually believed about the relations between men and women, and their roles in private and public life, can be dismissed with a sneer.  We, who divorce half of the time, when we bother to marry in the first place, we whose cities are sinkholes of sexual and familial chaos, we can safely ignore the so-called wisdom of past ages.  We have evolved, don't you see.  Just as, I suppose, our understanding of freedom has evolved beyond that of that fellow Jefferson -- that ascetic and patrician landowner, to use William F. Buckley's words, whom we can call upon to justify denuding the public square of all expressions of religion, but otherwise dismiss.

     The person who made that comment, of course, was Governor Palin.  I guess I shouldn't single women out for the collapse of our political thinking -- that we are not producing even an eloquent and somewhat addled populist like Bryan, or a stubborn constitutionalist such as Cleveland; and those fellows are rather dwarfed by the political intellects of the Adamses, or Jefferson and Madison, or Webster and Calhoun.  Yet I wonder sometimes what a Palin or a Pelosi can be thinking.  Are they entirely unaware of the great (and sometimes failed) statesmen of the American and British past?  Are they not embarrassed by the vulgar cackling of the commentators on that show that is inevitably on the screen when I go to the doctor's or the dentist's, The View?  Cackling which makes Rush Limbaugh appear like Demosthenes.  Or are they aware in the slightest of the collapse of the American family, which in certain sectors of our population is evident in the disappearance of responsible men, the should-be fathers of their communities? 

     I note, by the way, that the actual performance of "conservative" women candidates last night was in general disappointing.  Anyone picked at random from Nevada should have been able to defeat the much-disliked Harry Reid.  Mrs. Whitman in California lost to a has-been political hack, Governor Moonbeam himself, by a million votes.  Barbara Boxer is a gaffe machine, and yet Carly Fiorina could not come close to defeating her.  The touted Nikki Haley, now governor of South Carolina, squeaked by in one of the four or five most conservative states in the country.  Kelly Ayotte, the best of the lot by far, from what I can gather (and genuinely pro-life) won handily in New Hampshire, but Christine O'Donnell was pasted in Delaware.

     Ah well.  The fiscal conservatives have no idea that they lack a proper understanding of the human being and of the common good, and that they therefore play the secularist's game on the secularist's own turf.  The social conservatives have either bought the idea that "government," for good or bad, means management by bureaucrats from afar, or have bought so much of the sexual revolution that their residual opposition to killing children remains utterly unmoored from any consistent vision of what a good human life or a virtuous and just human community looks like.  But maybe a few more of the congressmen next year will be willing to listen.  If not, I can always accompany Jeremiah to Egypt -- though he never did get there, did he?

Comments

[sdf]

Thumbs up, sir!

[Kamilla]

Tony,

As I was reading this, I kept pleading, "Oh please, oh please! let it not be Sarah Palin who said that."

And of course it was. She is obviously one of those woman who cannot do both. I pray she learns that before another child goes by the wayside.

Kamilla

[Christian]

"while Samuel is saying to the Israelites, "So, you want a king, is that it?", and Jeremiah is saying to Zedekiah, "So, you think the Lord will not allow the Babylonians to destroy this precious city of Jerusalem, do you?"

Wow, you sound just like me in Sunday School.

[Sherry]

Our understanding of freedom hasn't evolved or progressed or improved beyond that of that fellow Jefferson, who owned slaves until the day he died and left people in slavery after his death? Oh, yes, he wrote that all men were created equal, but he couldn't for the life of him figure out to work out that ideal in Virginia and still keep his plantation going.

As for women in politics, they struggle to balance family responsibilities with public responsibilities. And men don't? Or at least shouldn't?

[Tony Esolen]

Jefferson's understanding and Jefferson's practice were two different things. I am speaking about what Jefferson said and wrote about freedom. I also do not leap to judge a man who did not invent the situation in which he found himself. I also deny your premise, that in the matter of public and family affairs there is to be no difference whatsoever between what we expect of men and what we expect of women. That's just the sexual indifferentism we have inherited from feminists. And is it out of bounds to note that Governor Palin's family is something of a mess?

One of these days .... I have a dream that one of these days Americans can be prevailed upon to notice that democracy is not itself justice, but only a tool for procuring justice, and a tool that often does not work. We have accepted the premise that democracy -- or feminism, for that matter -- simply is justice, rather than a means for attaining it. Feminism should be judged by one standard alone: whether it has conduced to the common good. I'm looking around me and seeing the sexual revolution, without which feminism cannot survive, destroying the lives of the lower middle class. No pity for them from our elites, nor from feminists.

