Pocket Full of Shells

Trading Family Values - How the old conservative/liberal stereotypes break down when it comes to parenting. By Ann Hulbert

OK, one more post before the weekend. Ann Hulbert writes about something here that I mentioned, in passing, in my excoriation of Bush a few months back: he's not a good example for children or a good example of parenting. Why is it, exactly, that the super-moral Republicans end up with First Children like the Bush twins--and W. himself, for that matter, when his dad was president--while the Democrats come up with overachievers like Chelsea Clinton and the Kerry sisters? Hulbert suggests it has to to with differences in parenting, arguing that the taskmaster parental approach of the Democratic candidates (Teresa called herself a "witch," while the Kerry daughters tell of a father who kept close tabs on their homework progress) resulted in thoughtful, well-studied adults--while the results of the Bush parenting style are apparent. An attitude--that hard work matters, and is valued, and will lead to success--was passed on to the Kerry and Heinz and Clinton children, but not to the Bush clan. This raises a good question: Do the American people believe that success falls on us randomly, that life is more grand lottery than contest of merit? Or do we, as a people, subscribe to the belief that we should push children to succeed? Hulbert suggests that the former is an easier sell than the latter:

But there's a reason the campaign goes ahead and flaunts the "when we were young and irresponsible, we were young and irresponsible" ethos that the twins displayed at the convention: It has the anti-elitist appeal the party assumes its Red state base thrives on. Filtered through a populist prism, such an attitude needn't suggest decadence; it can convey a spirit of down-home, defiant independence. After all, studiousness and parental pushiness, however virtuous, are also part of the pointy-headed approach to life. To snub TV is snobby, and adult hypervigilance can look like a lot like elitist cosseting. You can see the cultural contradictions of populism at work: Hit the books is not presumed to be what Joe Six-Pack wants to hear.

Which brings us back to yesterday's information, and to Suskind earlier in the week: this election is about a fundamental difference of opinion, but that difference is actually about facts. Those who will vote for Kerry are willing to see those facts and deal with them. Those who will vote for Bush are more interested in the fact that Jenna Bush isn't a slave to the convention of wearing your Sunday best to speak before a national television audience. Ironic, isn't it, that the religious right would find this unconventional behavior more appealing than the free-spirited Democrats? Ironic...and sad.

Let me end this second-to-last week before the election with these words: The facts are in. Say what you will about John Kerry, about his plans for the future and his record in the past. You'd have to be an absolute moron to even think about voting for Bush.