The 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Many conservatives carry in their heads a mental image of American society that’s a generation out of date.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.
123 responses so far
1 Tom B // Mar 12, 2009 at 12:59 pm
You use the statistics of women who give birth out of wedlock as a relationship to conservatism. They probably wont vote Republican and more than likely wont vote at all. To get them to vote Republican we should what? Provide some sort of govern cradle to grave program. I dont get your point.
If it was me I would state that the values shown by any young person to choose life and responsibility over killing their child as commendable. Just me, could have this whole conservatism thing backwards.
2 Fitz // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:24 pm
David Frum uses the specter of family decline to bolster the case that we should abandon what is best for the lower and under class. It is the very numbers that he highlights that show the moral (not electoral) necessity of maintaining a strong marriage culture. Family fragmentation is a national issue. But wealthy elites (like Frum) enjoy the remnants of a culture that holds as (mere) convention intact married childbearing. To reserve unto the upper classes the immense social & economic benefits of proper family formation is bad politics, bad law, bad public policy & a strikingly amoral stance to take. African American opposition to same-sex marriage reveals that even a shattered marriage culture intuitively understands the importance of proper family formation even as it suffers under the yolk an immoral upper class disregard for their fortunes in life. (To illustrate my point no more succinct and accurate quote than this exists) “Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.” Walter Fauntroy- Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC
3 Captain America // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:40 pm
springy….I think the message that David is trying to convey is that Republlicans need to understand exactly who the electorate is in 2009. He wasn’t saying that all of this illegitimacy is good. Changing that is a different matter entirely
4 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The best lesson from Bristol was when she said that abstinence only sex education is not “realistic”. To me, it is not a question of upscale or downscale voters anymore. It is about the fact that social issues are not electoral winners and the sooner the GOP recognizes that the better. Obama won a majority of Catholics despite his stance on abortion. Blacks and Latinos voted heavily for Proposition 8, yet supported Democrats overwhelmingly. If we want to expand the party, we need to push social issues to the back burner.
5 Captain America // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:46 pm
you too fitz
6 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:47 pm
OT. Today I heard the best discussion about the direction of the GOP. Here is the link: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/12/the-ed-morrissey-show-whither-the-gop/ . Just click and play the show. This is the sort of discussion I expected from New Majority instead of all the Rush silliness.
7 A.B. // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:58 pm
(DF)”Many conservatives carry in their heads a mental image of American society thats a generation out of date.” The disappointing thing to me is how difficult it is to get folks to respond directly to this criticism. I am reminded of Lord Kelvin: “To measure is to know.” I’m not exactly sure why demographics is considered by so many to be an irrelevancy, and, frankly, I’m not altogether certain that I want to comprehend this…fault.
8 Captain America // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Chekote…Big Mistake sir – I think the purpose of this website and the goal for Frum (and Steele for that matter) is to expand the party. Not gut it. The modulations that need to be made are not in substance, but in rhetoric, tone, and “packaging” if you will. Blacks and Latinos vote largely for what they percieve to be a party that “cares” about them, and perception is reality. Obama – a hard left candidate – won the Presidency because he was well packaged, not because he surrendered any of his core beliefs. With the right message, candidate, and tone we will win again without abandoning first principles just as the Democrats did. Only our ideas would actually work and be healthy for the nation.
9 talldude // Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 pm
The Pat Buchanan article mentioned that half of the Hillary voters in Indiana and North Carolina said they would stay home or vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee.
That didn’t exactly happen….did it?
10 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Captain. Social issues are not electoral winners. They need to be left to the states. That should be the position of the national GOP Platform.
11 Fitz // Mar 12, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Chekote (writes) Social issues are not electoral winners. They need to be left to the states. That should be the position of the national GOP Platform. #1. Depends on the “social issue” #2. The democrats and the courts dont agree..so even if we did they would not…and will come before the nation as a whole (through SCOTUS) that is the history of the last 40 years.
12 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“The disappointing thing to me is how difficult it is to get folks to respond directly to this criticism.” Respond in what way? It is true.
13 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:11 pm
BTW, what was Rush’s take on this one? I amsure he came up with all sorts of rationalizations, if he addressed it at all. Now, if it were some other situation, say an Obama relative, I suspect he would have taken up an entire show gleefully bloviating on the perils of “socialism”and the nanny state and welfare ad nauseum.
14 Oneon1isto // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Fitz: I may be inadvertently showing my dirty libertarian/liberal side here, but how does broadening and extending marriage to a fairly large section of the electorate (who want to build a family, and let’s be frank, “family” is an elastic and broad term, every family is different) become the last step towards privatizing and destroying marriage? I know you’re quoting someone, but it’s never been explained, ever, the correlation or causation between homosexuality and the decline of the family. For starters, one began waaaaay before the other was ever considered mainstream…as two Frum’s general point, I’m not sure what to make of it. I usually can get his point pretty quickly–this time it’s a little obtuse. Perhaps he’s saying that a large swathe of voters don’t necessarily fall into the specific moralistic category that social conservative policies tend to focus on? If you recognize your electorate needs more than just old school social values, perhaps it’s a step in the right direction? I’m grasping here, I know.
