« The Minnesota Somali autism puzzle | Main | Assorted links »
Sorry people, I can't resist
Which means I've been arguing this with Natasha. But I'd like to point out: a) none of the commentators know the actual circumstances behind Bristol's pregnancy, b) it's unlikely the father was actually forced to marry Bristol; maybe he thought it was the right thing to do, c) I am very glad they are having the baby, noting that I do also favor birth control, d) There is and should be a general rule to treat candidates' children with the utmost respect, e) I fully understand that John McCain needs to read Adam Smith on the division of labor, overconfidence, and also wise decision-making, f) when an attractive woman is criticized by less attractive men, large segments of the public respond accordingly, g) Obama is wise to say nothing about this, h) Palin should not be required to document every claim she makes about her personal life and it is little short of outrageous to demand gynecological information from her, and, most of all i) without families like this our nation would have no chance of affording the social welfare programs proposed by the Democratic Party.
I love the United States of America.
Addendum: Hail Kevin Drum, but read his commentators.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 1, 2008 at 03:00 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Right on, Tyler... I couldn't agree more!
Posted by: at Sep 1, 2008 3:09:01 PM
Why does having lots of kids make welfare less costly?
Posted by: yoyo at Sep 1, 2008 3:19:10 PM
well said
Posted by: tdp at Sep 1, 2008 3:21:19 PM
I think she should release her gynecological records when Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama release theirs.
We'll do it discrete-like. Just me and them in a closed room.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 1, 2008 3:27:08 PM
YOYO
dont you know you are paying for your parents retirment?
large families mean more people contributing to welfare funds.
Posted by: k at Sep 1, 2008 3:27:24 PM
I think the argument for point (i) is the following:
The social welfare program referenced are pay-as-you-go. That is, they take tax receipts from current works and, for example, give money to retired workers. The tax burden per worker gets too high if there are not enough workers. The argument is that the Dems need large growth in the tax base to support their increase in social welfare programs, while not increasing the tax burden per worker too dramatically. Relatively large families help in this situation.
Posted by: Dan Karney at Sep 1, 2008 3:30:50 PM
Ann makes a good point over at Feministing. There is obvious hypocrisy in McCain's campaign's press release statement that 'Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby' (emphasis mine).
Posted by: Matt Juden at Sep 1, 2008 3:34:18 PM
You are a voice of calm and moderation in the 2008 political frenzy, and in some ways, because the criticism that that attracts is so depressing, maybe that's worse than being a foaming-at-the-mouth ideologue.
Posted by: Snajay at Sep 1, 2008 3:35:13 PM
That whole 'getting the blogosphere back' lasted all of, what, eight hours?
Posted by: mpkomara at Sep 1, 2008 3:38:38 PM
I'm not going to touch the Palin stuff, but as for your bold-faced claim, my impression is that Sweden has far more generous programs than the Democrats are calling for and doesn't have many families like the Palins (those wild and crazy Swedes have 1/7 our teen pregnancy rate, for instance, though they apparently have a higher rate of sexual activity before age 20 see http://www.thebody.com/content/art2418.html) Their GDP growth rate has been higher than America's, so it seems they can afford it. Most of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. also have more generous programs than the Democrats are proposing and they don't seem to be suffering too much.
That said, you may be right that that high U.S. birth rate and the closely-related penchant for "abstinence-only" education make it easier to pay for such programs for demographic reasons. Immigration is also a big plus according to the social security actuaries.
Posted by: a student of economics at Sep 1, 2008 3:39:12 PM
Criticizing Palin for the conduct of her children or her relationships
with them or what she says about them is completely inappropriate and
will backfire on those engaging in it. Those arguing that such
criticism is sexist are completely correct.
However, defending "family values" does not extend to trying to use
the state bureaucracy to fire an ex brother-in-law. The real question
here is: did McCain know about Palin being under an official ethics
investigation for this behavior when he selected her? If he did not,
what does this say about his ability to select competent people for
high level positions in an administration run by him?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Sep 1, 2008 3:41:22 PM
Says something about the usefulness of abstinence-only sex eduction.
If true, having your water break, then flying from Dallas to Alaska and driving from Anchorage to a local hospital to give birth, rather than staying in Dallas, seems a bit odd. In the "that's a dumb way to behave" version of odd.
Posted by: fusion at Sep 1, 2008 3:41:42 PM
d) There is and should be a general rule to treat candidates' children with the utmost respect,
Well, there should be, anyway. I seem to recall McCain himself making a rather nasty joke about Chelsea Clinton. I also remember some right-wingers went wild when it wa suggested that Chelsea, having dinner with her mother, drank a glass of wine when still underage.