[Benighted Savage]

I confess, I voted on election day.

[Rob G]

~~The fiscal conservatives have no idea that they lack a proper understanding of the human being and of the common good, and that they therefore play the secularist's game on the secularist's own turf. The social conservatives have either bought the idea that "government," for good or bad, means management by bureaucrats from afar, or have bought so much of the sexual revolution that their residual opposition to killing children remains utterly unmoored from any consistent vision of what a good human life or a virtuous and just human community looks like.~~

Beautiful summary, Tony. In Pa.'s senate race we had a choice between a liberal who voted with Pelosi 98% of the time, and a former Club For Growth president who happens to be pro-life. I held my nose and voted for the latter, primarily because of his pro-life stance. But it would have been nice for once to vote without having to seal off one's olfactories.

[GL]

I watched the returns with great interest as well, all the while knowing that many of us have being placing our trust in princes for three decades or more now while, more often than not having the candidates we voted for winning the elections and having "our" party appoint the judges and justices and, yet, the situation keep deteriorating. The problem, of course, is that what ails our land is not really subject to a political or legal cure because the disease is not political or legal. What ails our land is a cultural disease and engaging the culture is the only means of applying the cure. And we all know, deep down, that it is the Prince, and not the princes, who is the Great Physician.

Thanks for yet another very insightful and spot-on post.

[GL]

As to the so-called fiscal conservatives, those who today claim the mantle have no idea what fiscal conservatism is. Fiscal conservatism is living within your means. In governance (as in the household), it means balancing the budget and paying down the debt. As a life-long Republican, it grieves me to admit that the last president to do that was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, and that the last Republican president to do it was a man who many of today's self-styled fiscal conservatives dismiss and even malign, Dwight Eisenhower. Fiscal conservatism is a virtue (and it is a virtue) much claimed, but little practiced. What the Republican party needs today are more men like Ike, who both claimed the virtue and practiced it.

[Anthony Christian]

A very good post, Dr. Esolen, eloquent and yet lil' ol' me could still understand it all. Kudos.

[Sheri]

Mr. Esolen made several comments I disagree with. One was that by engaging in politics one is somehow putting his faith in man and not in God. This was implied in his opening paragraph. Hence, he rarely engages in politics. I would charge him, then, with not doing his duty as a citizen. How many Christians take this stand? I think a lot and I would argue that this is one reason our country has lost so much freedom and, most importantly, our trust (as a people) in Him who granted that freedom. If we aren't engaged, people won't see there is another way and won't get a chance to see Christians interacting in the civic arena. I'm glad our Founders took a different course than this writer seems to advocate.

Secondly, he seems to be lumping Sarah Palin in with the odious women on the View and Nancy Pelosi (who has done real damage to our nation). While I disagree with Palin on MANY issues, I think she has been a net help to the idea of reducing the size and power of government. She has inspired many who may be seeing these issues for the first time. People are waking up. At first they see that government is not the solution and then, over time, through Christ working in them and through us, they will see the bigger picture and choose Christ. That is my hope. I am seeing it happen so this hope is not without a basis.

Thirdly, I take issue with his slam of the women running for office in CA and Nevada. They did their best running against entrenched politicians who had millions of dollars as well as the support of government employees at every level. Is he not aware of the massive voter fraud and union control of our elections? Harry Reid's own son is Commissioner of the most populous county in Nevada and in charge of the ballot boxes there. Additionally, the union SEIU was the one setting up and delivering the electronic voting machines to voting places in Nevada. Talk about conflict of interest!

Numerous people from this county reported that their votes were changed to an all Democrat ticket before they were supposed to select the "done" button. SEIU is the most thuggish union in the nation right now. They are literally beating people up for protesting them and are not above tampering with elections. There is a lot to read on this group alone and there are big gains in store for them with Reid continuing as senator. If the author would bother to step out of his ivory tower, he could read the huge number of charges of election tampering, voter fraud, etc., etc. that occurred on Tuesday. I wish he would give these ladies a break. They had almost insurmountable odds.

