Not me, obviously, because I’m not American. But I do think that there is an interesting dilemma posed for some by Sarah Palin’s nomination as Republican vice-presidential candidate.
If you think Sarah Palin is a candidate who best represents your views and would do a good job, it is possible you may also think that Sarah Palin’s family is one that is likely to need a lot of hands-on parenting in the coming years.* Clearly not everyone agrees with either or both of these propositions, but I’m pretty sure there are quite a lot of people who agree with both. And if you do, then you have a dilemma. Do you vote according to what will be best for the country, or according to what will be best for the candidate?
I’m pretty certain that if you’re an employer (at least in the UK, don’t know about the US), you’re not allowed to make decisions about who to employ on the basis of their personal circumstances. But if you’re someone’s friend, or even more so, their pastor, then it is appropriate for you to caution them about taking a job which may be to the detriment of their family.
So if you’re a voter, are you an employer or a pastor? Do you decide for the corporation (country) or the children?
*I don’t think one has to get into a discussion of causality or blame to think this. As things stand, Sarah has five children, including a baby with special needs, a teenage daughter who is pregnant, and two other girls still at home. I’d say that those children don’t just need a few hours of ‘quality time’ here and there, they need parents who are a significant part of their everyday lives. And although it’s rather sweet seeing the pictures of Trig being carried around at the moment, that’s not going to work in a year or two when he’s starting to crawl and walk.
Stumble It!
19 Comments
The good of the nation must come first in my opinion.
An attitude that treats children as to some degree expendable can only be to the detriment of a nation.
I agree, Matthew. Are you thinking of voters or of Palin herself when you say that?
So nobody with young children should hold public office or engage in any occupation that draws them away from their families? Or is this reserved strictly to mothers?
I get to vote (well Anna does anyway)!
Jonolan, I get to choose who comments on my blog. If you won’t do others the courtesy of reading what they say carefully and understanding it charitably, then I’ll ban you.
My comment was in direct response to Matthew’s “An attitude that treats children as to some degree expendable can only be to the detriment of a nation.”
I understood that you were replying to Matthew. My point was that what he said and what you took him to be implying were very different. Constructive conversations can’t take place unless people listen to each other carefully.
Sorry, I read his comment in the context of your post. Read that way it seemed to me to indicate that someone with small children should not hold any position that would interfere with child rearing. Since traditionally child rearing is primarily the role of women (and the post was about Sarah Palin) I wondered if Matthew felt that way and if he felt that way solely in regards to mothers.
Polite questions are fine. Thank you.
Did anybody hear the Front Row (BBC Radio 4) interview with David Attenborough last Thursday? In it, he regretted how little time he had spent with his daughter and grand-daughter, whom he lost in the Indian Ocean Tsunami. The interviewer reminded him that this was because of his monumental contribution trhough influential films such as Ghandi & Cry Freedom and his charity work, but Attenborough brushed the comments aside, saying he was doing things differently with the next generation. It was very moving. It reminded me that we all need to ask for God’s help and grace in deciding how to work out our day to day and long term priorities, and for his forgiveness when we (so often) get it wrong.
Ah, the danger of commenting and then taking a day or two away from the computer!
I wasn’t referring to Sarah Palin. For starters, I’m in no position to assess whether she’s a good or bad or indifferent mother, having only seen snippets of her life through the distorting lens of the media. That said, I’ve been impressed by the Palins’ response to their daughter’s baby. No sign there of viewing children as expendable, quite the reverse if anything.
I hope, however, that Sarah Palin’s pastor has talked long and hard with them about their responsibilities as parents and the demands of being VP. I remain to be convinced that it’s possible to do both properly, though perhaps for an extraordinary few it might be possible. Which is not to say that she thinks her children are expendable, but might mean that it’s unwise for her to attempt what she is.
I don’t think that the voters (of whom I’m not one!) are Palin’s pastors; the country shouldn’t come first over her children, but it’s her responsibility, not theirs, I think.
That said, given Obama’s stance on abortion, he does appear to think that (at least in some circumstances) children are expendable. I’d take Palin over him any day.
In response to Jonolan’s question, if I were e.g., Obama’s pastor I’d raise the same questions, because of the age of his family. BUt I have pretty traditional (I’d say biblical) views of male and female parenting roles, and so, allowing for my caveats above, I’d be inclined to say that it’d be more unusual for a woman to be wise to take on such a responsibility than it would for a man.
Thanks for getting back to me, Matthew! I have to agree that it is less likely for woman to be wise in leaving care-giving / homemaking responsibilities in the hands of man than a man leaving in the hands of a woman. I wonder though if that isn’t because our cultural doctrine discourages men from accepting that role.
I’ve just checked your blog, Jonolan, and realise you wouldn’t share my Christian commitments. But my reasons for believing that aren’t, I believe cultural (in my little bit of the UK increasing numbers of men share childcare responsibilities with working wives), but rather because the Bible indicates a man and a woman’s role in a household are somewhat different; the man is the one with primary responsibility to provide for the family, and the woman the one with the primary responsibility to run the home. I take it that, if I’m right that the Bible is the word of our loving Creator to us (and assuming I’ve understood it correctly on this issue!), then that’s a good and healthy way to organise a family.
If you’re right about the Bible’s role and if you’re understanding of it is correct, then your premise is sound. I can’t and won;t dispute that. :)
I’m more concerned that she doesn’t blink and doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is. I think her husband, also a parent of the children, is perfectly capable of being the primary care giver.
And I do get to vote.
Yes, that interview was quite frightening.
I think her husband might be capable of being the primary care-giver, though my understanding is that he also has a full-time job which involves him being away from home quite a lot.
I don’t imagine that whoever was nominated for Republican VP would have swayed your vote, would it?
Her husband took leave of absence from his job to deal with the homefront.
No chance of that!!! Much to the chagrin of almost everyone I know, I still wish Hillary was running : ).