15 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:18 pm
owl. Why don’t you listen to Rush himself instead of forming opinions based on what others say. Rush is not big on social issues. He is pro-life but his top issues are economic, size of the federal government. You keep confusing Rush with Dobson, Perkins. They are not the same.
16 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I’ve tried to listen to Rush. Can’t make more than 5 minutes before I feel a rumbling in my stomach.
17 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I’ve also tried to listen to Air America, when it was on the air here in Phoenix, and had the same reaction.
18 Oneon1isto // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Fair and balanced listening, owl! Dude, why’d you bring up Rush anyway? You just derailed the thread, thanks.
19 Oneon1isto // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Because guarantee you I’ll check back here in a day, and the topic about pregnancy rates will have twisted itself into whether or not Rush is the right man to lead the party into the face of a growing socialist monster. And I’ll chuckle to myself, and go read Douthat or Cowen or something interesting.
20 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Fair and balanced listening avoidance, I would say. The thread will rerail soon when the thread rerails. But in a political context, this is a big story, since it goes to the heart of one of the social issues near and dear to the right wing. And while Chekote is correct about the social issues and their electoral importance, it’s not going to happen since it is the social issues, in part, that keeps the far right united.
21 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:34 pm
And I daresay, this is an issue which Gov Palin will have to deal with in 2012.
22 Go Dog Go! // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:42 pm
This is an issue that no longer has any business being in the GOP platform. Passing judgment or advocating one lifestyle or another is political mud as the nation moves on. If there is any lesson to be learned, it’s that abstinence is an ideological pipe dream and pragmatism must return to the fore of policy. Social issues are wedge issues at best and, given the attitudinal shifts of late, it will only divide the GOP. To benefit from modern demography, the party should be more supportive of single mothers (through kitchen table issues) rather than sit in judgement of them.
23 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:49 pm
It is an issue which will haunt the GOP platform on a regular basis.
24 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Here is in Arizona, a right wing Shangri-la (for now), the legislature is busy taking a meat axe to the budget, and day care is on the chopping block. Of course, those single mothers who rely on day care to keep their jobs are now on their way to welfare. Such is the support of the GOP for single mothers.
25 Go Dog Go! // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:57 pm
That is the trouble with GOP’s position toward single-motherhood: Day-care programs are seen as hand-outs or pork rather the necessary means of helping get moms to work. Realism and empathy are sorely lacking from the party’s positions here.
26 HollywoodBill // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:58 pm
LIke it or not, unfairly or not, any First Families or First Family Wannabes are looked up to as examples. The Palins give the Carter a run for their money. How many Americans look for a knocked up 18 year old high school dropout and her high school dropout fiance as the example or role model. Add this to a rapidly falling star. Palin had a fairly remote chance for 2012 and this is just more fodder for the late night tv comedians. As if they needed more with that crew from Wasilla. Sarah Palin wasi100% unacceptable as a national candidate as it was. This is just more icing on the cake.
27 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I’m rooting for Sarah.
28 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“I’ve tried to listen to Rush. Can’t make more than 5 minutes before I feel a rumbling in my stomach.” Take some Pepto or stay away from spicy food before you start listening. First of all, keep in mind that it is satire. When Rush talks about being 99.9% right, he is mocking the persona that the MSM have created of him. For example, during the CPAC speech Rush refer to it as his “first address to the nation”. Frum and others took him to mean that he was elevating himself to the same level as Obama. Actually, he was mocking those who were puttin Rush and Obama at the same level. Now Bill O’Reilly is another question. He truly believes his own press.
29 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“Day-care programs are seen as hand-outs or pork rather the necessary means of helping get moms to work. ” It is not my responsibility to foot the bill of other people’s mistakes. I can barely pay for my own mistakes. I don’t mind helping people if I want to. But I despise a government that will force me to help people I feel are underserving. I feel the same way about corporate welfare, bailouts of firms.
30 ChristianMiller // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Gossip as a way to talk about demographics how… sophisticated.
31 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:08 pm
HBill. Palin has just too much baggage. Her life is a Roseanne episode.
32 HollywoodBill // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:10 pm
So owl, AZ promises to have one of the more interesting guberntorial races in 2010. Republican Jan Brewer is from the snake handling wing of the GOP and AZ has historically not elected so cons to any statewide positions. As long as the thread is being hijacked, why not give us the inside story on the gubernatorial race status?
33 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, ad nauseum pick your person. There are any number of folks out there who take their talking points as gospel, which in and of itself tells you something about the American electorate. Oh, and Chekote, I live in Arizona and the Mexican food here can be sublime.
