Palin’s Choice: an Afterword

In light of the comments and responses to my WND piece on Sarah Palin's resignation, I think some further observations and reflections are in order.

First it's important to remind everyone that I have never accepted the notion that Palin somehow represents adherence to the moral principles of republican, constitutional government. In a WND article right after McCain selected her as his running mate (Gov. Sarah Palin: Unequally yoked), I gave the reasons why. Later, when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, I wrote another article (Sarah Palin: Already compromised?) in which I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician…Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle…." I went on to point out that "making a pro-life icon of someone who takes this falsified "states' rights" position and who, at the same time, relegates her pro-life views to the status of "personal opinion", places the pro-life movement firmly on the path of self-destruction." I cautioned that "If the issue of respect for innocent human life is simply a matter of "personal opinion," what justifies government interference (at any level) in the personal decision of the woman carrying the child, or the parents who provided the genetic material from which its life derives?...Where no overriding public interest can be ascertained, the state cannot impose its moral opinions upon individuals without infringing the freedom of conscientious decision essential for the free exercise of religion (which is also counted among our unalienable rights.)"

In these past writings, as in the latest one, I have tried to reason clearly and carefully about the issues of public principle and policy raised by Sarah Palin's words and actions. Unfortunately, both Palin's fans and the leftist media hacks who act as her detractors have focused on her personal life. The fans want people to accept her loving commitment to her Down syndrome child as conclusive evidence that she is a pro-life champion. Her detractors snipe about her temperament, or make reprehensible so-called jokes about her family members, trying with ridicule and character assassination to manipulate public opinion against her. Meanwhile, her fans respond as if these rabid attacks conclusively prove that she is the conservative champion of principled morality they so desperately want her to be.

Unfortunately, as I argued in the articles cited above, ugly media attacks don't' alter the facts that show, logically and conclusively, that she is not such a champion.

Now I find readers like David, who left a comment on this site, declaring his view that my latest piece "is what I would expect from the mudslinging left." This reaction exposes the insidious nature of this whole contrived situation. Once we accept "personal" matters (of action or opinion) as the basis for our support or rejection of political leaders, anyone who opposes them can be accused of mudslinging and slander, even when their opposition is based on careful reasoning about public policy and constitutional principle.

Like so much else going on in our public discussion these days, this makes fear rather than truth the standard of our public discourse. In my case it would be fear of being unfairly attacked as an un-Christian replicant of the left-wing character assassins. This reminds me of what liberal blacks have tried for years to do on account of my rejection of their leftist cant on welfare issues. In both cases my response must be the same, precisely because of Christ's example. I will try to follow what careful and conscientious reasoning from right principle leads me to believe is true. I will leave in God's hands the integrity of my identity. In the end, he knows the right name for me and will recognize me for what I am.

I could of course simply say nothing as others promote Palin as a representative of the constituency of moral principle. Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues. Such doubters will sow confusion and demoralization in the ranks of moral conservatives. This may in fact be the result intended by some of those who helped promote Palin to national prominence, though they tacitly despise the moral constituency she is supposed to represent. By speaking out, will people like me help to mitigate this bad result? Will our warnings prevent well intentioned people from relying too much upon a false hope? If so, it's worth the risk of being unpopular with Palin fans who insist that reasonable criticism of her public policy views and actions is no different than the partisan media's malevolent personal attacks.

Dude, your gonna get the same treatment as you did hitting at ol Fred, methinks.

Well, how is Fred nowadays? What's he up to?

The coronation has already started.

Yep, I like Sarah, and I defend her too, but I don't assume perfect from anyone.

There is that batch of country-clubbers back east who seem set on Romney, too, and they are measuring him for the laurels...(God forbid).

What we really need is a list of the "Republican Pundits" who are attacking Palin.

I think Keyes has an unpopular but valid point, and not necessarily a killer for Palin (because I do not think the abortion issue will be won back in one fell swoop, although that would be great).

I agree that the unalienable Right to Life should be protected at all levels.

That said, I think any step toward the overturning of Roe is a step in the right direction.

Why does Keyes pick fights with everyone?

After all, it is not pro-abortion to point out that the issue of abortion is to be settled at the state level, if the Constitution is anything to go by.

Then, at the state level you can make all your arguments, including the argument that principles of the Declaration of Independence are part of the Constitution, which Keyes (and some courts) have held. Personally, I think that there are some problems with that view, because the Declaration makes some broad and sweeping statements which are open to interpretations which (in the hands of the lawyers) are easily distorted. For example, “the pursuit of happiness” could mean anything, including that all enjoyable drugs should be legalized, or even subsidized for the “happiness” of the populace. This is not what the Declaration meant, but in the hands of the lawyers and the Courts, this is the sort of thing one might expect.

