I
don't really like to share too many of my opinions on this blog. As a friend of mine
recently observed, "Your posts are inspirational and lovely, but
where's the real Tracy?"
This is for you, Petra! I am feeling brave today and will voice my opinion about the Palin Pick, but for the first time ever I will close comments - I am not up for debating!
Here it goes . . .
After McCain's VP pick was announced last week I was thinking, "What a refreshing
change for America from the likes of Hillary." I felt happy for her and
amazed that the press responded so favorably to her.
But something still didn't quite click for me.
Melissa must have sensed this when she left this charitable comment about a recent post:
Your
quote about "votes not lost" reminded me of what I've heard many others
say. Do you ever think that by not voting for the majority leader in
the campaign, you are wasting a vote that could really help him win and
defend our cherished values?
In VERY blunt words, wouldn't you rather give your vote to McCain-Palin
than waste it on a minority campaign such as Ron Paul, when you know he
won't win - simply to stick to your guns? Not very powerful ammo in
that vote.
Keep in mind I love you dearly, and I am not trying to be bitter or
mean. It's not in my nature. But I really feel strongly about voting
for the candidates who are front-running towards the end of the
campaign. And also keep in mind, I've been rooting for Huckabee since
the primaries until just a week ago when I heard his shot at VP was
over. Now I'm all about McCain-Palin, and VERY excited about it!
Write more please!
Here is a little of my reply to her:
If you notice, I didn't say who I would be voting for. I honestly don't
know at this point. J.Q. Adams might have believed that our vote would
not be wasted as long as we vote our conscience but to be honest I kind of
do!
What I feel the most is deep regret and dismay that Catholics do not
get behind candidates whose mission more closely resembles the mind of
the Church. We could vote for 100% pro-life candidates such as Ron Paul
and Chuck Baldwin without any qualms. I can understand the vast majority
of Catholics these days not putting this issue first, but for those who
do and are active in the pro-life movement I am really and truly
baffled to see them behind someone like McCain and to continually bow
to the two party system. We have other choices!!! Why not get behind
them in the beginning and make them a front runner so people don't feel
as if they wasted their vote? This is America after all!
We have political possibilities in this country that go unused. Even though Ron Paul will not be on the ticket (he is still a Republican), there are other third party candidates whom pro-life Catholics could support with less reluctance. And if pro-life is really their main issue, no reluctance at all! I fail to understand why pro-lifers do not get behind 100% pro-life candidates.
So my first big issue about this election concerns pro-life candidates and the viability of third parties. The next, of course, is the role of women. This past week I spent some of my computer time reading several blog posts about Palin written by women whose opinion I value. Most were favorable. Some were not. Then there was the discussion over at Faith & Family Live. I had A LOT of thoughts after reading that.
Here it goes - my random thoughts. Three of them.
- Although I can understand why everyone is so excited about the "Palin Pick", I am extremely bothered
by those comparing her to canonized saints and to the "Proverbs woman".
- When I read some of the comments this is what I hear:
"Just because you might not be such a great superwoman able to accomplish much even with a large family, don't knock those of us who are." That's not what is being said exactly, but that is the message that comes across to me. Maybe I just have an inferiority complex!
- My spirit fell when names like "naysayer" and "judgmental" are used to label those
with legitimate concerns about a mother of five potentially taking on such a
demanding position. Being the Vice President of the United States of America is no part time job.
I felt a little more brave about my hunch after I read A Gypsy Caravan's observation:
Last I checked, helping out a husband from home with a small,
moneymaking venture is not the same as being second in command of a
large nation. One requires a mother to take a small portion of her day
to work with her hands, care for livestock on her property or sell
vegetables from a roadside stand in front of her home, all done with
her children in tow. The vice presidency of the United States entails
a tight schedule of daily meetings, briefings, regular and extensive
travel, none of which would welcome the likes of children.
I have to say I agree. Helping to supplement the family income or seeking employment in times of economic necessity is vastly different than pursuing a political career. If one's husband is making a livable income, I believe the best place for a wife to be (with children or without) is in the home and I greatly admire those who have taken a leap of faith to do this!
What has really been on my heart all week is this passage from Casti Connubi written by Pope Pius XI in about the dangers of a woman who frees herself from family obligation to devote herself to business and public affairs:
This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational
and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and
wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of
motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband
suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the
whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty
and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman
herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has
been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon
be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in
reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.
In reading the paragraph prior to this I see that the venerable pontiff was referring to women who wish to be freed from the cares of child rearing and the burdensome duties of wife and mother. Clearly, Sarah Palin does not come across as such a woman. Instead she seeks to integrate her domestic responsibilities with her work.
While millions of moms are ready to cheer her on in this endeavor, in the bottom of my heart I feel a sense if disorder when I see images of the Palin family in the public spotlight. I wonder about her husband and feel funny about him standing in the background holding their baby. I feel for her children - sure they must be proud of her, but what will they miss out on if their mommy is elected VP?
My heart hurts for the younger ones as well as for the older children. I think it's wonderful that her daughter chose to keep her baby rather than abort (now that would really give the opponent some ammo!) but might this teenage pregnancy be a sign that she has sought love and affection from someone other than her busy parents?
Call me an old-fashioned anti-progressive "naysayer" if you want, but this is my honest opinion. My honest concerns. I hope we can still be friends. My vote is still undecided, so don't throw too many rotten tomatoes!
My voting ammo doesn't need to be powerful, it just needs to be principled. I want my vote to protect the unborn as well as the dignity of motherhood. We mothers sit on a "truly regal throne" right here in our own homes. Pope Pius XI said so!