34 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:17 pm
At the Corner, J-LO respond to a Erbe column basically saying the abstinence only does not work and making the case that birth control was in order for Bristol and Levi. Erbe wrote “They looked like what they were: two sexually active teens who happened to hook up but had nothing beyond that in common.” J-LO responds: “How about: From where I sit, its a bloody shame that we dont expect more of teenagers? Just happening to hook up is not cool. It suggests a lack of respect for oneself and ones . . . hookee.” Hello J-LO having sex does not mean you have a lack of self-respect. It is this constant refusal to acknowledge the sexual revolution that makes so many SoCons so out of step with society. On this Frum is right.
35 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Jan Brewer is a Republican from the more moderate wing of the party, and is having her own problems with the GOP legislature. I suspect that in some circles she is being labled a RINO. And you are correct, AZ will have an interesting gubenatorial race in 2010. Right now it is too early to tell because things have not shaken out yet, but Terry Goddard, the AG, has his eye on the office, so the question is will Brewer give him something to run on.
36 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, ad nauseum pick your person.” You are making a mistake on Rush. Hannity is a hack that learns a couple of points and repeats them ad nauseum. Coulter is a bombthrower. That is her schtik. O’Reilly is a egomanic blowhard. Rush is satire.
37 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:19 pm
OMG, I agree with Chekote’s last post.
38 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“But I despise a government that will force me to help people I feel are underserving.” So, who is on the A-list and who is underserving?
39 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Correction, I agree with Chekote’s second to last post.
40 sinz54 // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Here’s the issue in a nutshell: Can an unwed mother call herself a conservative, if she’s trying to start her own business, wants low taxes, wants a strong national defense, and all the other things that Reagan ran on successfully? Or does the fact that she gave birth to a child out of wedlock make her not “worthy” of calling herself a conservative, as the folks on Redstate.com would say? Single moms represent (along with Hispanics) one of the fastest-growing voting blocs in America. Do we welcome them if they agree with the economic and defense parts of conservatism–or shame them and tell them to go to the Democrats, that alleged party of godless iniquity?
41 sinz54 // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Chekote: Since in America, our Government doesn’t allow anyone to starve in the streets nor allows any babies to go hungry, you WILL be “footing the responsibility for others’ mistakes” one way or the other. Either your tax dollars will go to the single mom’s day care, or your tax dollars will go to the single mom’s welfare checks, WIC certificates, and food stamps. Day care, at least, enables the mom to hold a steady job, pay taxes, and grasp a work ethic.
42 dragonlady // Mar 12, 2009 at 5:39 pm
sinz54, I don’t think the socons would call Bristol Palin “unworthy” just because she is an unwed mom. On the contrary, they greeted her situation with understanding that these things happen in life. It was the Left that went nuts and tried to paint Sarah Palin as a moral hypocrite. Of course an unwed mom can be conservative, but that doesn’t mean we should remain ambivalent towards marriage itself. I think the GOP can be pro-family, pro-marriage, and pro-children, too, the latter part which should be attractive to single moms.
43 Fitz // Mar 12, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Oneon1isto (ASKS) its never been explained, ever, the correlation or causation between homosexuality and the decline of the family. ..Thats because there is none.Same-sex marriage locks in and reinforces the negative trends of family breakdown in a pretty clear and obvious way. If you want to understand that in fuller and better way than you need to search out the facts.. http://defendmarriageresources.blogspot.com/
44 dragonlady // Mar 12, 2009 at 5:51 pm
sinz54, I do not have a problem with a HELP UP for anyone who has fallen on hard times, including single moms. Anyone of us can find ourselves in a situation where we’ve economically hit rock bottom. But I oppose continual HANDOUTS that subsize other people’s lifestyles. Look at Dem Sen Moynihan comments about the effect of welfare on the black family. I believe the GOP should distinguish between altrusitic redistribution where we recognize some of our tax $ will temporarily give you a hand up, versus the Democratic idea of permanently redistributing income that gives people no incentive to change their lifestyle. We should be understanding of single moms, but we should not encourage women in general to raise children without fathers.
45 petty boozshwa // Mar 12, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Bristol and Levi’s parents should be on the hook for reimbursement of all social service resources required to raise this child. School’s should have a public health nurse that examines and dispenses mandatory Norplant to all sexually active girls. One of the benefits of E-verify and national ID card programs is that it will facilitate a crackdown on child support deadbeats, we need to make fathering a child a more thought provoking issue to young men. And finally, we should confiscate FICA withholding as a fine for burdening society with a single parented child. All contributions above minimum wage should be taken and the parents should be required to wait until age 72 to retire.