Lastly, while he may be right that the political battle is being fought on secular ground it doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can. At least they are doing something! What is he doing?!? Perhaps he has a history of spreading Christ's message and Good News to Americans. That would, indeed, lead people to putting their faith in Him and not in people. Getting back to governing by biblical principles achieved through another Great Awakening of the American people would be awesome and what we should work for. But as we work to that end, we must do what we can, as imperfectly as we do, to stop the hollowing out of our nation by people who believe that government and government control should be greater and not less.

Jesus may not be coming back to us until a hundred years from now. Maybe longer. In the meantime, we need to prepare for Him and fight oppressive government for our children's sake. The Bible tells us that Satan is behind government leaders. That means government and politics are a part of the spiritual warfare we are engaged in. We Christians need to fight the Enemy in this theater of war as well as the other areas we are fighting in. As we work diligently to train our children to follow Christ, and work to share the Gospel with the unsaved, so we also need to push back the encroachment of government on our freedom and property. If we don't it will eventually become illegal to quote the Bible in public among many other unthinkable things. We don't want that future for our children and grandchildren.

[Bob Srigley]

Some of the most rewarding articles I have read in Touchstone, or anywhere, have been authored by Mr. Esolen, and I look forward to many more. However his position in this post strikes me as a little off-kilter. The comments on Sarah Palin seem to verge on ad hominem, especially the dig at her family life. Perhaps Mr. Esolen has specific knowledge that I lack. I am only aware of a mother who chose to bear and love a developmentally disbled child. And to love and support a daughter who had the misfortune to fall in love with the sort of person we used to call a "cad." A woman who seems to respect her husband's headship even though she has risen to an extraordinary level of leadership. Of course my opinion is influenced by having actually read her book, Going Rogue. Given the execrable and almost unprecedented vile treatement she received by the mainstream media is it possible that some of that seeped into the mind of someone whom I would ordinarily regard as having the most sound critical faculty?
I'm not suggesting that Sarah Palin is an especially deep thinker, and I wish she could take voice lessons from a Southerner like Haley Barbour, but I'm glad, very glad that she is on the scene to articulate what so many inarticulate but decent folk are feeling to be true, and that she is such a piquant irritant to so many pompous liberal intellects.
And speaking of articulate, thank you Sheri for your comments.

[Tony Esolen]

Thanks, Bob, for your kind comments.

Sheri, I have been politically active for most of my adult life, having served as the president of our 300-family strong Christian homeschooling organization in Rhode Island, for seven years. I write regularly about issues that have political implications. When I warn against putting trust in princes, I am warning about overvaluing the political, and in particular the current state of partisan politics in the United States.

Don't misunderstand me; it's not that I think that Democrats and Republicans should get along more nicely. It's that I see my choices as lying between an utterly secularist party that has no notion of the holiness of human life and no concerns about the size and the scope of the state, and a more or less secularist party that sort of remembers once in a while the holiness of human life and still allows the state to metastasize. I wish then that there were greater differences between the parties.

My problems with Governor Palin are these. She is a feminist. I have yet to meet the feminist, of either party, and of "conservative" or "liberal" denomination, who even gives a passing thought to the common good, when we are talking about "rights". Well, I will revise that: Elizabeth Fox-Genovese did, and Christina Hoff Sommers does. I found Governor Palin's insult -- that anyone who holds a view that pretty much everyone within my own memory did hold, is somehow not "evolved" -- not only offensive and bigoted (because she assumed that the question should not even arise), but exactly the sort of "progressive" nonsense we have to put up with from our self-appointed nannies. I won't say that she hasn't thought the issue through. It's worse than that. It's that she assumes that there isn't any issue here to think about at all. Call it what you will, but that is not what a Russell Kirk would call conservative. It appears to me that Governor Palin, like many a radio host, derives her "conservatism" not from any deep thought about what politics is, or from engagement with history, or from a fundamental vision of the common good, but from the skittish fads of our times. Please don't interpret me as saying that I don't like Governor Palin. I like Sean Hannity too, in a way. But Sean Hannity is shallow. When he says that the conservative position is that you can be anything that you want to be, I cringe; I cannot imagine a John Adams or a Grover Cleveland saying something so foolish. When he implies that the object of human life is to "make something of yourself," that is, to try to become what you want to be (always defined in terms of wealth or success in one's chosen career), I cringe again. That is just the solipsism of the sexual left, in different terms.

