Well, it's editorial day again, here in The Villages, which means the usual barrage of far right editorials. Today there are two nominees for the worst of the worst, Mona Charen and (repeating last month's win) Phyllis Schafly.
Let's deal with Ms Charen first. Today's column is "Media Fawns Over Cool First Family." Of course she goes onto imply that somehow this attention is a ploy to avoid focus on "real " issues. It smacks of Republican sour grapes to me. They can be forgiven, I guess since their litany of first family media personages runs from the openly cuckolded Ms. Warren Harding, to the overmedicated and, by many accounts physically abused Pat Nixon and the addicted Betty Ford to astrology infatuated Nancy Reagan and daughter Patti, nude in Playboy, financial fraud Neal Bush and, the underage drunk Bush sisters. Their mom, the vivacious and eloquent Laura Bush was, in fact a bit of a media darling, but her husband's colossal stupidity tended to overshadow her.
By comparison, Jackie Kennedy (every bit as much coverage), Dolly Madison (the toast of Washington) and others look polished, educated and comfortable in their own skin. Eleanor Roosevelt did a weekly radio show and wrote a newspaper column. How dare she, as an articulate, educated woman do so and draw attention to herself? The President's daughters are media darlings because they are attractive, bright role models instead of whining harpies (the former Mrs. Giuliani), addicts (Jeb Bush's daughter), or social disgraces to their family (the Bush "twins"). To be fair, the Bush girls were simply parroting things their father had done. Michelle Obama is a superstar because she's intelligent, dedicated to great causes, telegenic and open to the public, as opposed to Pat Nixon and Nancy Reagan whose relations with media were about like Barry Bonds'. If, by some freak of nature, A Republican was elected (or even existed) with a wife and family as graceful and accomplished as the Obamas, Fox News would feature them several times a day in every way imaginable, with Shawn Hannity personally sponsoring them for beatification.
The second and much less deserving of much space is Ms. Schlafly's statement that " The real difference between high achieving and low achieving children is whether or not they live in a "Traditional family," which she goes on to describe as their own mother and father. In her typical "baby with the bathwater" manner she, in one line, disallows love, economic well being, and community as significant factors in child development. In Schlafly's world, as in Rick Santorum's, a child living in poverty with his poor, underfed and undereducated parents is better off than as an adoptee by persons who want to provide the real necessities of life for the child. Mom and Dad are a fact of nature. Love and caring environments are nurture. This argument may rage forever, but Schlafly's statement truly rings false, since I am sure she attributes homosexuality to some mistake in childrearing, as many conservatives and Catholics do, which makes the issue of her eldest (of six) child's sexual orientation a point of interest. Apparently, while she finally did acknowledge John's homosexuality she would consider him inappropriate as a parent! Add to this the fact, that after marrying in 1949, at age 35, she ran for Congress in 1954 and continued a public career up to the present , not exactly (or even remotely) a "stay at home mom," but certainly a judgmental one! She traveled extensively and nannies reared her six kids to a large degree. At age 89, Ms. Schafly needs a rest and goodness knows we need a rest from her.
No comments:
Post a Comment