46 E=mc2 // Mar 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm
DF: too bad you had to go shine the light on a former candidate’s daughter and and what I consider another tragedy of teenage pregnancy followed by a shattered relationship. I’m disappointed that you jumped on that story to leverage voter demographic discussions and take a cheap shot at a former candidate and worse of all, her daughter. That’s regardless how you view them trotting the family out during the last election. I am not a staunch Palin supporter or party line type, but, I am of the opinion that we should be focusing on the candidate. Leave the children out of it. Furthermore, things like this happen in all kinds of families and demographics. How would you like it if the MSM investigated you like they did to the Palins? Perhaps they would find some dirt on you or your family members and start a smear campaign? People of all walks do things they would later regret everyday. You would be really ticked if it was your son or daughter in the crosshairs. Don’t think it can’t happen to you, too. If you have a beef with Sarah Palin, go debate her. Ask her or the RNC if it was an election-season pretense. Leave her kids out of it. I’m very disappointed that you think there is a lesson to be learned or illusion punctured. You are simply making hay out of someone else’s poor decision that doesn’t have a horse in the race. Pretty sad you pick a fight with a young lady in a tough spot. Very sad deal all the way around, indeed.
47 A. Wilson // Mar 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm
The only thing that makes sense to me about his column by Frum is that once again — he’s latching himself onto others’ public ridicule/embarrassment to try to promote himself. ……. Frum came out and TRASHED Palin after she was introduced, then voted for her, (???) and now blames Rush for everything. …… I’m getting seasick. …… Pardon me, but more than any GOP candidate in recent memory, Ms. Palin demonstrated perfectly to the country how one can have basic conservative free-market values, be religious but not preachy and pushy, be imperfect, make the best of it, and on top of that do a great job of governing in a bipartisan way. Isn’t that exactly the type of “image” David would have our candidates put forth to appeal to this “new constituency”? Why in the world couldn’t he have recognized early on that these qualities, even minus some technical policy knowledge, were vastly superior to the kind of arrogant freedom-squelching behavior any idiot would know to expect from an Obama-Biden combo? …… And what in the world business does he have assigning motives and pretenses to the young couple during the campaign? My goodness, for all the ugly behavior he accuses others of, his rather arrogant and judgmental attitude is making theirs appear downright angelic.
48 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“So, who is on the A-list and who is underserving?” Let’s start with GM that ran its company into the ground because they were too gutless to stand up to unions. Second, the people who falsified their mortgage application so that they could get a more expensive house. Helping these types of people or companies only encourages bad behavior.
49 choccity2005 // Mar 12, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Conservatives should be talking about lowering electricity bills,lowering the cost of heathcare,the cost of education(school clothes)and quality(vouchers).Lowering the cost of daycare for all americans,The burden of college tuition for 5 years,lowering property taxes…..making life better for the average american.that should be the conservative message.that will win us elections……these proposals are all open for debate.
50 choccity2005 // Mar 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Competition.Education….give every student every year $10,000….The equivalent to what we spend on education.If a parent wants to home school,catholic or perochial,charter,private, or public…..Competition.If A student doesn’t want to go to school then after a period of time he or she loses thier 10,000 for that year.Some kids will fail,that’s just the way it is.Competition is the reason your cell phone 20 years ago was exclusively for the rich.it was big,bulky and expensive.Now it fits in your palm,the plans are incredibly cheap and innovation and technology has lead the reception and services to be increasingly better.This is what needs to be done with healthcare,education and most importantly energy.
51 choccity2005 // Mar 12, 2009 at 9:08 pm
School uniforms for every student in a public school….vouchers to parents.Think about a community i’m creating……No more i pay tax and you don’t.No more i pay for you and you don’t pay for me.No more pimps,No more despicable neighborhoods,no more illegals…..convicts would know when they went to jail they had to work thier butts off…welfare people would have to work thier butts off,playtime is over…….Parents would save thousands of dollars a year not buying school clothes that come from china anyway.Property taxes lowered.healthcare lowered due to electronic charts,Cap medical judgements to $300,000.(trial lawyers hate that),allow people to buy insurance from all over america and buy prescriptions from canada and other countries.These four things alone(cap judgements,decrease ill immigrants,allow purchase of drugs from all over,allow purchasing insurance from any state)would decrease healthcare by 50-60 percent.Cut every government program by 20 percent.Get rid of the department of homeland security.the money people would save in healthcare,property taxes,daycare,school clothes,insurance…..and finally energy.i loved mccain’s idea of drilling off the coasts,doing nuclear,building refinieries,solar,wid,geo thermal,biodiesel….DO IT ALL!!!
