So here’s a social conservative quandary: should the family values crowd at the Republican convention applaud Bristol Palin and her fiance, Levi Johnston, tonight? Word is that the adolescent father-to-be is being flown out from Alaska for the event. Traditionally, the family of the vice-presidential candidate (including children’s spouses) all come on stage after the candidate finishes speaking. It’s a great big photo-op. We can assume that Bristol Palin, five months pregnant, will be on-stage — it would be too awkward if she weren’t. But will Levi? And if so, what message does it send to have him bask in the approbation of the Minnesota multitude?
Byron York writes at the National Review:
Perhaps I’m focusing on an irrelevant issue, but the presence, or non-presence, of Johnston on the stage tonight strikes me as important. It’s one thing for delegates to be understanding and compassionate about the fix these two teenagers have gotten themselves into. It’s another to actually celebrate it. And, given what we’ve learned in the last few days, if Johnston is up on stage with his girlfriend and the Palin family, and Republicans are wildly cheering, it will certainly look like they are celebrating this situation.
I don’t usually engage in these scenarios, but I’ll do it here. If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.
Bold emphasis mine.
York, a reliable right-winger, gets credit for raising an uncomfortable question.
The family values crowd is in a bit of a difficult situation. How to praise Bristol and Levi for doing the “right” thing (getting married) without making it seem that what they did that necessitated this early marriage (having pre-marital sex) is okay? After all, enthusiastic cheering for Bristol and Levi for “stepping up to their responsibilities” is consistent with an anti-abortion, pro-marriage message. But that same enthusiastic cheering sends an obvious signal to young Christian teens: it’s okay to have sex before marriage as long as you’re both willing to get married if a pregnancy results. That may not be the message that traditionalist grown-ups want to send, but we all know how young teenagers (who are famously horny, romantic, and curious) might spin this message to themselves.
As for me, I’m more worried about the glamorizing of early marriage than I am about the increased acceptance of pre-marital sex.
And York gets kudos for acknowledging that the right-wing is engaged in a bit of hypocrisy here. Imagine one of the Obama daughters to be 17, unmarried, and pregnant — with the black fiance on stage after Barack’s acceptance speech. The right would indeed have an absolute field day with that.
In any event, I’m a sentimental guy. Here’s hoping that Sarah Palin’s entire clan takes the stage, Levi and Bristol included, and that everyone claps. And here’s to a resounding Obama victory in November.
Yes, because it’s a sentimental moment! Not a referendum.
I don’t think they’re applauding the individual family members accomplishments and choices. In this rare instance, we all know one thing about the teenaged daughter of the VP candidate. I imagine, in the many years of political events, people have applauded tons of family members whose actions they would hate to put their stamp of approval on. I’m guessing alcoholics and their enablers, for example. Probably gay children of candidates. (I don’t know if Mary Chaney appeared with her parents, but somewhere along the line, I’m pretty sure someone gay, bisexual, or sexually active outside marriage has stood and receieved the applause of the party.)
I think if there’s an ovation for a family, the only things it says are: 1. “we’re excited” and, ideally: 2. “We support you, kids and spouse, for your bravery in the monumental undertaking. You are giving up a lot, as a family, so one member can serve, and we appreciate it.”
Not completely on topic, but related: I personally think that people in general ( – I think mostly of people who know expectant parents in real life; this probably does not apply to the public relations aspect of national organizations -) but that people should stop worrying that, by being kind and loving, someone might mistakenly imagine they approve of the situation under which a child was concieved.
It’s a baby. Its conception – accidental, medically-assisted, controversial in whatever way – is what it is. Presumably, you weren’t consulted. Move on. Babies and parents need people to love them.
This bothers me most in Christian families, for obvious reasons.
Here’s my take.
If the Republicans come out ahead in November, the kids will get married. They will have problems. Levi will consistently threaten to run amok. The Palins will do anything and everything to keep him in the family and keep him in line. He will skate right up to the edge of leaving, but he won’t. Because his in-laws will be his meal ticket and he will hang onto that with a death grip. They, in turn, will hang onto him, awash in denial that they could possibly be wrong about their “family values.” Welcome yet another codependent American family. He will suck them dry. And then, when Mrs. Palin’s time in the sun is over for whatever reason, the divorce will be in the paper, somewhere on the bottom of page 4, section D.
If the election goes the other way, fast-forward to the quiet divorce…because the couple will already have gotten married before November, just to preserve appearances.
Sad, sad, sad.
Pingback: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » So now I’ve got me a mother-in-law from sipping cider through a straw