That wouldn't excuse attacks on Bristol Palin, but let's not be too pious here about the rules,Tyler.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Sep 1, 2008 3:43:58 PM
"none of the commentators know the actual circumstances behind Bristol's pregnancy"
They know she is a 17 year old unmarried female with a mother who opposes sex education.
Posted by: nony at Sep 1, 2008 3:47:36 PM
I love how left-wingers can't stop from being scum for even just one moment. Seriously, do you have to be evil 100% of the time? Relax, take a break. There will plenty enough to slander people about tomorrow. Seriously. Lay off the kids.
Posted by: brent at Sep 1, 2008 3:51:22 PM
No apology necessary, Tyler. Much appreciated! The four people on these two tickets have such unusual life histories that it seems improbable that more than one of them would be a nominee much less all of them at the same time.
Posted by: RW Rogers at Sep 1, 2008 3:53:48 PM
What has all this to do with loving the US?
Is "I love the United States of America" the American patriot's "Amen"?
Posted by: at Sep 1, 2008 3:56:43 PM
We already know what Obama would have done. "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.
Posted by: Shaun M. at Sep 1, 2008 3:57:19 PM
All this is hiding the fact that we must look forward to three economic nationalists (Palin, Biden and Obama) and one supposed free-trader (McCain) albeit a "maverick", i.e. totally unreliable, sparring over the presidency of the US of A. Arghhh....
Posted by: Unit at Sep 1, 2008 3:59:42 PM
Democrats sure know how to lose elections. Didn't they ever hear of the phrase "Its the economy stupid"? Since when did Democrats think they could get elected by becoming moral scolds?
Palin may be a hypocrite. Palin may have made choices that were not the best for her family. But her family looks a lot like most blue collar families in this nation. Most of them have religious ideals that don't come close to living up to. Most of them either have had problems with teenage pregnancy or they know someone close to them who has. The more her personal life is attacked, the more most blue collar families are gong to feel like the are being attacked by their economic betters.
Right from the start, Obama and all rest of those people who wanted him to win should have welcomed McCain's choice of Palin. They should have applauded the historic nature of McCain's choice. They should have happily conceded that Palin was just as qualified as McCain to be President. And then they should have got to work tearing into McCain's qualifications to be President.
Most everyone has already made up their mind on who would be the best President for this country. The swing voters are gong to be poor and lower middle class whites. If they understand this election to be referendum on the economic direction of this country I would say it is almost a sure bet that Obama would win. But if this election becomes a referendum on Palin, Obama is almost sure to lose.
I think he understands this, but I am not sure his grass roots supporters have got the memo.
Posted by: Ape Man at Sep 1, 2008 4:02:08 PM
actually Obama has spoken, to say: "My mother had me when she was 18 ... I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories." (from the ny times).
really a perfect answer. i'm right-of-center, but imho obama's character stands out compared to that of both his supporters and the median presidential candidate of either party.
Posted by: DK at Sep 1, 2008 4:02:26 PM
A Student,
I think you're mistaken about Sweden's current state of affairs...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Public_policy
According to Eurostat the unemployment rate in February 2007 was at 6.7% down from 7.4% from February 2006.[65] No new net jobs have been produced in the Swedish private sector since 1950. None of top 50 companies on the Stockholm stock exchange has been started since 1970.[60]
Posted by: Xmas at Sep 1, 2008 4:02:49 PM
I haven't been watching much TV since this "story" broke, but is this really being debated? If so, the Palin nomination has successfully diverted the public discourse into the realm of identity politics, which is a little depressing.
Posted by: Trieu at Sep 1, 2008 4:05:06 PM
It is interesting to note that a few commentators here seem to take Tyler's commentary here as some sort of right wing stance, when in fact he saves his biggest criticism for McCain.
Posted by: Shaun M. at Sep 1, 2008 4:06:59 PM
Oh, come on, Brent...you right wingers (including McCain himself) appeared to have had no difficulty mocking Chelsea Clinton, so button up your cardigan and sit down and ponder the real point.
The real point is that McCain is incompetent. What presidential candidate in their right mind would pick an anti-sex-ed mom with a pregnant 17-year-old daughter to be their running mate? It's sitcom material. You can't help but burst out laughing if that's what McCain did. But such appears to be his story.
Far likelier, I think, is that Bristol tapped on her mom's door Friday or Saturday and said,"Mom...um, there's something you should know." Then the Palins and the McCains went into damage control and decided to insist that, oh, sure, they knew all along.
Of course, this means McCain isn't jaw-droppingly stupid...just a liar and someone who doesn't properly vet his decisions before acting.
Yeah, that's just the type of guy that should be prez.
Posted by: just a yob journalist at Sep 1, 2008 4:11:54 PM