52 choccity2005 // Mar 12, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Again…..david frum hits it on the head.He hits it on the head with the reason i became a conservative…..FACTS.You see facts can’t be debated,facts can’t be unproven….facts and statistics are just that….facts and statistics.The republican party,the conservative movement is DYING…Why?b/c we are stuck in 1980s rhetoric.OK we are the pro-life party,but what help is there,what plan is there once the young girl has the child???What do we tell them….self reliance,responsibility….TAX CUTS?When libs and dems offer free healthcare,freewelfare and free everything.What do we offer?To win this debate….you must use facts,you must show facts and statistics.We must include condoms,birth control and especially abstinence…but not solely abstinence.As bristol palin stated…abstinence alone will not work.We must Show them……That they are not less b/c they are unwed but we must produce policies that benefit married couples.Double…triple the tax benefits for married people.Offer free marriage counseling to whoever needs it(hence the higher taxes)Defer college debt for 5 years after graduates finish school.Come up with a comprehensive plan for social security……raise the age to 70 for anyone 35 or younger.Increase the tax 10 percent on everything(yes a conservative said raise taxes) but we cut,cutCUT spending.Anyone who acts like we don’t need any taxes are idiots,so increase taxes but cut spending.I am willing to pay taxes,more taxes if i knew spending would get cut.Democrats will never cut spending…They never will…that’s where we can win the argument.Why are prisoners not used for cleaning up the streets,highways,painting houses,building parks…I mean if i was a mayor or governor you have thousands of convicts in jail and they get 3 meals and a cot.There shouldn’t be a neighborhood in america that is filthy or run down or defilled.The graffitti they put up they should scrub and paint.They should be used as sanitation,picking up trash or whatever.People on welfare should have the same done to them…if we are going to pay for your room and board the streets,buildings and parks should be immaculate.All those jobs filled by state employees should be cut.Do you know how much money that would save a state or city?.Conservatives should have ideas like that.They should then use that extra income to lower property taxes for homeowners and buisnesses. All employers in thier communities would have to verify every employee on a government system that verifies SS numbers.Then a 100,000 dollar tax penalty will be given to any employer who has an illegal working for them.You kill the ill. immigrant debate that day.You also give tax breaks to companies who have a record of hiring legal citizens.With millions of people on welfare……thousands of prisoners in prison ,yet illegals are picking fruits/vegetables or whatever they do.WHy can’t the prisoners and people on welfare do those same things for the debt to thier communities that need to be paid(prisoners)plus thier 3 meals and a cot.These should be conservative solutions…..We should offer daycare for free to all citizens.(well not for free …hence the increase in taxes.)that’s the only thing that we as conservatives should offer for free so to speak.that way we get rid of illegals,we lower medicaid from thier departure,we get work out of people on welfare and we get work and debts paid out of inmates.i would also legalize marijuana and prostitution…but only in specific areas where it can be regulated and taxed and it can be kept away from children.What we have now is an underbelly of corruption everywhere,law enforcement stretched,kids being birthed out of wedlock into hellish homes.With universal daycare…kids can be monitored for abuse,they can be monitored for trouble.Addicts must work….everyone must work……we all pay a tax.
53 ireign // Mar 12, 2009 at 9:12 pm
The beginning of your story is really unfair. You have no way of knowing whether the engagement was a pr stunt or a sincere love. Moreover, it is a 18 year old’s private life.
Moreover, you provide little to no evidence that these single younger mothers may not be conservative b/c of social issues. You may be right but you provide no evidence to support your contention.
A better story would have weighed the pros and cons of replacing Michael Steele as GOP chairman.
54 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 9:36 pm
“Since in America, our Government doesn’t allow anyone to starve in the streets nor allows any babies to go hungry, you WILL be “footing the responsibility for others’ mistakes” one way or the other.” Whatever happened to families helping each other? What about churches or other religious institutions? All the non-profits out there. Instead of building new tennis courts or new arenas for the church membership, why not use the money to provide free child care or other social services? How about passing a regulation whereby 90% of a non-profit has to go to charitable work?
55 Chekote // Mar 12, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Bristol and Levi looked completely uncomfortable when they were together, I knew something was up when Bristol appeared on Greta by herself. I just don’t know what thel McCain was thinking when he selected Palin. So much family drama. Pregnant teenage daughter. The sister’s nasty divorce which led to the Troopergate investigation. Palin herself just had a baby with special needs. It was a freakin’ soap opera.
56 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 10:44 pm
There are cynics who would suggest that McCain picked Palin for one reason and one reason only. And I will leave that to your imagination. However, McCain himself has admitted to making knee jerk decisions. I would also suggest that Palin did one thing, and that was shore up McCain’s right flank. The most laughable reason, argued in the local blogs around here, in Arizona, was that she had the executive experience, as the ex-mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and 2 years as the Gov, that Obama sorely lacked. Of course, she may have been concerned about the Russian occupation of Atlanta.
57 owl // Mar 12, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Oh, and Chekote, most people I know knew something was up the minute her pregnancy became public knowledge and his MySpace profile was deleted.
58 danbmil99 // Mar 12, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Fitz: “Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution:” Puhleeze. You know nothing of g-ay marriage. Newsflash: why do g-ays get married? TO RAISE CHILDREN. Generally, the children they raise aren’t the first picks for adoptive parents, so they tend to be children who were unwanted, neglected… they come into a loving home and have a future their brothers and sisters in foster care could never dream of. To all the so-cons out there: get out a little. Find out something about the culture you bash and bash. Open your eyes a bit. Start living up to your self-avowed Christian principles. Stop hating just because it makes you feel good.
