RSS Feed MenuThe news that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston have canceled their engagement doesn’t come as very much of a surprise. The arrangement looked from the start like an election-season pretense. With the election decently behind us, the pretense can be dropped.
Now Bristol and her baby can recede into private life for the next 3 years or so. But as she goes, Republicans and conservatives need to think seriously about the lesson she has taught us – or more precisely, about the illusion she has punctured.
Many conservatives carry in their heads a mental image of American society that’s a generation out of date. They imagine the existence of a huge class of socially conservative downscale voters, ready to vote Republican because of abortion and gay marriage.
The story of Bristol Palin should help puncture this illusion.
Take a look at Table A17 in this report by the Educational Testing Service. Of children born to white women with a college degree, only 8% were born out of wedlock. But of children born to white women who did not finish college, 28% were born outside of marriage. Of children born to white women who stopped their education after high school, 42.1% were out of wedlock. And of births to white women like Bristol Palin, who have not completed high school, almost 61% were out of wedlock.
And all of these rates continue to rise at a brisk pace.
The numbers for Hispanic women are even starker. Of children born to Hispanic women with some college, 38.6% are born out of wedlock. Of children born to Hispanic women who stop at high school, 48.6% were born out of wedlock.
Black numbers higher still.
It may still be true, as Patrick Buchanan promises, that there remain many socially conservative voters who are “white, working- and middle-class, Catholic, small-town, rural, unionized, middle-age and seniors, and surviving on less than $50,000 a year.” But the key fact about those voters is tucked into the middle of that sequence of descriptors: “middle-aged and seniors.” Younger white downscale voters are a very different story. It is marriage that creates culturally conservative voters – and young downscale Americans are not getting married. When they do marry, they do not stay married: While divorce rates among the college educated have declined sharply since the 1970s, divorce rates among high school graduates remain ominously high.
The socially conservative downscale voter is increasingly becoming a mirage – and a Republican politics based on that mirage will only lead us deeper into the desert.
midcon // Mar 14, 2009 at 3:23 pm
petty boozshwa: Here is something you probably don’t expect because most conservatives seem to be binary thinkers —– Yes, it is at least conceviable that Powell honestly believed what he reported. I continue to hope that was the case because I cannot believe a princpled person such as he compromised his principles. I have yet see him say much about that and eagerly await an explanation. Yeah,it’s conceviable. Added point: While Saddam was able to cause much mischief, the embargo put significant constraints in his ability to produce any chemical, biological, or radiological WMDs. While there may have been some potential (and therefore some risk), WMDs were, at best, a collateral reason for the invasion.
petty boozshwa // Mar 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm
midcon – thank you for your clarification. I too abhor binary thinkers, but I’d like to point out that your original statement referred to Powell’s “compromising his principles in selling the WMD story” – pretty black and white [binary?] to me. BTW Powell has apologized for that presentation [wrongly, in my opinion] calling it a permanent stain on his record.
danbmil99 // Mar 14, 2009 at 8:41 pm
re WMD fiasco — I am no Bush/Cheney fan, and it seems clear that intelligence was cherrypicked at best. However, I think everyone has sort of forgotten how hard Saddam tried to convince people he really had ‘em. There were folks in the Baath party who were surprised that the Americans didn’t find them. I give Powell the benefit of the doubt. I believe he had reservations, but decided as a team player to go with the consensus viewpoint. One look at his face today tells you he’s a man of honor who feels pretty bad about how things turned out. That’s the sort of person I want in government. It’s one thing to make a mistake; it’s another to just brush it aside and pretend it never happened.
midcon // Mar 15, 2009 at 5:46 am
Hey guys, don’t get me wrong. I like Powell. I voted for him twice (I’m an independent remember?)! I have very high standards, but Powell could easily get back on the list. And no I don’t think it is binary thinking. My world view is shades of grey and I can and do change my mind. I just haven’t yet. And yes, his comment about that period being a stain on his record is somewhat of a mea culpa. What would it take for me about him? I think I want to know why he made those choses. Anyway, enough about Powell. The problem we face today is that there is far too few people on my list.