Sheri, I have been fighting the political fight for three decades. I am a conservative in academe -- you think I have not had battles to wage, even at my generally sane Providence College? But I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that the deterioration of the American family (and thus of the American common life) is going to be remedied by a feminist. And the deterioration of the family is THE single problem that drives the other cultural problems we suffer. We need desperately to reestablish the sphere of authority that a family must naturally claim. But that means that we must raise strong and loving men to be the heads of those families. You see, I am not embarrassed to say so, since I have Saint Paul and Saint Peter to back me up, and all of human history, and plain old human nature. How that can be done by someone who accepts the feminist principle, I fail to see.

Yes, I am happy that Governor Palin has a less expansive vision of the state perhaps than does Barack Obama. Let her say publicly that she believes we should phase out the Department of Education. Let her say publicly that states should be allowed to finance same-sex public schools, if they so choose. Let her say publicly that states should slowly retreat from no-fault divorce. Let her say publicly that it is foolish and dangerous to place women in combat. I am happy that she is pro-life. (By the way, I am happy too that she decided not to kill her unborn child; and I suppose that refraining from killing an innocent human being for one's own profit is something of a moral victory in these times.) I would like to hear exactly why she would oppose same-sex pseudogamy. I need more than feelings here.

[Clifford Simon]

Dr. Esolen cross-posted with me, so he may have said all this and better by now...

I don't believe Dr. Esolen took any dig at Sarah Palin's family life. See where the comment was made, and what it was made about. Sherri objected to Dr. Esolen's looking to Jefferson's ideal of freedom. Sherri's argument against the Jeffersonian ideal was that Jefferson didn't practice what he preached. Dr. Esolen said that what Sherri can blame Jefferson and his era for, counts just the same for our contemporary Sarah Palin.

Bob S., you've spun the facts quite a bit. It's no private knowledge that Bristol didn't just fall in love with a cad - she also took off her pants with him. If you regard that deliberate act as mere "misfortune," as if getting pregnant just "happens", as if Bristol's sense, as well as her mother's God-given responsibility for forming and guiding that sense, is not at fault in this affair, then maybe you don't understand what Dr. Esolen has really and repeatedly been saying in his articles of the past - these articles by which you say you have been rewarded. Look, if Tony had said anything regarding Sarah Palin in his comments today other than what he did, it would have been a remarkable reversal --- political analysts would call it a "flip-flop" --- of his prior articles.

We can each think what we want about Sarah's performance as a mother: and Judge not lest ye be judged, and With the measure you use it will be measured to you, and all that. Just don't be offended that Dr. Esolen is consistent with himself, is all.

Sherri - and I hasten to say that I support your good intentions, if not your points of argument - the war we must fight against Satan for Jesus before his return isn't the war with the government. Biblically speaking, it is the war with the Old Man, the sinful nature, within each one of us. If we misstate where the war is, we lose (don't we?). And, "The Bible tells us that Satan is behind government leaders" - huh? Romans 13:1-2?

[Rob G]

~~It appears to me that Governor Palin, like many a radio host, derives her "conservatism" not from any deep thought about what politics is, or from engagement with history, or from a fundamental vision of the common good, but from the skittish fads of our times.~~

Modern American conservatism's collective memory goes back only as far as Reagan. And while the Gipper definitely did some good things, the cultural decay which came to a head in the 60's was certainly not slowed much, if at all, in the 80s. Same can be said for Thatcher's England.

A lot of today's conservatives seem to have the idea that if we get the economics right the moral/cultural will follow automatically, and that this "getting right" requires a top-down political effort: "If only we had another Reagan!" "If only Sarah becomes president!" "If only some REAL conservatives would take control of Congress!" This is trusting in princes, and if we succumb to that temptation the only result guaranteed to us is disappointment.

[Bob Srigley]

"And is it out of bounds to note that Governor Palin's family is something of a mess?"

Clifford, this is the dig I was referring to and it preceeded Sheri's comments.
I agree that the "judge not that ye be not judged" ploy is usually a silly dodge. My point is that condemnatory judgements of a personal nature should not be made based only on externals. I may be mistaken in characterizing Bristol's dilemna as a misfortune. You may be mistaken in implying a degree of wantonness on her part. By this criterion I perhaps should not have called Mr. Johnson a cad, except that his behavior afterwards seems more revealing than the sexual indiscretion.