The advantages of fighting the abortion issue on the state level is that it might educate the public, and it would prevent anyone from saying that abortion is a nationally guaranteed “right.” Liberals like to say that it is a “constitutional right,” although it is not in the Constitution, and the current policy is based on a fallacious Court opinion. The public never voted on this. At the state level, they could. It will not be an easy debate; but in the end, if we are to survive as a nation, our side can and will win on this issue.

We can win by working with each other and with allies of similar opinion. We lose if we keep dividing until we are down to Alan Keyes and a handful of his friends.

All that was provoked by Alan Keyes’ low blow against Sarah Palin’s pro-life credentials, lol?

No, not Mr Keyes 'blow' against Mrs Palin. Simply the apparent rise of a messiah in our ranks as well. I guess escalation does happen ...one side gets a messiah, and the other has to get one. I believe Mrs Palin is an effective and efficient leader who doesn't need me blaring the trumpet for her to succeed.

Flame away.

No flames here. I like what I have seen from Mrs. Palin, with only minor exception, and have high hopes for her to help restore the Republic, even as POTUS. However, I do not worship her, nor anyone else save God.

I found her to be a breath of fresh air in a cloying atmosphere of political convergence.

Dr. Keyes' point is, imho a valid one, and one we all need to address sans personality.

Does the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments confer on the developing child in the womb the Federally protections of life itself?

Should the definition of life be reserved unto the states--Will they decide life 'ends' at 60, 70, 80, 90 years old if they can 'decide' when it begins?

Or will the decision be made medically and scientifically by the rare few doctors who do not either have strong religious beliefs or a profit motive to sway their opinions?

There are a multitude of questions on the legal practicality of defending what we know to be morally right, but I think if we look to intent, this (like other issues) would have been accepted without question in the Founders' day as self-evident.

An innocent persons' life did fall within the venue of the Constitution as amended, and it is with certitude (under the Fifth Amendment) that someone not even accused of a crime would also be afforded the protection of not being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, especially with the presumption of innocence.

If this protection, (via the 14th Amendment) is to be afforded to all persons, then the only question to be resolved is whether the developing child in the womb is, in fact, a person.

Define that 'lump of tissue' thus and the matter is resolved.

It hit me this morning walking the dog.....something everyone had missed, the pondits, TV clowns, writers, et al: America Wants Sarah to be President. Period.

We don’t care what her background is, what her experiecne is, where she’s from what she wears, who backs her, etc. We want her to be our President and that’s all that matters....

I mean, look what we have now: Barney Frank, Al Franken, the Bomb....where is the criteria there? HOW could she be any worse than them......She is more honest than any of these clowns, has more administrative experience than the Bomb, has more proven moral intigrity that any 20 congress critters or Senators already demonstrated by her actions to date.....

She has tougher skin than any other elected offical and they have NEVER had to go through what she has had to go through, and she isn’t even President yet....

Quitter????? You mean by not milking one job to run for another, (Biden, Bomba, Hilterly, etc, etc, etc) she is a quitter.....don’t make me laugh....

And if she stayed up nights and worked around the clock she couldn’t be worse than those mentioned above, not even if she tried.....

So I say to the Andrea Mitchell Greenspans and the other hosts of fraud, and especially our good friends at the View, (worthless creitians whose opinion is worth less than toilet paper, which after all does serve a purpose) take a trip, get out, we don’t care what you think or say:

America has decided to give Sarah a chance to see what she can do, and that’s all you other clowns need to know.

Certainly you didn't see me blaring any trumpet. I pointed out that her statement in support of devolving the abortion issue to the states would mean the overturning of Roe v. Wade, that this was a simple, practical answer, and that her pro-life principles have been demonstrated by the way she has lived her life.

That was my very straightforward reply. Alan Keyes is making demands of Sarah Palin that he, himself cannot fulfill.

I agree. I had no idea EV had a direct tie to Keyes until others posted that information. Pretty disingenuous if you ask me...basically it’s Astroturfing. Posting a disclaimer when posting your own candidates material would be the honorable and moral thing to do. Not doing so puts your credibility in the toilet.

Yes, posting your candidates articles here attacking his competition and trying to conceal from freepers that you are the man's party chairman is despicable, we would never let Howard Dean get away that, it sure tells you what Alan Keyes is like in day to day operation when his own party chairman plays this embarrassing game.

