Parenting

[eredien]

“Say what you want to say about me,” Palin said, “but I raised a combat vet. You can’t take that away from me.”

I truly don't understand what she's saying here. She raised a son who grew up to make his own decisions about which institutions and ideals to support. That's parenting in a nutshell. Does she want accolades for happening to be the mother of her son, because when her son was able to make his own decisions about which institutions and ideals to support, he decided to support institutions and ideals whose aims his mom happened to agree with?

If he'd decided to support an institution or ideal she did not agree with, would she then reject identical accolades from those who told her that she must be proud to have raised such a courageous, self-aware, self-sacrificing child, because the institution or ideal he decided to support was something she could not support?

Why does it seem like she wants to take credit for a decision her son made because she is his parent? It's not just Palin--my parents do this too, and I think a lot of parents do. If we make decisions that our parents agree with, they say that it's because they raised us right, and if we make decisions our parents disagree with, they not only say that they can't support our decision, but wonder where they went wrong raising us. It's natural for a parent to rejoice at the success of a child and be sad at their child's failures. But the measure of success of a parent as a parent must be composed of more than the parent's perception of what their child's successes or failures are, and the measure of success of a human being who has children must be composed of more than that human's perceived success or failure as a parent.

Comments

[seishonagon.livejournal.com]

Okay, for once I have to actually defend Palin. I think the comment you mention here makes more sense in context.

This statement was a direct response to a request by the organizers of Glen Beck's rally, asking participants to avoid overt mention of political issues, and the military in general was listed as one to avoid. Her response is that she can't ignore that, as the mother of a military son.

[eredien]

I was aware of the context in which Palin made that statement, because I've been reading a bunch of stuff about it, like I do with almost everything else I post here. Maybe I should have been more clear about that when I quoted that, but I write less formally for my blog than I would for a newspaper op-ed.

I guess the part that I was thinking about was not the fact that her son was a veteran and she had been asked not to speak overtly about veterans, but more the implication that someone is trying to take her son's military service and what it represents away from her, as his mother. I don't understand how someone could take her son's service away from her son, so I certainly don't see how someone could take her son's service away from his mother, since it is her son's service, not hers.

Does that make more sense?

I felt like she was saying like she served America vicariously, through producing a son that through his own decisions served in the American armed forces. And maybe she thinks she did, but my larger point is that pride in your child's actions, no matter how virtuous those actions, is not a reason or excuse to live vicariously through their actions.

She had a child, and is proud of that. Ok, good.
Her child decided to go into the military, and she is proud of that. Ok, good.
She feels like someone is trying to make her less proud of her son's actions--that's not good, but instead of saying that she's proud of her son's actions and no one can take his service away from him, she says that no one can take her son's service away from her.

I would have had much less of a problem with that quote if it had read, "Say what you want about me, but I raised a combat vet, and no one can take his service away from him, or my pride in his service away from me."

I think I still would have had a small problem, though, because:
- I do not believe that people would be able to take her son's pride in his service away from him even if they tried, and I do not really see evidence that they have tried.
- I do not see evidence that people would be able to take her pride in her son and his service away from her even if they tried, and I do not really see evidence that they have tried (in fact, tens of thousands of people cheering for her pride in her son and his service would have the opposite effect, I believe).
- People can believe that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is wrong, or that war in general is wrong, or that America in general is wrong, without taking her son's service, or his pride in it, or her pride in her son's service, away from her. Just because some people may believe that war is shameful or evil, that doesn't obligate Sarah Palin, or her military son, to agree with them, just because they heard an opinion they disagreed with. Likewise, those who are anti-war are under no obligation to agree with the Palins that war is just and military service is something to be proud of. Saying "no, I don't believe anyone should be proud of military service," should not automatically make his pride in a decision he believes in and made himself wither and die away in his heart.

[seishonagon.livejournal.com]

What you say makes sense, but I think the chances of Sarah Palin being that articulate and precise are slim to none. Given the way she speaks, I think she can be understood to mean what you describe - "Say what you want about me, but I raised a combat vet, and no one can take his service away from him, or my pride in his service away from me." To me, when placed in context, that's pretty much what she meant. Her speech patterns generally are reflective of that, I think.

She definitely could have said it better - but it's unlikely that she would. Her constant rhetorical imprecision is one of my many issues with her as a politician.

[eredien]

Her constant rhetorical imprecision is one of my many issues with her as a politician.

I can't listen to her and get what she apparently means out of what she speaks, because it's just not concise enough. That, to me is a failure of anyone who speaks for a living, especially a politician, but she seems somehow to have turned linguistic imprecision into an asset. I find this scary for a whole bunch of reasons (she never defines who is trying to take these things away from her, but obviously those people who were listening to her at the rally know who "they" are without being told, so when she goes on interviews she can easily make it seem like the media elite are badgering her and are out-of-touch with the political currents, when they ask for a more precise definition of terms).