sinz54 // Mar 15, 2009 at 7:00 am
I certainly do NOT consider myself a “binary thinker.” My background is engineering, where we often don’t have perfect or ideal solutions, and messy tradeoffs and compromises must be made. On today’s political issues, I also try to learn from history. History often shows how a seemingly good idea can go awry, or with the passage of time harden into rigid dogma–and obsolescence. It’s for that reason that I part company with conservatives who think that the answer to today’s problems is just to do everything Reagan did, all over again. Times change. That’s something I always try to keep in mind.
midcon // Mar 15, 2009 at 10:55 am
sinz54: That’s good point. I’ve noticed that there are many adocates for a return to the Good Old Days (the Reagon era). To many folks, nothing has been right since then. The second good point you made is that we are learning organisms that apply lessons learned to future situations. Other mammals do that as well, but we are supposed to do it better than others! 2 good points in one post!
Fitz // Mar 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Chesterton explains the seeming paradox that people who don’t see the use of a social institution should not be allowed to reform it. Here’s the quote:
The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, chap. 4 (1929).
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” “”
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
Tom B // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:27 am
Midcon, in the case of Powell and WMDs the report generated in June of 08 by the Senate Select Committee of Intelligence had some interesting conclusions.
The first three conclusions, regarding nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, stated that the available intelligence and the majority of agencies thought Iraq was producing, and aquiring addtional supplies. Hindsight is 20/20. Powell went with the information that was available and deemed correct at the time.
But which is even stranger is the long and disjointed direction this thread has taken to get from Bristol Palin to Colin Powell.
rightsusan // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:47 am
America’s preoccupation with “race” is confusing to most of the democratic world. The inherent meaning of “racism” is that one recognizes humanity as comprising numerous races. The hatred problem is additional and borne of fear and zenophobia. The mere fact that metrics which divide the various ethnic groups (not races) into separate groups means the very idea that humanity is more than a single race — which it most certainly is not — can never be purged from the common American phyche and will forever provide a platform for narrow minds to build barriers between “us” and “them”.
Very sad.
rightsusan // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:50 am
‘meant to say, “The mere fact that metrics *exist* which divide…”
sinz54 // Mar 16, 2009 at 7:02 am
loneislander claims: “America’s preoccupation with race is confusing to most of the democratic world. ” Ask the Muslim immigrants in Europe if they think Europe doesn’t have a race problem. The Muslim immigrants in Europe, especially in France, are more segregated from the native Europeans than anything we currently have in America. We’ve got a black President. In any of the European nations, could a Muslim become prime minister?
Fitz // Mar 16, 2009 at 7:57 am
This topic does not directly implicate race, europe, or WMD. It is about SoCo, out of wedlock childbearing and the conservative movement.
rightsusan // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:20 am
Fair comment sinz54 about Muslims in Europe — nevertheless those same European nations are not twisting themselves into knots over the question of race. But if it’s fair to ask if a Muslim could become prime minister then it’s fair to ask if a Muslim could become president of the US. During the election the GOP was full of people (limBaugh included) who were hurling “muslim’ as a character flaw of Obama. I will say this though, if America ever does elect a Muslim it will be from the GOP because if the Dems ever nominated one the GOP would engage in a fear campaign like never before — and it’s worth keeping in mind that 43 wouldn’t have won his second term if it wasn’t for the politics of fear and the screeching of people like Baugh and Coulter.
Rhampton // Mar 16, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Fitz — You regard Chesterton’s ideals of good governance as being more important than Jefferson’s or Maidson’s ideals. And it’s not just you. Many self-professed Social Conservatives seem infatuated with English conservativism from the likes of C. S. Lewis and Edmund Burke. So why is that socons such as yourself — who often claim the patriotic high-ground — are actually modern day Torries?
sinz54 // Mar 16, 2009 at 3:30 pm
loneislander: Polls show that more Americans would vote for a Muslim for President, than would vote for a Mormon. And more Americans would vote for a Mormon than would vote for an atheist. Evidently, to most Americans, believing in Allah is still better than believing in nothing.