This has nothing to do with the right to life, and everything to do with state's rights and federalism.

Many people do not comprehend the role of the federal government and its power. Quite understandable, because that role has been horribly distorted in the last 50 years.

The question here is not does Palin support the right to life absolutely (what a silly question! she was called upon to act on it herself, and she acted in absolute accordance with her stated beliefs). The question is, how best to untangle the mess that has been made of abortion law in this country.

While we'd all like to just make abortion illegal in one fell swoop, it's not that simple. As C.S. Lewis said (in another context, in the preface to The Great Divorce, quoting Milton's Comus), it must be done 'with backward mutterings of dissevering power'.

Reasonable minds can differ on how to undo it, but one way is to reverse Roe v. Wade and thus return the issue to the states. Which, if you believe in the 9th and 10th amendments, is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed.

Keyes has no business criticizing this approach. It's clearly valid and has the proper goal in mind.

Please explain to me why you, and Governor Palin, can claim that the right to keep and bear arms is for all persons, but that the first right, the right to live, is somehow "up to the states"?

While I support Sarah Palin, the above point is valid. Either the 14th Amendment applies to ALL such rights, or it apples only to specific rights as protected under the U.S. Constitution. Sarah is being a bit inconsistent here and needs to be corrected. One can be a supporter and still point out inconsistencies. The last thing we need is a personality cult.

HOWEVER, I am troubled by what appears, to me at least, like some level of Palin worship has been going on here on FR. If not worship outright, then at the very LEAST the insinuation that Mrs Palin is infallible, she can do no wrong, and any one who does not recognize that fact is a Leftist aggitator. Where Mrs Palin makes a decision (e.g. resigning from her post), and before she even says why she did so people are already saying what a great master-stratagem that was (it probably is a terrific master-move from Palin that will ensure she garners the Big Seat come 2012, or it could simply be she wants to step down from the limelight and spend time with her family! I would personally rather wait and hear from Mrs Palin herself rather than people who probably have only seen her on TV, and read about her from other commentators).
Do I doubt that she is capable to be president ...yes, more than anyone I can think of right now. Do I doubt her integrity ...not one bit, and I admire someone who will look you square in the eye and say the darn truth for a change!

However, we are becoming like some of those people on DU who will swarm over anyone saying anything negative about Hugo Chavez. Where someone's personality eclipses other issues at hand.

Great comment. I've been saying this for awhile now. The Palin worship and attacks against posters who voice an honest opinion about here are troubling.

The only way to get a Human Life Amendment, is to be successful in getting two-thirds of the Congress to vote for it. The only way to do that is to have the people behind it. The best way to do that is to work in each state to convince people that protecting unborn children is the right thing to do. Thus, when we've won the issue in the STATES, the Federal issue will for the most part, be solved.

As we've seen by Roe-v-Wade, an edict from on high doesn't solve the problem; it only makes it worse. This has to come from the citizens up, not the government down.

Please think about this. Abortion is the taking of a human life, and therefore a homicide. Killing an intruder in your home is the taking of a human life, and therefore homicide. Many states have laws which define justifiable homicide, such as self defense, and do not prosecute a person for using force in such instances. What you, and apparently Mr. Keyes, are actually saying is that states have no jurisdiction to make this definition, and all homicides must be acted upon by a federal power. Do you honestly believe that? Does Alan Keyes really believe that? I doubt it.

Best post on the thread.

I agree.
Also, why must we use only ONE strategy?
The “No Exceptions, No Compromise” crowd give us:

NO PROGRESS!

There is no reason why the States can not handle this matter, and every state that outlaws or severely restricts abortion will cut funding for the radical left.

Abortion is a cash cow for the left.

I listen and hear and understand. Mama taught me that if I didn’t do the thing that’s being griped *about,* I’m not the one being griped *at.* Good lesson.

To paraphrase, “Wise is as wise does.”

In this article, Dr. Keyes once again belittles his audience: “Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues.”

First, there was no need to speculate - it would have been better to “simply say nothing.” There was certainly no need to go to such lengths to prove that the Governor is flawed and not “adequate to the task.” Especially with so many “I’s” in the essay.

Remember that I voted for Dr. Keyes in the Texas primary and that he has been one of my own hopes as a prolife advocate and Constitutional leader. Unfortunately, as he proved after the Republican primaries and at the various third party conventions last year, his own flaw is his negative focus and lectures which drives away his would be allies.

God bless you and Dr. Keyes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.