FLASH! From Liz Smith | 05/05/2009 3:40 pm
LIZ SMITH FLASH! The National Review Jumps on Madonna Adoption Critics
The National Review, the most conservative, staid and Republican publication in existence, is on the side of Madonna in the matter of her trying to adopt an orphan from Malawi. (Thus far she has been denied the adoption.)
The magazine educates us, reminding that Madonna is the pop star known as "The Material Girl." But they say she has values other than materialism. They go on to defend the Big M, writing: She wants to adopt – not a spanking new infant but a four-year-old. (The editors point out that the older the child, the less attractive he or she is to adopting parents. They might also have noted that the little girl doesn’t seem to be wanted by anyone else and the grandmother who objects to Madonna’s having her doesn’t seem to want her either, since she is still in the orphanage.)
Now listen to this. The National Review jumps on Madonna’s critics. "Much of the world applauded – the same part of the world that had jeered Madonna’s attempt to adopt little Mercy James." The magazine continues, saying that cries of "colonialism" … "imperialism" … "racism" have been raised. They fault critics who insist Madonna tried to use her fame to "circumvent" the Malawian adoption process.
The National Review’s final verdict? They ask, "What’s wrong with that? Plenty of orphans could use the circumvention of bureaucracy."
I was just amazed by this report. It seemed so unlikely on the National Review’s roundup editorial pages. But I agree with the magazine in this instance even though I am sometimes described as a liberal yellow-dog Democrat. I believe the grandmother is selfish not to want this child to enjoy a better life in Madonna’s care. I believe the Malawi government is just hoping to blackmail Madonna into more money or reacting to cries that they are "selling" their children.
All this takes place in a land where the fate of girl children thrown on their own is either early pregnancy, rape or murder.
No matter what you think of Madonna as performer, person and mother, having the star adopt her has to be in the best interests of little Mercy James.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Chime in!

























28 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
One more thing…where does nationalism fit into caring and adopting a child. As if somehow, children outside the U.S. have less value than a U.S. kid. We are all Gods children and being poor in the U.S. IS NOT the same as being poor in Africa. Don’t begrudge an African child a chance to have a better opportunity in life, so few do.
The natural father wants to care for his child. Of course, he cannot provide what Madonna can. With Madonna , she will get limo rides and red carpet treatment.
But what is wrong with people on this forum? He is the child’s father. FATHER. He wants to care for her in his country with those traditions he holds dear.
I agree with the individual who stated that we are all children of God. Growing up, I was not taught that God’s grace extended only to the geographical limits of the United States. Simply stated, Madonna, guided by the laws of country and human decency, should adopt Mercy James to join her family of diversity. And those who are concerned that Madonna embrace a more limited perspective on whom she helps should be sure they check all the labels on their food, clothes, appliances, televisions, iphones to guarantee that all their dollars are kept inside our borders.
Would that we could eliminate all the hardships of children…..God does not care where we start but rather that we start.
Peace and grace
I think those who support Madonna’s proposed adoption have to consider the wider picture. Could a 50 year old twice divorced woman with 3 children fly into the States on the Saturday and fly out the following weekend with an American child? Would the authorities or public stand for it? Probably not.
Yet there’s this rather patronising idea attitude that wealthy westerners should be able to just waltz in to third world countries and not have to bother with little things like paperwork or assessments or laws.
That they’re ‘entitled’ to these children, simply because they have more money than the families, and they want them.
I don’t doubt that Madonna’s intentions were honourable, but if the Malawian authorities had let this one go through, it would’ve sent a very clear single to every paedophile, child trafficker and other unscrupulous individuals that all you need to obtain a child was the right amount of money.
There’s also a rather false choice that’s being offered here - life with Madonna or a life of starvation, when in fact there’s always been a third choice.
The child stays with her extended family, supported by charities, or the likes of Madonna, if she wishes to contribute to her welfare.
Yes, she won’t have Gucci teddy bears, or Versace outfits, but she’ll have something priceless, namely her family, a sense of belonging, and a connection with her culture.