[Benighted Savage]

Prof. Esolen, perhaps Sheri is being so critical of you because she assumes that you are not speaking of "political activity" in a traditionally American sense. It may be that for her writing or teaching about political matters, or presiding over a private organization, doesn't make the grade: instead, to be politically active means to take part in municipal and county politics, attend city council meetings, write letters to the local newspaper about local issues, and help to run local elections and support local candidates. Perhaps it is because you did not even allude to these nuts and bolts of our republic's democratic tradition that she believes that you are undervaluing the political, that she thinks you are in fact advocating that Christians of good will and sufficient means should dis-engage themselves from what used to be considered their basic civic duties as Americans.

It may well be that Sara Palin has never read a speech by Daniel Webster or a book by Russel Kirk. It may also be the case that she hasn't clarified (or stated) her position on every issue of the day that I find important. However, I have to admire a woman who appears to not only share many political opinions with me but has taken on a series of public offices -- city council member and mayor, state regulatory board member, state governor -- that I can't even imagine holding. Here I ask: why so little praise of Sarah Palin from you? Why so much blame? Has what she accomplished for her state and country so little?

Finally, in your recent post entitled "Separation of Reason and State" you wrote of the old Roman virtue of pietas. I seem to remember that to the Romans pietas refers to not just a sense of duty and respect to the gods and to family, but also to the fatherland. It required unselfish effort to the common good, and that common good included doing one's duty for one's nation. If you are willing, perhaps you might set aside questions of God and family from your thoughts for a moment and tell us what duties you think a pious American has towards his patria.

[Sheri]

Clifford,

Thank you for commenting on my comments and the pat on the head.

To clarify, two women named "Sherri" posted on this article. A "Sherry" and me, "Sheri". Sherry made the Jefferson comment.

I did not say our spiritual war is only with government. I said that politics is ONE of the theaters of war.

My comment regarding Satan's involvement in government referred to Daniel 10:12-21. This passage describes the unseen spiritual battle taking place over nations.

I agree that we must battle our sinful natures. Are you saying that is ALL we must battle? Is this the only battle in your view? If we reduce the battle lines to ourselves alone, we have redrawn them too narrowly. We must battle for our children's hearts, for the salvation of others (who only Christ can win but we are supposed to help) and the forces that seek to chain us (of which is government is a big one).

[Sheri]

Dr. Esolen,

Thank you for your comments. While they did not address the reasons I took issue with your post, they did shed light on who you are as a professor and homeschooling father.

You seem particularly irritated by the GOP women running for office. Feminism HAS been a scourge on our society. As a woman educated at a public university and who came to Christ later on, I am still shedding that baggage. It is through His grace that I am a work in progress.

Unfortunately, there is a male leadership vacuum in conservative politics, though this election has brought to the front some men showing strong leadership who are willing to do battle with the formidable Leviathan.

You criticize these women who fall so short of your expectations, yet where are the men? It reminds me of Deborah from Judges having to escort Barak to battle. Do we blame her for doing the job she did? What does it all mean? Is God using these women until some men rise up? Do we reject them because we disagree with some of their comments? If every word you said was broadcast and parsed, would you possibly later regret any of them?

Could it be, that as imperfect as they are, God is using them for good? After all, he uses us and we are broken, too.

I don't know the answers. I'm puzzling it out the best I can. I am saddened by the lack of love I see in posts such as yours. And the firepower directed at these women but not so much at the people who are gleefully fastening the yoke to us and our posterity.

My main issue with your post was that you attacked these women for trying to effect positive change while you are sitting on the sidelines. After all, it is easy to criticize but much harder to do. Let us encourage those with the courage to try.

[Kamilla]

Mr. Srigley,

There is a difference between loving and supporting a daughter who has fallen into sexual sin and celebrating her, shoving her out onto the national stage where she was sure to get magazine cover after magazine cover and interview after interview. Young Mr. Johnson isn't the only cad in this sad play. I'm not advocating a return to the days when a young woman in Bristol's position would have gone for an extended visit to "Aunt Sally", but surely there is an appropriate place in between the two extremes.

Kamilla

[William Tighe]

"There is a difference between loving and supporting a daughter who has fallen into sexual sin and celebrating her, shoving her out onto the national stage where she was sure to get magazine cover after magazine cover and interview after interview."

Kamilla, it's all in two words, the difference between "loving" and "pimping." Young Miss Palin has been pimped by her own "Christian" family, and the fact that they have no apprehension of this shows just how far their form of "Americanized" Christianity has travelled from traditinal (or Traditional) Christianity -- and one might make the same observation concerning the Palin family's "conservatism" (or must we use modish longo, and write instead "conservative values?").

