9.03.2008

a reactionary remark

I think Palin's speech was pretty good. But it could have been better, no?

At the First Things blog, Joseph Bottum expresses my thoughts perfectly:
Here’s the curious thing, though: Not once in her speech did she make any mention of abortion—the center of the social-conservative issues.

You could argue that the dwelling on her family helped make the point nonverbally, and her phrase “a servant’s heart” was a way of reaching out to evangelicals. And you’d be right.

Still, the absence of any use of the word abortion suggests that she was not playing to the base. Rather, she was playing to the suburban moms for whom abortion is not a driving issue, one way or the other.

I can’t say I like it; she’s pro-life and needs to say so. How we talk about abortion is as important as how we attempt politically to overturn Roe v. Wade. But given the energy Palin’s nomination has generated in Republican circles, the McCain-Palin campaign may imagine it’s got the social conservatives locked up, and so it makes the target the squishy middle.

At the very least, however, we need to hear less about how the speech last night was pandering to the base—about its being red meat for social conservatives to feed on. I liked Palin and her speech, but, as a pro-lifer, I’m still hungry.
Another contributor to the First Things blog, Amanda Shaw, provides the best summary of the counterargument; which, upon reflection, is the better understanding:
When she stood up on the stage before all of America, with her pregnant daughter by her side and her Downs syndrome baby on her shoulder, she reminded us exactly where she stands on abortion. Her daughter’s and her own decision to keep and love their babies may not have been the most politically expedient or personally easy choices, from the hockey-mom perspective, but they speak far louder than words.

And actions, not rhetoric, Palin promised last night, is what she’s all about: “Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things. And then there is the idealism of those leaders . . . who actually do great things. They’re the ones who are good for more than talk.” At least in pro-life matters, Sarah Palin stands with the latter.

6 comments:

Dave said...

I thought it was great.

I'm still starved for details, but I suppose those will come in the debates.

Pro Ecclesia said...

Maybe if her name was Abraham Lincoln and she was speaking at Gettysburg.

Otherwise, no.

Zach said...

The way she delivered the speech was excellent and could not have been better.

But she skipped a few of my favorite subjects ....

and I thought there were too many references to John McCain's war-hero past.

Anonymous said...

I guess any speech could technically be better, but this was great. Maybe she could have spent a little less time on the family stuff at the beginning, but I also think she needed to establish who she was.

And as I said on my blog, you can tell it was a great speech since the major criticism coming from the leftist punditocracy is that someone else wrote it for her, as though everyone else was their own speechwriter.

Zach said...

no you guys are right

I think I set my hopes too high

or I'm just a jerk

Unknown said...

I think this is a great article, and palin a great pick. good speech too. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article4686925.ece