A vote for life in the culture war.
Toight, I plan to do two things I’ve never done before and will hopefully never do again: I will watch Dancing with the Stars and send a text message — actually, a bunch of text messages.
The occasion, of course, is Bristol Palin, who continues to dance her way to the finals on one of the culture’s most popular TV shows. She glides merrily along not with the support of the New York/Hollywood elite that stand in judgment of her, but with the enthusiastic approval of millions of us Neanderthals out here in the Hinterland-and to the great chagrin of perpetually angry liberals.
Without the backing of us boors in fly-over country, Sarah Palin’s daughter would have been booted long ago. Alas, like her mother, she is buoyed by the affections of countless regular Americans who — praise be to God — don’t give a damn about the New York Times.
And as Bristol trots to victory after victory, the pressure cooker that is liberal America rises and rises and rises, boiling over with customary ferocity.
What’s really going on here? Let’s cut to the chase: The roots of this indecent, unhealthy rage by liberals is — first and foremost — a lashing out against Bristol and her mother for the political/cultural sin of standing, unwaveringly, for unborn human life. That stance also explains why liberal women in particular despise both Bristol and the mother who gave her life. The Palins’ devotion to the pro-life life infuriates pro-choice women.
I’ll never forget the moment Sarah Plain first walked onto that stage with John McCain. The initial salvo had already been fired, not because of anything Palin said but because of what she had done. As far as liberal women were concerned, Palin had already drawn a line in the sand when she chose to give birth to a child pre-diagnosed with Down syndrome, choosing to do what some 90% of women don’t do when given that diagnosis.
Even more galling, Palin, in one fell swoop, thereby decapitated the entire pro-choice narrative. Her “choice” repudiated everything feminists always insisted were de facto prerequisites for an abortion. To wit, here was an extremely busy woman who had it all — college educated, accomplished, governor of a state, several children already, happily married, in her early 40s. According to the twisted pro-choice worldview, these were yet more reasons to abort. Sarah Palin, however, did not.
In truth, the “pro-choice” position is not about choice; it is about self. Those who are “pro-choice” are primarily, at their core, pro-self. Thus, they measure Sarah Palin’s choice against their own choices, and it fills them with bitterness.
Think about it: Shouldn’t liberals at least applaud Sarah Palin’s consistency? Shouldn’t they at least concede that she walks the walk?
No, no, no. Their response has been pure vitriol.
The most lasting manifestation of that, in my mind, was shown by the downright mean “Retarded Republican Babies for Sarah Palin” T-shirts that compassionate liberals were selling on the web during the 2008 campaign. The shirts featured a little GOP elephant blowing a balloon. They were a slap at the face of Palin’s innocent little Down’s child, Trig.
What had Trig done wrong? Wasn’t he deserving of sympathy? Not to the enraged and deranged. To them, Trig was Sarah Plain’s child — the product of a misbegotten choice. He merited contempt.
Alas, that’s where Bristol comes in. She, too, being a child of Sarah Palin, is disliked by the left by her very birthright. But then, however, she mushroomed their resentment to nuclear levels when, she, too, committed the cardinal sin of choosing life. Recall the surprising announcement by the Palins, during the 2008 presidential campaign, that Bristol was pregnant out-of-wedlock. The angry left, with its pro-choice lobby leading the way with torches, hoped that Bristol — who Saturday Night Live parodied having sex with her father — wouldn’t go the way of her mother by choosing life.
Etched my memory was the unholy assessment of Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood, who criticized Sarah Palin for allegedly forcing her unwed daughter to not choose death. “[Bristol] probably feels powerless right now,” said a saddened Feldt, oozing with empathy. “Because of her family’s attitude, she probably doesn’t feel that she has a choice.”
Following her mother’s blessed example, Bristol chose life. And with that, again, the left, especially liberal women, were spinning in their seats and foaming with rage.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?