Rush Limbaugh Defending The Childfree?
28 01 2007Conservatives Suddenly Defending the Childfree?
Ultra conservative Rush Limbaugh defending women without children?? WTF? I actually found myself agreeing with what he is saying. It all erupted from what is now being called “The Barbara Boxer Thing” where on Jan 12, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer apparently attacked Condolezza Rice for being single and childless.
I found the article on Baby Not on Board. I actually read Rush Limbaugh’s transcript which was jaw-droppingly good. I had linked to the actual transcript at first, but links to outside content become inactive in the RL website (unless you sign up, which I’ve no intention of doing) so I was happy to find that Baby Not On Board had most of the excerpt from his speech here
Here is the quote no doubt you probably know it by heart now.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
According to The New York Post, the junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished polished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman. I suppose that does take politics to a new low.
I am less interested in trying to work out what Barbara Boxer meant than the result of this furore. It has somehow galvanized the Republicans (Rush Limbaugh in particular) to a spirited defence of the childfree, including him trotting out a list of childfree Republican women, whom he says “aren’t crumb crushers” as well as a well rounded attack on feminism, just for good measure.
The sceptic in me is a lot less believing. As well as taking the subject off the War in Iraq, where the Republicans are doing badly, it is after all Republican women senators who are being defended by Rush. And since it’s the Democrats that are doing the attacking,or rather dropping the ball and own-goaling as fast as they can, this is a windfall for the conservatives.
Like BNOB, I am sure this is simply the Republicans using the Democrats foolish gaffe to try and make political capital. Childfree people should enjoy it while it lasts. The Republicans will get back to demonizing childfree women for being “selfish” and “Un-American” soon enough.
The whole thing makes me feel a little dirty. The last person I want on my bandwagon is Limbaugh! The cause means nothing to him or any of his cronies. Switch the political affiliations of the parties involved and they would have been on the other side to the fence.
better deal with the devil, while you can.
Interesting.
I actually don’t see it as an attack. I think the larger point is that these decisions about sending troops into war have, so far, only affected one Congressperson directly (that I’m aware of) - my own Senator, Tim Johnson. No one else in Congress has a kid who is/was in service in this war. And given their ages, it’s unlikely they have ANY immediate family members who serve.
And that may well be why they don’t give a damn about what happens to the people they send into harm’s way - there is no personal connection. And this is Boxer’s point, I think - that if they were making decisions about their own family members rather than other people’s, they’d make different decisions. That was certainly one of Michael Moore’s main points in Fahrenheit 9/11, and his was not an attack on childfree people, either.
I am suspicious of the Post’s reporting as well as of the right-wing’s response - this is likely about making Dems look bad and nothing else. I mean, it IS the Post, after all…
but, the people with children, will make rules for the benefit of thier children, when the childfree, can make decisions for the best of ALL.
some laws are uncomfortable for those with kids like sending them to war, i have heard parents say that fathers of kids shouldnt be sent to war, so only the single childfree male should be sent to die. IN fact they have more need to fight for thier children, should women be sent to war.. yes if they want too go to war.
you cannot and should not have one rule for one group, and another rule for another. people without children can make the hard decisions, people without religion can make hard decisions, tough but fair for everyone. thats what a politician should be. and the cf can make the hard decisions at least in regards to rules about families..
but, the people with children, will make rules for the benefit of thier children, when the childfree, can make decisions for the best of ALL.
people without children can make the hard decisions, people without religion can make hard decisions, tough but fair for everyone.
This is a bit inane, isn’t it? Childfree people are the best at making hard decisions because they won’t be swayed by the possibility that their children might die in a war they have to vote on? I think we both know that being able to make fair decisions has nothing to do with having or not having children or religion. It has to do with being able to look at the impact on all people of a given decision and with having the *will* to make fair decisions, and with being willing to risk one’s own security and money and safety for a greater good.
Having said that, when people don’t have a personal stake in legislation that will hurt someone - when they themselves won’t be hurt but others will be - I’m not convinced that they make the best decisions. That cuts across childed/childfree.
Happy to have found your blog. I blogged about this one as well. The fact people were surprised at Boxer’s comments is enlightening. Haven’t those with children, for the most part, thought there moral compass is somehow more acute to those of us who are childfree? Nothing new here, no surprises.