Of Pregnant Teens and Ivy Leagues

"And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."

The above quote, attributed to working mother Beth Twiddle, was in a Marc Fisher column printed in the September 11, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST. The quote was taken when Ms. Twiddle was in attendance at a Virginia rally for Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, and his running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The context of the quote is that Sarah Palin is very relatable to "regular" people, particularly women; Palin is "real."

What do we make of this? If we assume Ms. Twiddle's assertion about parents to be statistically accurate, does that truly make Sarah Palin, the mother of an unwed pregnant child, more "real" than Harvard grad and Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama? If this is how we rate the realness of our candidates, could we not then counter with the claim that there are more parents with non-pregnant children than with pregnant children, thus giving Obama the edge on the Real-O-Meter? And then would we not shift the edge over to McCain, because he has more children than Obama?

That's silly, of course. Not that I don't like silly; it's just...maybe there is something else at work here.

This is not a question of politics, by the way; it's a question of character assessment and the importance on which we place certain things. When I decided to start banging these keys, one of my goals was, and still is, to be pragmatic above all else. This requires me to be as apolitical as possible, so that I might reach that group who thinks their opinion is right, as well as reach that OTHER group who thinks THEIR opinion is right, as well as reach the 17 folks in the middle. If I say blue, the Reds scream. If I say red, the Blues scream. But, if I say tartan plaid, everybody screams.

With that, I say again, maybe there is something else at work here.

Is any person's assertion of a candidate's "realness" simply a hollow replacement...let's call it a "McFeature"...for something more substantive? Is it easier to point out Palin's family or Obama's ethnicity or McCain's military record or Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Joe Biden's daily Amtrak round-trips - McFeatures all - as reasons for liking them than it is to argue the finer points of their positions on immigration or foreign policy or energy or the economy? Of course it is...just like it's easier to cry "baby killer" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against Roe vs. Wade; just like it's easier to scream "Jesus freak" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; just like it's easier to cruise the drive-thru than it is to actually cook a meal.

McFeatures are quick and McFeatures are easy, and we are a nation addicted to quick and easy. We like bumper stickers, news crawls, sound bites, and text messages. We read that way, we write that way, and we speak that way; why wouldn't we select our candidates that way?

Still...maybe there is something else at work here.

While I'm usually not quick to reference my own stuff, recently I wrote a couple of pieces about how people make themselves feel better about themselves. The first piece dealt with schadenfreude - people gaining pleasure from the misery of others. The second piece addressed people vicariously living through their children's youth athletics, as well as cheating at local sports. As I pondered this current piece, I noticed the trend.

Isn't this issue...this "realness" McFeature issue...yet another indicator that people will find - and use - the shortest path possible to feel some sense of self-worth, regardless of the consequences or collateral damage?

When I read a quote that says, "And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real," I don't ask questions to indict Sarah Palin, or her unwed pregnant teenager, or anyone in her family. I don't ask questions to indict the operatives representing both sides, at all levels, who are guilty of politicizing the matter ("Pregnant Teen?: Where Are Your Morals, You Bible-Thumping Conservatives?" vs. "Pregnant Teen!: She's Keeping the Baby, You Abortion-Loving Liberals!"). I don't ask questions to indict those who once pointed a pious, now hypocritical, finger toward Jamie Lynn Spears, at one time an unwed pregnant teenager herself (and quite the pariah as a result).

I ask questions to indict any person...regardless of social, political, religious, economic, or cultural stripe...guilty of lowering society's bar to such a level that clearing it is not the worry, but tripping over it is.

Is this what we have become? A nation content with the taste of sour grapes? When did we reach the point when we failed to aspire to some predetermined definition of success, so we became malcontented to such a degree that teen pregnancy borne of premarital sex became virtuous, while a better resume became shameful? When did this happen?

There's a scene at the end of the movie Grease (1978), where it's the last day of school and Principal McGee (Eve Arden) tries to make an inspirational announcement to the graduating class:

"Attention seniors. Before the merriment of commencement commences, I hope that your years with us here at Rydell High have prepared you for the challenges you face. Who knows? Among you there may be a future Eleanor Roosevelt or a Rosemary Clooney, and among you young men, there may be a Joe DiMaggio, a President Eisenhower, or even a Vice President Nixon."

Of course, the Nixon reference was played for laughs, as the film is set pre-Watergate. That matters not. It's the message that counts: you are young, the world awaits you, the possibilities are endless, aspire to greatness.

Isn't this what our parents wanted for us? Isn't this what we should want for our own children? Don't we fail our children the minute we make our own inadequacies the basis for critical future considerations? So now, in addition to teaching our children to mock the misfortunate and cheat the fair, must we also teach them that they can achieve anything they want to achieve in life...because the bar goes as low as their depleted self-esteem can take it?

We should be saying, "Look at Barack Obama; he's a Harvard graduate," or, "Look at John McCain; he's a war hero." Why don't we do that? What is our fear? Is it that our children will be more successful than we have been, thus making them less real to us? Do we dare repress our children so as not to feel we have been bested by them?

You know, I considered involving my pre-teen daughter in the upcoming debates. Maybe we should just watch Zoey 101 instead.