59 Churl // Mar 13, 2009 at 1:10 am
What, exactly, is Frum’s posting is supposed to teach us, other than tha Frum will take any opportunity to slag Sarah Palin?
60 ChristianMiller // Mar 13, 2009 at 4:44 am
Unlike those talk radio hosts David is pure class. This is important information for the New Majority to address. Well, I’m off to read the National Enquirer now, I heard one of the Spears’ girls is pregnant, and the father is supposed to be Rudy Guiliani’s third cousin…breaking…
61 Cforchange // Mar 13, 2009 at 5:15 am
Why I believe David is pointing out that the socon focus creates a natural hypocrisy and narrow appeal. I will add that this also greatly contributes to the totally unfriendly press environment where the MSM hunts down the GOP in search of personal failure while the Democarats who appear to possess the “cheater” gene naturally have to practically be subject to a fed investigation before it becomes newsworthy. Because we’ve platformed morality, we eat it. The irony is that Democrat’s attract women while also attracting candidates that aren’t very true to them. So I conclude that women will side with policies that help them instead of the gamble of a slimey mate.
62 midcon // Mar 13, 2009 at 5:58 am
Churl: Read Frum’s article carefully. He wasn’t “slag”ging Palin, he was slagging socons and the morality platform that continues to get the GOP in trouble. Not sure if I am using the term “slag” correctly. Its UK slang so I am not familiar with it.
63 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 6:44 am
Chekote: I keep having to remind people like you that conservatives are NOT libertarians, and conservatives are NOT reactionaries. A conservative doesn’t want to return to that supposed “Golden Age” of the 19th century, when there was no safety net whatsoever, and anyone down on their luck had to depend on an extended family to support them, or else be out on the streets in abject poverty along with their hungry kids. We did the soup kitchens thing for too long. I’m of the last generation whose parents still remember the Great Depression, when before FDR’s programs got instituted the safety net was minimal. As my mom told me, back then, the main institution that helped the poor in New York City (before the New Deal kicked in) was the Communist Party USA. They brought baskets of food, argued with the landlord–in exchange for political support. BTW, very few folks have extended families anymore.
64 mpolito // Mar 13, 2009 at 6:46 am
I’ll tell you why this does not bother me, as a social conservative myself. With most issues, two sides cannot agree on a common standard by which to judge the efficacy of different policies. Here, both the GOP and DNC agree that out-of-wedlock births are bad for society. Now, there are some far-left elements who would like to abolish marriage altogether, but they are shunned by most Democrats. For this reason, I feel that we can gain the political capital to reduce these births, and therefore have more cultural conservatives (since reducing the out-of-wedlock births will mean more people get married).
65 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 6:51 am
owl: Why does McCain’s reasons for choosing Palin have to be left up to imagination? There’s nothing sordid about it. When Obama captured the Dem nomination, there seemed to be a lot of disappointed moderate Dem women who had backed Hillary. McCain thought that he might be able to win over some of them, if his campaign presented a pro-female image. His first choices for running mate were Lieberman and Tom Ridge. Instantly the Right Wing Attack Machine jumped into action. Kathryn Jean Lopez (National Review) threatened a walkout of all the SoCons if either Lieberman or Ridge were chosen. McCain was stunned by the magnitude of the pushback. He had to come up with another name, and fast. So he looked around and found Sarah Palin. She was a quick fix. The Dems, concerned that Sarah Palin might appeal to Hillary’s moderate female supporters, instantly created their own propaganda campaign to define Sarah Palin as some kind of ultra-right-wing extremist (which she was not). But the propaganda campaign worked. After that, the only women that Palin could appeal to were GOP base women. And in the end, Hillary’s female supporters voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
66 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 6:58 am
E=mc2: FYI, Rush Limbaugh once said that when a young girl gets pregnant, that’s a reflection on the parents.
67 Chekote // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:17 am
sinz. Your approach has led to this entitlement mentality where people feel that they can do whatever they want because someone else is expected to pay for his/her mistakes. We should help those who CANNOT help themselves. But we need to discourage people who CAN help themselves from leeching off others.
68 Chekote // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:18 am
I agree with Rush on kids being a reflection of the parents. Apparently, the Palins did not do a good enough job to impress upon Bristol to use birth control if she decides to have sex.
69 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:31 am
Chekote: I grew up in New York City in the 1960s and 1970s, and saw firsthand how AFDC was turning the poor into economic zombies. I was a strong supporter of the Gingrich initiative on welfare reform in the 1990s, which then President Clinton signed into law. That said, my grandparents were poor when they immigrated to America. My parents were working-class stiffs too, kind of like Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Kramden. My dad was a union shop steward in a shoe factory, back when America still had shoe factories. I was born into poverty but worked my way out of it. I can still empathize with the plight of the working poor, because my family were like that. The GOP has to get out of this mindset that everybody who is poor somehow deserved to be poor–or that struggling against poverty is somehow a morally uplifting experience. It’s not. It’s hell.