Fitz // Mar 16, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Rhampton
#1. infatuated? Seems a bit presumptuous and rude.
#2. I cant answer your question because I dont know anything substantive about “English conservatism” or Tories.
#3. I quoted Chesterton as a direct rebuke to multiple posters who seem oblivious to the massive social changes wrought by the sexual revolution. On that point, I think the quote was very much on point.
Rhampton // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Fitz — You have read G.K. Chesterton and you argue for traditionalism yet you’re unfamiliar with Edmund Burke, C.S. Lewis, Russell Kirk? That sounds very unlikely. It’s not a secret that Social Conservatives are essential Burkean ((see “Is everyone Burkean now?” by Dale Carpenter, May 5, 2008 @ The Volokh Conspiracy)) so I don’t see the reason for your objection — Now, as to your point about the sexual revolution. So what? A true conservative realizes that individuals freely chose that path. So the only proper response is to fight it out in the free market of ideas. And I’m sure you know that Conservatives do not like to regulate the Invisible Hand of the marketplace. Thus a Conservatism based on the American/Constitutional ideal protects the free choices of a free people. It’s not your place to choose for them, unless you want a Nanny State.
Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:25 am
Rhampton – I dont know were to begin due to all these assumptions. (Quoting dale carpenter??????) Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the great conservative insight is that its all culture and the great liberal insight is that the law can change culture, and save it from itself. My point was to allow the people to preserve their culture as they see fit.
Rhampton // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:14 am
The people do not have a right to regulate minorities because that would infringe upon the fundamental Right of Conscience. James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” written in 1785 (as support for Thomas Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom) explains why — (6) Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them… (8) …Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another. (13) Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society…
Rhampton // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:45 am
Playing dumb only weakens your argument for social conservatism & traditionalism because it implies that you want to distance yourself from Burke and the modern American Tories — SEE: (1) “Conservatives and Creeds” by Yuval Levin, NRO; (2) “Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives find Common Ground?” by Hunter Baker, Acton Institute; (3) “Sandbagging Burke” by Rod Dreher, Beliefnet; (4) “What Conservatism Means” by Owen Harries, The American Conservative; (5) “American conservatism: still not dead” by Geoff Robinson, Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (6) “The Roots of Modern Conservative Thought from Burke to Kirk” by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., The Heritage Foundation — SEE ALSO The Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal http://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org
Fitz // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Rhampton – thanks for the primer on Burke. I’m just here to defend marriage in law, culture, & amongst conservatives and the Republican Party. I find myself to be in good stead. Abstract appeals to a philosophical divide that has never been adequately drawn to anyones satisfaction throughout history are not enough to make me abandon my position. I consider my position on marriage to be mere superior public policy. It is authentically conservative & libertarian. As to ones conscience broad historical references are exactly that. They can cut either way. Most public policy ultimately rests on conscience. Reference to it no more requires me to abandon my position on marriage than it requires me to abandon my position on theft
Ouroboros // Mar 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm
You know what this means, right? Free quality education and healthcare for everyone = less children born out of wedlock. It’s hilarious that people are still talking about Burke. Burke is the nervous monkey, terrified of leaping from a branch or sharing his food with other monkeys. Everything he ever said flows from this. It is impossible for me to read the writings of Edmund Burke and not feel bad for how frightened he was of allowing the plebes one inch further towards stealing his daddy’s money.
dj spellchecka // Mar 19, 2009 at 10:18 am
i’m afraid mr frum’s confused….marriage does not create culturally conservative voters…church-going does…just because lots of white girls from working class families in red states are having kids out of wedlock, not getting married or getting divorced doesn’t mean those places will be flipping to blue anytime soon or that those woman as suddenly not culturlly conservative..the flip side is that the more educated unmarried practice birth control at much higher rates, wait longer to marry and divorce less…and studying 08 exit-polls, you find the more educated, outside of the south [and utah], have moved into the democratic column…..that’s the real whammy….