[navrins]

I think it's reasonable for a person to be proud of raising the sort of child they wanted to raise. If she wanted to raise the sort of son who would join the military and be successful there, and she did that, then I see no reason she shouldn't be proud and happy for having done that. I would hope that if he'd made different decisions she would still support and love him, even if she felt less satisfied with it, but it's fair to be happy your kid turned out the way you hoped he would.

Which is not to say anybody ELSE should necessarily use the same judgement. I might congratulate her if she'd raised a son who became a peace activist, even if she herself felt unsatisfied with that.

[eredien]

I think it's reasonable for a person to be proud of raising the sort of child they wanted to raise.

I needed to be clearer, there. I don't think it's bad for a person to be proud of raising the sort of child they wanted to raise: "It's natural for a parent to rejoice at the success of a child and be sad at their child's failures."

But I still think that "the measure of success of a human being who has children must be composed of more than that human's perceived success or failure as a parent." Congratulating yourself as a parent for raising a child that goes on to take actions you approved of is ok. But I feel that congratulating yourself in front of a crowd of tens of thousands of people for raising your son the way you wanted to raise him, and having tens of thousands of people congratulating you back for raising your son the way they and you think he should have been raised, is a little odd. When I think of that kind of sentiment being expressed in a group of any size, it seems to scale more to the wedding-day-toast-size group than the "mega rally" size group.

Continuing on to imply that unspecified people are trying to retroactively take away her pride in her having raised her son as she thought was right seems strange. How could such unspecified people remove such a thing, especially after the bulk of the raising has already been accomplished?

I might congratulate her if she'd raised a son who became a peace activist, even if she herself felt unsatisfied with that.

I don't disagree with you: "If he'd decided to support an institution or ideal she did not agree with, would she then reject identical accolades from those who told her that she must be proud to have raised such a courageous, self-aware, self-sacrificing child, because the institution or ideal he decided to support was something she could not support?"

[navrins]

Ah, I see. Yes, I did miss your original point. With which I don't disagree very much, but I don't feel very strongly about it either. I tend to agree with seishonagon that this is more an issue of Palin's imprecise language, probably reflecting imprecise thinking, than of her genuinely believing the sort of things you're inferring from her sentence.

Of course, there *is* that inference to be made from the specific words she said, and if you're taking issue with her perpetuating the sort of mindset you're objecting to by using those words rather than others, regardless of what she actually means... well, I think I'd have to agree with you there. It's common, but it does mean more when someone with Palin's visibility says it on TV than when Sarah Q. Random from Podunk, Idaho says it to her family and friends.

[zdenka]

It's not like having a child who goes to war only affects the child. The entire family undergoes the disruption of having a loved one away in a foreign country and the fear that their child/husband/father could die at any moment, be terribly wounded, or be permanently affected by the mental/emotional conditions of war. It's not the same to say "I raised a combat vet" as "I raised a math professor" or "I raised a librarian." If a mother is willing to send her son off to war, that says something about her as well as about him.

[eredien]

I never said anywhere that military service affected only the child who served, or that it did not affect the family of the child who served. In fact, I think that military service actually affects a huge range of people; the whole point is that each person's service affects the country and the world, after all.

She had a child, and is proud of that. Ok, good.
Her child decided to go into the military, and she is proud of that. Ok, good.

It's natural for a parent to rejoice at the success of a child and be sad at their child's failures.

I am not saying that her child's decision to enter military service affected only him. I am saying:

I don't understand how someone could take her son's pride in his service away from him, so I certainly don't see how someone could take her pride in his service away from her.

From above:
I think I still would have had a small problem, though, because:
- I do not believe that people would be able to take her son's pride in his service away from him even if they tried, and I do not really see evidence that they have tried.
- I do not see evidence that people would be able to take her pride in her son and his service away from her even if they tried, and I do not really see evidence that they have tried (in fact, tens of thousands of people cheering for her pride in her son and his service would have the opposite effect, I believe).
- People can believe that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is wrong, or that war in general is wrong, or that America in general is wrong, without taking her son's service, or his pride in it, or her pride in her son's service, away from her. Just because some people may believe that war is shameful or evil, that doesn't obligate Sarah Palin, or her military son, to agree with them, just because they heard an opinion they disagreed with. Likewise, those who are anti-war are under no obligation to agree with the Palins that war is just and military service is something to be proud of. Saying "no, I don't believe anyone should be proud of military service," should not automatically make his pride in a decision he believes in and made himself wither and die away in his heart.

I agree that going to war isn't the same as going to work as an accountant; it isn't even the same as going into military intelligence.

