- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I am so tired of the "We've got to think of the children!" tirade, and the proposition that Palin can't/shouldn't be VP because she's got 5 kids, one with special needs.
First off, no one complained about RFK being too occupied with his ELEVEN kids to be President.
Secondly, I completely reject the underlying premise. In questioning whether Palin should be VP (or Governor) while raising young kids, the questioner is implicitly endorsing the idea that if Palin had to choose between being a good VP and being a good parent, she should choose the latter.
I couldn't disagree more; in fact, I'd argue that decision speaks of the deepest narcissism. Being Vice President (and certainly President) is not the same as being a janitor, a waitress, an office manager, or even a CEO. In those occupations, I can absolutely see the argument for putting family first.
However, decisions that the Oval Office make affect 300 MILLION people, and quite often, all 6 billion people on the planet. If you believe that you can do a better job than your rivals and that you can make a more positive contribution, how do you put your family's interests ahead of the needs of *everyone* else? That speaks of the highest order of selfishness.
Any potential Commander-in-Chief has to be prepared to send sons and daughters of this country to fight--and possibly die.
I hope no one ever needs to choose between being a good national leader and a good parent. However, if that choice has to be made, I would hope that any potential President should at least be prepared to be called a bad father/mother if that person is prepared to ask the ultimate sacrifice of other families.
Fortunately, I never believe politicians running for President when they proclaim that they put their families first above all else. If ever I did, I would find them wholly unfit for the office.
