BRISTOL PALIN'S PREGNANCY AROUSES AMERICA'S BIPARTISAN
MEANNESS TOWARD YOUTH
updated 11 SEPT. 2008
When Rosalynn Smith was just a few months older than
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter
Bristol
is now, she married Jimmy Carter. Rosalynn Carter was a teenage bride and a
pregnant teenager—like five other First Ladies. I’m guessing Democrats would
have been aghast if Republicans had played the "teen pregnancy" card to
question the morals of Jimmy
Carter’s presidential run in 1976 or to suggest their current nominee,
Barack Obama, is a low-quality human being because he's the product of a
17-year-old mother in 1961. But back then, meanness toward teenagers
and the exploitation of prejudice against them to score political points was
not the American reflex it is today. The myths about teenagers and what we
mislabel “teenage pregnancy” are documented
elsewhere on this site.
Particularly disturbing is the unhealthy
obsession with "teenage sex" and pregnancy among liberal and
left-wing media commentators that have led to their vicious attack on
Bristol--ones they continue even amid powerful evidence
that they only win sympathy for Gov. Palin's candidacy. Right-wing moralists
attack minority and Hollywood "teen pregnancy;" left-wing moralists attack
Hollywood and white "teen pregnancy" in identically savage, voyeuristic
crusades that reveal the deep moral sickness underlying America's
"culture war."
Not one commentator I’ve read or heard knows Bristol
Palin, even superficially. They’ve never met her, never said word one to her.
They display no familiarity, and certainly no concern, with her as a person. Yet, commentators
have freely indulged all manner of cruel, generic
assumptions about her, her pregnancy and its causes, her plans to get married, and by
extension, her family—often in direly apocalyptic tones cynically suited the
commentator’s pet politics.
Bristol has been coldly commodified as a symbol, devoid of individuality, forged from the
self-serving Right-to-Left crusade to vilify teenaged women (especially
those who become pregnant or mothers) with one-size-fits-all epithets.
Images of deformed babies, thuggish offspring, ruined lives, children
corrupted by the mere mention of Bristol’s evildoings, hordes of envious
Bristol-incited teenage girls rushing to get pregnant, a moral society
wrecked by Bristol’s wantonness—Bristol is being blamed for all of these.
Why? Solely because she’s 17 years old, all
the “evidence” these commentators need. It’s a cowardly and
sickening spectacle. The worst offenders have been Huffington Post, Alternet,
and Fox News, though hundreds of others (I’ll put together a shame list
soon) could be named as well. It’s hard to believe these commentators could
even be described as adults.
If Gov. Palin’s political critics wanted to
make an issue of her family’s reproductive decisions (perhaps to counter her
strident
moral “values” rhetoric), why didn’t they attack her directly? After all,
Sarah Palin became pregnant and chose to have a baby at age 43, when her
risk factors
for low birthweight (the best predictor of poor infant health) and other
natal complications were much higher than for a 17 year-old. (Among white
Alaskan women in their early 40s, 9.6% of births are underweight, compared
to 7.1% for white Alaska teens). Why, then,
didn’t the moralists and critics vent their righteous disapproval and anger
directly at Sarah’s
“stupid,” “ignorant,” and “thoughtless” decision to become pregnant and to
have a baby at her risky age—which at least addresses the relevant issue of Gov. Palin’s judgment—rather than against
daughter Bristol?
The answer, of course, is the commentators’
abject cowardice. Gov. Sarah Palin is middle aged, a powerful political figure
backed by powerful allies, and member of a middle-aged constituency certain to
become enraged at such a cruel, insensitive, bigoted attack. After all, Sarah Palin is an important figure entitled to
respect for her individuality. Likewise, the Obamas could have been attacked
for getting married and having children, given the statistically worse
outcomes for
marriages and
childbearing by African Americans (much worse than for teenaged
marriages or childbearing). Real outcomes—that the Obama’s marriage and
children are by all accounts exemplary—mean little in today’s amoral culture
war; none of the self-righteous commentators have expressed any interest as
to whether Bristol, like
millions of teenagers before her, turns out to be a fine mother.
If citing the personal behaviors of
candidates and families to demean their “family values” pieties is
legitimate, why haven’t we seen widespread Campaign 2008 attacks on the
sordid marital infidelities of John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, and Bill
Clinton, or Cindy McCain’s drug thefts and abuse? Off limits! The merest,
tentative whispering about these much more relevant misbehaviors (assuming
any of this is relevant) has been quickly and squashed in outraged and
horrified tones. The real reason is that today’s culture warriors only
attack the personal behaviors of those who are too politically weak to fight
back—and that means kids.
It was much safer for the craven critics of Gov. Palin to attack
Bristol, a
teenager who has no political power and occupies a
second-class young demographic easily demonized and subjected to exaggerated,
often manufactured, mass stereotypes. Commentators’ goal was not healthy
babies or responsible motherhood. It was alternately to exploit Bristol
first to attack teenagers as a class while smugly affirming the
commentator’s personal superiority; second (by critics), to use her as a
vehicle to attack Gov. Palin’s candidacy for vice president; and third (by
defenders), to shield Palin's candidacy from attack by pronouncing her blameless for the
stupid way all teenagers act. Many critics assumed Bristol's pregnancy
resulted from her ignorance resulting from having been taught "abstinence
only" instead of comprehensive sexuality education, although none presented
any information to support that claim.*
Of course, it’s legitimate politics to
question what policies Gov. Palin would advocate for prenatal and perinatal
care, support for mothers, families, and children, and reducing the high
rate of adolescent poverty and disinvestment in education that makes
childbearing during teenage years a rational economic choice for poorer
women. By emerging evidence, Palin’s record on these issues is abysmal, and
those points could have been raised without whipping up a media lynch mob
against Bristol. It may also be legitimate to raise
candidates’ own personal misbehaviors, since so many powerful miscreants
from Bill Clinton to Newt Gingrich have a way of instituting harsh public
policies (particularly against poor people and youth) to compensate for
their own moral failings. But commentators’ sustained, vicious public
assault (the phoniest ones are framed as moral “concern”) against Bristol Palin has
nothing to do with any of this or any legitimate campaign issue. It simply reflects the growing cruelty
and cowardice of an
American “culture war” that beats up on powerless young scapegoats to mask its
unwillingness to confront the rampant deterioration among the grownup and
powerful.
*In fact, Wasilla High School,
where Bristol Palin attended, does not teach "abstinence only" education.
The MATANUSKA SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT policy governing its schools
states: "The family life/human sexuality program shall encourage students to
be abstinent and to conceptualize sexual behavior in the ethical and moral
context of marriage. The program shall be age-appropriate and shall address
a full range of topics, including parenting and birth control, and shall
emphasize that abstinence from sex is the only totally effective protection
against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases" and
authorizing appointment of a "Family Life/Human Sexuality Advisory Committee
representing a divergence of viewpoints to participate in planning,
implementing and evaluating the district's family life/human sexuality
program." That is the standard sexuality education (as opposed to abstinence
only) program language, which prioritizes abstinence but provides
information on birth control. The policy can be found at:
http://ww2.matsuk12.us/Policy/Policy__files/series6000/Instruction_6.htm
Mike Males, www.YouthFacts.org