Let me be clear: I'm not trying to bash on Palin or her son because he decided to join the military. That's not what I'm on about. I'm trying to figure out how she believes that people are going to take her pride in his military service, or his own pride in his service, away from him simply by expressing an opinion that war is wrong, the military is wrong, or that he was wrong to go to war.

If you take pride in your own actions, and believe in them and believe that they were right for you to take, hearing someone else tell you that they disagree with your decision isn't going to do a whole heck of a lot to diminish the pride that you have and the peace you have within yourself. Palin and her military son obviously take a lot of pride in her son's military service.

Someone calling her son a "killer" might make Palin or her son angry, and might make her or her son sad, and it might make her or her son think that that person's opinion is dead wrong. But how will hearing such statements take away his inner conviction that he made the right choice, and feels happy with it? How will it make his mother think less of her military son? She already regards his decision as the correct one, and the other opinion as incorrect; in that case merely hearing the other opinion is hardly going to make her change her mind.

[zdenka]

I don't understand how someone could take her son's pride in his service away from him, so I certainly don't see how someone could take her pride in his service away from her.

But where are you getting "pride" from? I haven't heard the speech, so I'm just going by your quote above. And according to your quote, she said "you can't take that away from me" (emphasis added). The most natural antecedent for "that" is "having raised a combat vet." To me, that implies the whole experience, not just her feeling of pride in her son's choice of career path. I think you're being too narrow in your verbal analysis.

[eredien]

I probably am--I tend to be a little narrow in my verbal analyses overall--but it's the "that" which is the very thing that I can't understand. I realized that (argh) a few weeks ago after this very comment of yours illuminated that for me, and I've been trying to define and phrase my argument on this for a few weeks now so I can respond in a way that makes sense to me.

It made so little sense to me for her to claim that other people could take away her experience of having raised her own son (to join the military, or do whatever), that I had to look for something else meaningful in that statement, since people were obviously taking something meaningful away from it.

In that search for a meaning, I came to settle on her emphasis on her son's military service--the value of military service, especially during a long and frustrating war, seems to be a thing that people disagree about regularly, and disagreements often lead to people feeling as if their opinions are under attack, so it would then make a little bit more sense for Palin to then claim that somebody was making her give something up (her opinion about the value of her son's military service).

I chose the word "pride" to describe what I took to be her emphasis on that service, because:
a.) it was obvious that Palin takes pride in her son being a combat vet
b.) it was obvious that Palin's son takes pride in his service
c.) it was obvious that Palin takes pride in the fact that she raised a son who went into the military.

It is possible that I mis-emphasized what she meant.
If we go with your theory of "that" meaning "having raised a combat vet," it literally does not make any sense to me for her to claim that people are trying to take "having raised a combat vet" away from her.

I mean, how would it be possible for anyone to take that experience away from her? I don't understand how other people would be able to take experiences that you have already experienced away from you, short of trying to induce amnesia (in which you would still have the experiences but not remember them), or death (in which you personally would stop having and remembering experiences altogether, presumably, though other people would still remember that there had been a you, and that you had experienced those things). Even if her son were dead, that would not stop her from having had the experience of having raised him, and it would not have stopped him from having had the experience of being a combat vet before his death.

She is not afflicted with amnesia and is not dead, and is recalling her experience in front of a crowd, so I feel that it is safe to claim that she still has the experience. How would anyone be able to remove that experience from her?

Here are some things that might have robbed her of having had the experience of having raised a son who is a combat vet, but none of these things happened, so she already has the experience:
- not having a son
- having a son but giving him up for adoption
- her son deciding to pursue some other career
- her son not seeing combat
- etc.

I literally cannot see how people could try to take her lived experience away from her, so I cannot see how she can claim that people are trying to take that lived experience away from her.

Even if they deny her lived experience as unimportant or try to make her feel bad about it, or otherwise refuse to acknowledge or validate her lived experience, or even if she recants it or regrets it, or wishes she'd done something else, short of amnesia or death, it's still going to be there.

(This is totally how I feel about being queer, and why I get frustrated when I hear anyone claim that x is trying to take y's experiences away from them, rather than saying "x is trying to tell y that their lived experience doesn't mean anything, or in an extreme case, didn't happen at all, and that's wrong." X might think it's ok to devalue your experiences, they might intimidate you into shutting up about them and pretending that you never had them, in the right kind of cultural climate they might tell you that you never had them and be able to get away with it, but y will know that y had them).

Does that make sense?

[zdenka]

But that's the thing. She never said "people are trying to take that away from me." She said "You can't take that away from me." So you and she are in agreement in that one very narrow area. No one can take her lived experience away from her. That is, I believe, what she's saying.

