So let's compare. Sarah Palin has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant. Does this mean that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for championing family values? Does this make her a bad parent? Here is what Palin has to say about the matter: "We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart...Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of love and adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional support."
This to me is the true humble and Christian response. No one is perfect. And there are consequences for actions which people have to live with. Even so, parents can admire the young girl's decision not to take the easy way out and have an abortion. They love their daughter unconditionally, and accept the grandchild unreservedly. I predict that this will strengthen Palin's support both with evangelical Christians and with the American people.
Now let's contrast Palin's behavior with that of Barack Obama. Here is Obama, from his speech at the Democratic National Convention. "It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it." Obama faulted McCain for his cruel and insensitive philosophy, which he defined this way: "Out of work? Tough luck. No health care. The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your boot straps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own."
Obama rejected the bootstraps philosophy in favor of a Christian alternative. In his interview with pastor Rick Warren, Obama said his favorite passage in the Bible is the one where Jesus says: whatever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me. Obama has actually used biblical language to make the point that we are our brothers' keeper. Obama insisted that these are the ideals that have guided his life and the ones that he would bring to the Oval Office.
Now how can Obama's self-description be reconciled with news reports that Obama's younger half-brother lives in a hut in a shanty town on the outskirts of Nairobi? Vanity Fair caught up with twenty six year old George Hussein Onyango Obama, and what he had to say is as shocking as it is pathetic. "No one knows who I am. I live here on less than a dollar a month." George's shack measures 6 feet by 10 feet, and yet he says that Barack Obama has done nothing to reach out to him or to help him. "I live like a recluse. If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed." The two Obamas only met twice, once when George was five and then again in 2006 when Senator Obama visited Nairobi. "It was very brief," George says. "We spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger."
So far what has Obama said about his half-brother? Absolutely nothing. Yet the Obama campaign has not denied the story. And Obama's supporters, attempting to cover up for their man, have basically said that young George Obama is trying to benefit from Barack Obama's success. Their argument is that Obama owes his sibling nothing. So the Obama camp has a message for George: "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own." Obama's accusation against McCain turns out to be an accurate description of his own practical philosophy.
Could there be a more striking contrast between Palin's loving approach to her family and Obama's stern rejection of his own half-brother? The media seems to be implying that Palin is hypocritical because she stands for "family values" while her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. But parents don't have full control over their teenagers' actions. Moreover, isn't Obama an even bigger hypocrite for championing aid to the down-and-out while his own sibling lives in an African hut on pennies a day? By the way the Obamas made several million dollars last year! They are certainly in a position to relieve George's condition if they cared enough.
The major newspapers and networks know about George, and they seem to recognize how damaging this story is for their favorite presidential candidate. So they are not reporting it, even though it is one of the most revealing stories about the candidate's character. And thus, with the GOP convention under way, we have the ridiculous spectacle of Obama getting credit for talking about compassion while Palin gets criticized for practicing it.
A slightly different version of this article appears in the online edition of National Review.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 46)
46. janesophie, you are ridiculous too. i am pro-choice but that doesn't mean i decided to get an abortion when i got pregnant at 18. for you to think everyone who is pro-choice is irresponsible is idiotic!
Richelle at 1:33PM on Sep 2nd 2008
47. Dinesh,
Just yesterday you said Sarah was the perfect choice, now revelations prove that the choice was not too smart. Republicans love to waive the flag
and speak about Christianity but are seldom good examples of patriotism or Christianity.
There is no better synonym for a conservative than a HYPOCRITE. You have condemned blacks for their
high rate of out of wedlock marriages but now you are being an apologetic for fornication.
Peter English at 1:36PM on Sep 2nd 2008
48. "Praise God she is keeping the baby and marrying the father. This indicates maturity and a willingness to accept responsibility"
I don't see anything responsible to marrying that man.
Mokele Mbembe at 1:37PM on Sep 2nd 2008
49. To me Abortion is wrong. Personally I'm on Troy's and Mary's side of the fence. The other side does have some compelling and reasonalble arguments and let's be honest I'm never going to have to have one being a dude and all so while if asked I would tell someone not to do it(even in the case of rape, sorry fellow libs) I don't see why my view on this(or a host of other things)should be made law.
It's really a non issue politically anyway. Six years of total power and the anti abortion republicans did nothing to slow it down let alone stop it, but hey the pro life check is in the mail just give us four more years, right? What makes anyone think that this going to change?
tmo at 1:40PM on Sep 2nd 2008
50. Do all you pro-lifers think that us liberals regularly throw raging abortion parties? Seriously?
Ryan Anderson at 1:40PM on Sep 2nd 2008
51. --Which roots are those? Give me a time period? Which mythical good old days are you referring too? This magical time never existed, you want to return to a fantasy.--
I never said our roots were established during "magical" times, but there was something right and good about the roots themsevles. For starters, there's the colonial period (1497-1763), during which time Europeans settled and, in may cases, prospered in America, overcoming great obstacles (Native American attacks along the frontier, disease, harsh winters). The government did not come to the aid of these individuals. They had to fend for themselves. After the formal inception of our nation, the government continued to operate on a restricted basis, acting only in the limited capacity granted it by the Constitution. The idea of thinking we're entitled to special treatment from the government and should, therefore, expect the government to be our savior in any negative circumstance, is a relatively new phenomenon. This phenomenon, represented by ideas such as welfare and affirmative action, goes the against the grain of individual success through hard work. The hard work and endless efforts of the individual made America great. People now expect the government to maintain this greatness.