70 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:45 am
petty boozshwa: The SoCons would walk out if the GOP advocated birth control for young people. Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review once stated that it’s not enough to use birth control as a way to prevent teenage pregnancy. She said that her SoCons don’t just want to reduce teenage pregnancy. They want to reduce teenage sex. To them, the real problem is that young Americans are having too much sex out of wedlock.
71 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 13, 2009 at 8:15 am
Republicans can scream that abortion is wrong all day long. Nothing happens. Republicans can say sex should only be between a man and a woman. Nothing happens. Nothing has changed in the last 10 years other than the Republican party has become smaller and smaller and smaller. When we draw a hard line in the sand? We have tripped over it and fallen flat on our “morals” that we think we have the right to impose on other free human beings…..I had a woman scream at another one that she was going to for having an abortion and then proceeded to slap her…..w was wrong here? In my opinion both……when we set ourselves up as God, we d a disservice to ourselves and to God. I have a feeling that God will do just as he said he would come judgement day, he alone Judges….not the ranting woman who resorted to violence and as for the woman who chose abortion? It’s NOT my place to judge her, it’s God’s. I can live my faith and vote my faith but it seems that so many right wing nutters seem to think they have the right to judge another human being and they just don’t. Only God has that right and until our party figures out that this stupidity in attempting to control other humans is total bull, our party will continue to grow smaller and smaller and then guess what? There will be no “sides” to take in this argument because we have become non relevent. Teen ages having sex? No going ot change it though we can do our best and I don’t think anyone has a problem with that, the problem is in the way we do it and the judgement we seem to think we have a right to impose. We don’t. When your judgement day comes? and it will come to all of us, then some might finally figure out that perhaps we should have left judgement to to the man upstairs.
72 Fitz // Mar 13, 2009 at 8:50 am
John McCain did not even mention the social issues in the last election. Either did Sarah Palin. People need to understand that to have a sexual revolution requires revolutionaries.
Be it Dan Qualyle’s eminently prophetic Murphy Brown Speech or Rick Santorums simply laying out the inextricable pull of legal rulings, or (even) Daniel Patrick Moynihan being savaged by his own party for the implication s of his now famous report on the black family The problem with social conservatism is not that it doesnt play in Peoria; Rather it is the fact that the left own sexual revolutionaries will mercilessly attack anyone w carries the message forth (like Sarah Palin & her family)
Get in the game kids. You cant have smaller government or lower taxes amongst social and family breakdown. We can talk about more effective ways to sell the SoCo message and especially ways to counter the sheer zealotry of the sexual radicals. Any discussion of social issues is almost pelessly nave when it fails to acknowledge the fearsome cultural left, entrenched in our universities & unwilling to support ANY sexual standard above consent + adults. You can abandon this timeless project of self control that has existed in every civilization everywhere. What you cant do isa not have the consequences. There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies – those born out of wedlock – to enter life disadvantaged.
73 Chekote // Mar 13, 2009 at 9:27 am
sinz. Why do you constantly fall for the false choices set up by the Left? I am tired of this unless you embrace our solutions then you must be anti-poverty programs, or anti-gay, and the list goes on. The point is that programs should be focused on helping those w CANNOT help themselves. Today, there is a sense of entitlement. I am entitled to have as many children I want and other must foot my bill or else you will be accused of being mean, judgemental, cruel. I am tired of this BS and so is the majority of Americans.
74 midcon // Mar 13, 2009 at 9:30 am
Yes Fitz, I believe that is correct. If you sell social conservatism because the bible tells us so it will fall on deaf ears. When you sell it because of the economic impact to society it might have a chance of gaining traction. Worrying about the hereafter is all well and good, but people are worried about keeping their job, paying their mortgage, putting food on the table and protecting their children. When you tell them they are going to or that God is punishing America, people just write you off.
75 Chekote // Mar 13, 2009 at 9:40 am
Want to stop irresponsible behavior? Tell people they will be held responsible for their actions.
76 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 9:41 am
Fitz: “You can abandon this timeless project of self control that has existed in every civilization everywhere.” Every civilization? Ancient India was perhaps as sexually open as modern Europe. They wrote the Kama Sutra, and pioneered Tantric Sex. In the Roman Empire, “adultery” was defined as an extramarital affair with a *free citizen*. Not with a slave. And in wealthy useholds that could afford slaves, husbands had sex with their female slaves, and wives had sex with their male slaves. Later, the Renaissance era was known for its sexual debauchery. And a check of the marital and birth records in Colonial New England reveals that one-third of wives gave birth to their first child within the first 5 months of marriage. The legal age of consent was 12 (!!!), and child prostitutes plied their trade in several large New England cities, just as they had been doing in Britain for many years. In short, it’s not like sex has been repressed for all the time humanity has been on earth until today. Rather, it varies over time, sometimes sexual permissiveness, sometimes sexual repression.