Looking at the context seishonagon gives above: Sarah Palin was asked to avoid talking about (among other things) the military. My interpretation is that Palin's response means: "My life experiences involving the military (through my son) are an essential and important part of how I define myself and who I am as a person, so asking me not to talk about the military is unreasonable and also kind of insulting to me and my son. My life experiences involving the military are an essential part of me, and I can't separate myself from that." With a possible subtext of: "And we all know there are those people out there who don't support and respect the military the way they should, but you, the people I'm talking to, are not like that, so we're all part of the same group and should bond together against unspecified threats."

That's how my mental conservative-parser reads it, anyway. I could be wrong; I'm not inside her head. (I'm trying to avoid expressing any personal opinions on the content of her speech here, because I think that's irrelevant to the subject. The only thesis that I'm trying to support is that her comment had an understandable meaning.) Or maybe I'm over-analyzing now and "they're trying to take X experience away from me" is just shorthand for "they're trying to take the validation of X experience away from me".

As others have said, she wasn't speaking very precisely. It sounds like she made an emotional utterance on the spur of the moment and got an emotional response from her audience, so I'm not sure how much more analysis one can do.

I can see the analogy to being queer, which it is is completely valid to say is also an inseparable part of one's life experience and identity.

[eredien]

I don't know that it's clear from that quote in context of her speech that she was asked not to speak regarding the military. I would never have known that she was asked not to speak out about the military unless I'd read it elsewhere:

Now, I’ve been asked to speak today, not as a politician. No, as something more – something much more. I’ve been asked to speak as the mother of a soldier, and I am proud of that distinction. You know, say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet, and you can’t take that away from me.

Read more: http://www.thesarahpalinblog.com/2010/08/video-and-transcript-of-restoring-honor.html#ixzz0zSyHWqun
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

From reading that it looks like she was asked to speak specifically about the military. Maybe, maybe not...it's all somewhat confusing.

I am also pretty clear that the "possible subtext" you are referring to above was, well, text:

It is so humbling to get to be here with you today, patriots – you who are motivated and engaged and concerned, knowing to never retreat. I must assume that you too know that we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want. We must restore America and restore her honor!

Now, I’ve been asked to speak today, not as a politician....etc.

Read more: http://www.thesarahpalinblog.com/2010/08/video-and-transcript-of-restoring-honor.html#ixzz0zSz10QtC
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

It's clear to me, as I think it's clear to you, that the people who were there at the rally were definitely part of the "same group" ("you who know") bonding together against those threats. But I don't think those threats were unspecified; I think those threats were the people who would "fundamentally transform America as some [Palin makes it clear that the "we" she was talking to was not the transformers] would want."

I don't know if she thinks those people are the Taliban, or not, because she doesn't really say that. But it does leave it wide open to interpretation.

As others have said, she wasn't speaking very precisely. It sounds like she made an emotional utterance on the spur of the moment and got an emotional response from her audience, so I'm not sure how much more analysis one can do.

I can see the analogy to being queer, which it is is completely valid to say is also an inseparable part of one's life experience and identity.

I would definitely agree with all of this. I want to make one thing clear: I was giving queer identity as an example, earlier, but I think that the principle holds no matter what the identity is, really.

[zdenka]

I've mostly been trying to avoid Sarah Palin, actually, because I have mixed feelings about the whole Palin phenomenon. So I don't know what-all she said or has been saying, except in a very general sense.

I based the not-talking-about-the-military statement solely on seishonagon's first comment to this entry. Likewise, I was just looking at the few sentences of hers that you quoted. If the rest of her speech shows that my comments were wrong or incomplete, I am not surprised.

About identity: I broadly agree with you, but I would also say that identity can be mutable; what is important to a person's identity can change over time, and what is essential to one person's identity might not be to another. I suspect we agree that each person is the best interpreter of her own identity and what is central to it.

[eredien]

That's true. But most military personnel, upon hearing that some people think they are government-sanctioned killers, will not automatically believe that they are government-sanctioned killers (unless, perhaps, they already had a lot of doubts about their service in the military).

If someone tells me I'm a sinner doomed to hell for sleeping with women, I wouldn't feel less happy and more ashamed about my being queer--I'd feel frustration that people couldn't accept my happiness at being queer without trying to heap shame on me externally.

[eredien]

Based on my understanding and reading, I think that the majority of people who think that queer people are sinners also see being queer as a choice to put yourself in harm's way. They would, by and large, likely not agree with your statement that sexual orientation is an essential part of who you are.

The harm that these people believe that gay people suffer is different from the harm faced by soldiers, but both groups of people--those who do not like gay people and those who do not like the military--believe that there was still a deliberate choice made.

In both cases, people:
- believe that you made a choice
- do not agree that that choice was an intrinsically good one
- express their dislike of that choice
- express their idea that such a choice cannot be good for you
- express their idea that such a choice cannot be good for them

[tixen.livejournal.com]

I've found, as a general rule, trying to understand what Sarah Palin is getting at is generally an unhealthy practice that's bound to result in serious mind trauma.