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).