Troy at 1:40PM on Sep 2nd 2008
52. Of course you call abortion the "easy way out". How very narrow-minded.
Roberta at 1:47PM on Sep 2nd 2008
53. TJ said: "Just becuase I would never make that decision for myself - doesn't mean that I would force my choices on another woman. That, I have no right to do."
But isn't all law exactly the imposing of morals? Aren't morals imposed on a lunch counter owner when he's told whom he may not refuse service? Aren't morals imposed on a campaign contributor when he's told that he can't contribute as much as he pleases? How about a landowner who is not permitted to pave his ephemeral wetland?
This is fundamental but I fear it needs reiteration for the benefit of some of the young commenters who might not have considered it yet.
I think the real debate is not on the imposing of morals itself, for, again, all law, by definition, is that, but the nature of morals that are being imposed.
All cogent arguments about a proposed law must deal with the morality of the proposal, not the hypocricy of the proposer, the smell of his breath, or whether morals should be imposed in the first place.
I think it might be valuable for us to start a kind of blog on which young people left and right who would care not to make such errors could find mentoring on the basics of logic and civility.
What do you think?
GaryB at 1:44PM on Sep 2nd 2008
54. Deny, Deny Deny
D'Souza reminds me of this old 60's movie, 'Guide for the Married Man' with Walter Matthau. Matthau plays this guy trying to work up to cheating on his wife and his swinger friend is giving him pointers told through vignettes with many of the comics of the period. The segment of note is one where Joey Bishop gets caught red handed with his mistress in bed by his wife. He keeps calmly denying any problem and makes the bed, etc. until finally his poor wife doubts her own experience and says, "what do ya want for dinner?"
That's the neocon way to a T. Deny deny deny and hope the faithful won't persist with any doubts or inconvenient questions- oh and blame Clinton too - that always seems to work.
Pliny-the-in-between at 1:46PM on Sep 2nd 2008
55. Those of you saying this is an apples to oranges comparison haven't fully understood the premise of the comparison. Both Barry and Palin claim to be Christians, and thus both ought to adhere to the particular scripture Barry claims as his favorite. That passage knows none of the limitations and excuses you've offered on Barry's behalf, e.g. too far away, shouldn't have to care about a distant family member, not part of his family, etc. Instead, the passage explicitly declares that compassion is a Christian's duty "to the least of these," in other words those who are out-of-the-way, unrelated, and otherwise inconvenient to love. That's why Barry is a hypocrite, and Palin is not. She could have ordered her daughter to have an abortion to hush things up, or perhaps thrown her under the bus in a faux Kennedy-esque speech (sound familiar?) for political gain. But she didn't do the convenient thing. On the other hand, Barry met his half-brother. He saw his need, and he could have helped. But he didn't. Maybe Barry forgot to read I John 5:17--"But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"
Jay at 1:48PM on Sep 2nd 2008
56. One more thing: I find it rather instructive that, when it comes right down to it, some of us would be able to justify attacking a 17 year old girl in order to get at her mother.
Jay at 4:15PM on Sep 2nd 2008
57. Fourthly, this shows how incredibly selfish Mrs. Palin is. She knew about her daughters situation, and still went ahead with the VP, knowing that her daughter would be smeared all over the place. Seems to me, that Mrs. Palin puts her own ambition over family and everything else.
Botts at 9:48AM on Sep 2nd 2008
Wow, Botts, you have now been elevated to one who knows what is going on in someone else's heart & mind?
Where did this rare gift come from ?
Please tell us all, it's the only "christian" think for you to do.
What was that old line about "judging" ?
M2D5 at 1:54PM on Sep 2nd 2008
58. I never said our roots were established during "magical" times, but there was something right and good about the roots themsevles. For starters, there's the colonial period (1497-1763), during which time Europeans settled and, in may cases, prospered in America, overcoming great obstacles (Native American attacks along the frontier, disease, harsh winters)
Troy at 1:40PM on Sep 2nd 2008
So you want to return to being a British colony? Those were the good old days (Native American attacks along the frontier, disease, harsh winters? this is good? I'm guessing your life know despite us evil liberals is a tad better than that) Some guys named Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and Adams might take issue with that love of British rule you have? Sarcasm aside, in the effort to establish colonies and exploit the riches the new world contained the Governments of several European countries contributed many guns, supplies, money, food and even entire armies(to fend off those pesky 'native Americans' who had the audacity not to want to give up the land) to help the magical boot strap pullers out. Colonial America was a big investment and they wanted it to succeed.
I stand by my fantasy statement and thank you for helping me back it up.
tmo at 1:57PM on Sep 2nd 2008
59. --54. Of course you call abortion the "easy way out". How very narrow-minded.--
Roberta,
Is it narrow-minded to not want to murder a human? Should a woman's right to not have a baby trump a baby's right to have life? Who's being narrow-minded?
Troy at 1:57PM on Sep 2nd 2008
60. "Abortion is a service performed regularly and on a whim"
You really think that when pregnant girls and women go to an abortion clinic and go through with the procedure that it is a "whim"? Like, "hey, I went to Starbucks today, so check that off the list. I think I'll go check out an abortion clinic and go through major emotional upheaval. Sounds like fun!"
You don't have a clue what these girls and women go through before they make their decisions to abort.
Alyssa at 2:03PM on Sep 2nd 2008