04-25-01

"LEAVE NO (LEGITIMATE) CHILD BEHIND"


Though I'm often irritated by catchy campaign phrases that attempt to over-simplify issues, I do recognize that they're necessary in today's fast-paced society; and often, a simple little catchphrase can sum up a candidates' feelings on an issue quite nicely and have the added bonus of making the candidate's opponent look like an idiot (look what "It's the economy, stupid" did for Clinton). Unfortunately, as we continue to fight the culture war being waged by the right-wingers we find ourselves subjected more and more to cute little slogans that aren't just overly simplistic - they're outright lies.

It's been said before (and I don't remember who said it, though I think it may have been Mario Cuomo, who always manages to hit the nail right on the head) that Republicans care about children from the moment of conception until the moment of birth - after which kids are on their own, unless of course they're lucky enough to be born to wealthy right-wingers, in which case they're entitled to every advantage the regressives can give them. One doesn't have to look far to find ultra-conservative fools ready to deliver weepy-eyed sermons on the plight of "innocent unborn children", and to the less savvy amongst us, the carefully arranged expressions of anguish on these sobbing shysters might actually be mistaken for genuine compassion. After all, Republicans are human too (I know, I know - I don't like admitting it any more than you do), so isn't it reasonable to believe that they have emotions like the rest of us?

Well, sure it's reasonable, and of course they have emotions like the rest of us...though their emotional spectrum tends to be limited to emotions like greed, fear, envy, hatred, and the like. Think I'm being too harsh? Then try my handy-dandy 'Conservative Compassion level' test (patent pending). The next time one of those bleeding-heart conservatives hauls out the hankie and bemoans the fate of all the "innocent little babies", ask him/her how they feel about welfare. Then ask if they think Bush's idea of cutting funding for children's hospitals and the Boys and Girls Club in order to pay for a hefty tax cut for the rich has their support. Ask them if they'd be willing to give up a portion of their promised tax cut in order to help fund programs that would ensure health care for all children. Watch the eyes narrow, the hands dart down to clutch the wallet with fierce protectiveness, the lips thin in self-righteous indignation. Works every time, guaranteed.

Bush's slogan of 'Leave no child behind', which he shamelessly stole from the Children's Defense Fund (but cut the guy some slack - his handlers have enough trouble teaching him how to talk; they can't be expected to come up with original phrases on top of that) is perhaps the most glaring deceit of the whole "compassionate conservatism" double-speak. It's yet another attempt to paint right-wing extremists like Bush's puppeteers as people who care about something other than their own fat pocketbooks. Sure, they "care" about children - when it suits their agenda. They'll care about children in struggling public schools if it means they can push the voucher program which will funnel money away from public education and into the coffers of privately-owned schools; they'll care about embryos if it means they can whip the anti-choice loonies into a frenzy. But ask them for an ounce of prevention or a pound of cure and they scream bloody murder.

In my view, the clearest proof that right-wingers merely pay lip service to the idea of caring about children is the idea -- put forth by such wingnuts as Alan Keyes, but sure to be heard soon from the lips of all holier-than-thou troglodytes -- that in order to restore "family values" and make our society more "moral", government should work to fortify the stigma already attached to children born out of wedlock. That's right - they'd like the big, bad government to tell children whose parents aren't married that they aren't as good as "legitimate" children. They like to leave a third of all children behind.

And it's not as if the stigma doesn't already exist. The term 'illegitimate' is in and of itself an insult, though I suppose the states and/or judges which slap this label on certain children are doing a bit better than the ones which still use the term 'bastard' (seventeen - count 'em - seventeen states still have this pejorative on the books). As both terms are offensive, neither one should be used to describe a child, whether or not you believe that having children out of wedlock is okay. It is not acceptable to use an insult to describe a child. And yes, it IS an insult - witness the fury of right-wingers over the perception that Bush is an illegitimate president. They KNOW it's an insult, and they want to turn it into an even greater insult. And they want to continue to use the insult to hurt children - children who certainly aren't responsible for the so-called "sin" of their parents.

Children born out of wedlock are told by society that they're a rung or two lower than children from "traditional" families. And regressives feel that society isn't going far enough.

Marriage is a good thing in many cases, but it's not for all of us. Since I was married and then divorced at a relatively young age, I tend to view marriage with a "been there, done that" mentality. And while I don't particularly care if people decide to make a moral judgment against me based on my marital status (after all, my fiance and I can get married whenever we want, unlike gay and lesbian couples who are denied that right), I'm frustrated and angered by the constant discrimination I undergo because I'm one half of a domestic partnership which hasn't been "sanctioned" by an official ceremony. And if I decide to have another child, and haven't yet gotten around to getting a legal stamp of approval for my family, and anyone - ANYONE - has the nerve to suggest that my child is somehow less "worthy" than other children...well, I've always considered myself a pacifist, but when I envision this scenario I can assure you that a hefty baseball bat is ALWAYS involved. And that's just for starters.

There is only one "illegitimate" person in this country -- the one currently squatting in the White House.

Regressives, true to their name, are working overtime to roll this country back to the Stone Age. The plan to further stigmatize children born out of wedlock isn't just an unconscionable and disgusting attack against thirty-two percent of the children in this country; it's also an attack against women. You can be sure that the fathers won't be stigmatized; in most cases, the fathers won't even be around. This is yet another attempt to put women "in their place" and to force everyone into the same narrow-minded outlook. It has nothing to do with morality - these people are cockroaches, and have no morals. It's about power and control, hate and bigotry...those things which the Republican party now fully represents.

There are few traits as despicable as cowardice, and anyone who chooses to attack children is a coward of the worst sort. The right-wingers are sinking rapidly to depths far below that of pondscum. And while I'm perfectly happy to let them sink out of existence, I'll be damned if I will sit back idly while they try to drag the rest of the country - including one-third of our children - with them.

My message to the self-righteous cockroaches is this: You want to wage a culture war? Fine. Wage it against the adults. Wage it against me. Hey, coward -- over here. Fight the ones who can fight back...and keep your filthy hands off our children.


~Rose

What can you do? If you're as outraged as I am over the right-wingers' attacks against children, take part in the 'Stop the Stigma' campaign sponsored by the AASP.

"There are no "illegitimate" children, just "innocent" children."
-- Judge Ira J. Raab, in a letter to the New York Law Journal


Opinions expressed in the daily rant are those of the author and may not reflect the opinion of every member of the fringefolk project. The articles posted here are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without the author's express permission. You do, however, have permission to post a link to this article and include the first few sentences as a lead-in, if you wish.