[Tony Esolen]

Benighted Savage,

Thank you for the reminder. You are quite right about pietas. The problem, though it is not a good excuse, is that so darned little of consequence can now be decided at the local level. In many states you can't even decide locally what curricula will be taught in your own school. But I stand corrected.

But, folks, let's not forget something here. I am disappointed in Governor Palin. It was she who insulted me and everybody like me, calling us Neanderthals. That's something I'd expect from Nancy Pelosi. It made me a bit queasy to see the two of them there, the one, Ferraro, supremely ill-equipped for the presidency, yet chosen by Walter Mondale as a Hail Mary gimmick against the coming rout of 1984 -- a woman who happily assisted Pat Schroeder in the feminizing of the military, and the other -- well, a celebrity, courting celebrity. I am at a loss to come up with anything similar even in recent American politics. Ronald Reagan, the former actor himself, did not court celebrity in the 1960's and 1970's in the way that Mrs. Palin has.

Sherry: I understand the situation of Deborah, and her rebuke of the somewhat wishy-washy Barak. But there's an assumption here that I don't agree with, and that is that men "will not step up to the plate," as the metaphor goes. This situation doesn't just fall upon us out of the sky. It is largely of our own making. For instance, one begins by feminizing the Catholic clergy and liturgy, and then, hey, one finds oneself with a shortage of priests -- which shortage people will then use to justify the ordination of women. We need to have a frank conversation about the sexes and the common good. Sure, we are not going to return to the days of all-male legal and medical professions, for example. But if we don't return to the days of intact families, and the protective role of the male group, then we will find we won't have any days left one way or another. The African American non-community is a case in point.

[P. J.]

Dr. E,

Thanks for the post. Insightful as always.

"The world never loved perfect poise. What the world does love is commonly absence of poise, for it has to be amused."

- Henry Adams

[Guy Murdoch]

As was pointed out, so little can be decided at the local level. If that is really the problem, then the political problem (lack of subsidiarity) needs come first. Therefore, however imperfect Mrs. Palin's understanding of human personhood, she seems to be tilting against the most pressing problem. Griping about imperfections in our immediate allies not only doesn't move our issues forward, it weakens our cause.

Also, to condemn Sarah Palin's family life is a gratuitous swipe unbecoming a gentleman. I know good, loving, Christian parents who have a child with a bastard. Teenagers have free will; not everything they do is their parents' fault. And, although I am not as informed as those of you who subscribe to People, what I see in the Palins is a fruitful couple who respect one another. Not exactly terrible role models for this age.

[Kamilla]

Mr. Murdoch,

I'm no gentleman and according to Mrs. Palin, I am a Neanderthal, so I'll answer you. The problem is not that Mrs. Palin has a bastard grandchild. The problem is that, having one, she also had the nerve to say what she said.

There are quibbles and there are Quibbles. Speaking only for myself, my disagreement with Mrs. Palin and her husband is that they are not so much pro-life as they are anti-abortion. A true pro-lifer would not glamorize teen pregnancy as they have with Bristol. And don't kid yourself, appearing on magazine covers, having national media interviews and appearing on a stage with thousands cheering *is* glamourous. By making teen pregnancy look fun and exciting, they have ensured more teen girls will get themselves into the same situation as Bristol, but these girls won't have the resources. Sadly, that makes it almost certain some of them will choose a deadly option for their unborn children.

[Guy Murdoch]

Kamilla,

Do you think you would know Bristol Palin's name if John McCain hadn't asked Sarah Palin to run as his VP? Of course you wouldn't. Bristol Palin is on magazine covers because her mother was targeted for personal destruction by a media establishment that saw she was John McCain's only hope against their darling, Mr. Obama. Even today the Palins have a fellow who moved in next to them for a year who's only purpose is to try and dig up dirt on them.

So have the Palins turned lemons into lemonade? From where I sit the answer is yes. I guess in your case, we can chalk up another victory for the media establishment.

As far as the example for other young girls, if they are too stupid to connect the dots between Levi Johnston and their own sexually aggressive boyfriends, perhaps we can blame their own parents instead of the Palins.

[Kamilla]

Mr. Murdoch,

I probably would know Bristol's name as I was following Palin for some months before McCain picked her. As far as young girls being too stupid -- well, that's the point, isn't it?