77 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 9:59 am
midcon: Whether kids have sex is their family’s responsibility; whether kids make babies can end up being society’s responsibility. There are reliable and relatively inexpensive means of preventing conception. These, NOT some peless attempt to get all young people to repress all their raging hormones, should be the first line of defense against unwanted pregnancy. That job is getting harder, as young people are getting married at later and later ages. The *average* age of first marriage today is around 35. It’s simply unreasonable to expect all young people to remain virgins till they’re 35. Indeed, there is scientific evidence that it may be unhealthy: Women w have never been pregnant are at a higher risk of breast cancer. And men who never ejaculate are at a higher risk of prostate cancer.
78 Fitz // Mar 13, 2009 at 10:02 am
sinz54 – Your romp through societies decided breaks with it owns mores simply reinforce my point. In order to contrast something with a standard (natural married childbearing & raising) you need to have a standard to begin with. Clearly this is a time of sexual permissiveness. In order to get the multiple benefits to society, men 7 woman & children we need to up the repression (as you say) I would characterize it differently I would say we need to reassert some elemental standards. This can be a political winner if presented well. The problem (one my post below addresses directly) is those considerable forces of sexual revolution. Those forces already seem dated and worn in rhetoric. That is why they patrol the line of orthodoxy with such zeal & ferocity (add Larry Summers to my list below). They have no positive vision for a better America. They only have libertine rhetoric that rings hallow & the ability to cry hypocrisy & puritan!!! at their detractors. If the Republican Party is to satiate its dominate social conservative base while expanding it ranks it will need to understand that reality with eyes open. On multiple fronts the republicans gain when the social left is seen as imposing its (lack of) morality on an unreceptive and unwilling nation.
79 midcon // Mar 13, 2009 at 10:56 am
sinz54: I did not intend for my post to give the impression that I am a social conservative. I was trying to ert an economic argument for social conservatism that is not based on religion. For instance in an underpopulated society, there would be little to no abortion because the society needed every life as labor to power the economy and as means to grow. That society would not be accepting of abortion just because the high priest said it woud anger the gods. It would be because each life has value to the society, without which the society withers and dies. Polygamy has an ecomonic consequence because one person is ill suited to ecomonically care for multiple wives and children and in many/most cases, the other wives were on welfare (my taxes at work). I don’t believe in forced sterilization but Octomom sure gets me wondering w society allows something like that to happen. So my social views tend to look at the societal benefit rather than imposing my values on someone else. Just didn’t want to give the wrong impression.
80 midcon // Mar 13, 2009 at 10:58 am
The filter is getting ridiculous: ert should have been
“a-s-s-ert” And all along I thought I just sucked at typing. OK, Frum this is your place fix it!
81 E=mc2 // Mar 13, 2009 at 11:59 am
sinz54: What has Limbaugh got to do with this deal? If you are going to quote him, at least give the us the time and date. Preferrably, the entire context, as well. Appears that you are on the “make Rush the boogeyman team” for any occasion. So, are you of the opinion if Rush says it, it must be true? Are you joining the ranks of the cheapshot artists? Give it a rest, already.
82 ottovbvs // Mar 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I would have said Frum’s stats just reinforce an intuitive feeling one has about the concentration and frequency of illegitimacy. In my experience the responsible middle and upper middle classes spell out to their kinder in letters 100 feet high the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. The “abstinence” crowd to whom one umes Palin mere belongs know very little about human nature…..and even less about teenage rmones. This whole nonsense I’m afraid is just another one of those albatrosses that came with making the Christian right one of the dominant voices in the GOP. Not very different from the whole stem cell research incubus we’re stuck with which is simply indefensible outside of a small minority of the country. In that sense I’m not sure Frum’s claim that marriage creates culturally conservative voters…..it more likely creates realistic voters which is something very different.
83 Rhampton // Mar 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Fitz — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness IS the positive vision for a better America. So, if you want people to be moral Christians, then do what Jesus did and preach, teach and heal. If that’s all that Social Conservatism was about, then I’d be a big supporter. Instead, socons want to force people – by law – to be moral Christians regardless of their beliefs. Your “positive vision” is what made Quaker, Puritans, et al. leave England for the colonies. Religious freedom includes moral freedom.
84 Fitz // Mar 13, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Rhampton – were talking about the most minimal standards for any society. Privileging married natural families, encouraging restraint & promoting virtue. If thats some Puritanical theocracy then this country was a theocracy in from its inception until 1968 and beyond. Is there something Un-American about America circa 1963??? No thinking person erts such a claim. Let me draw your attention to the statistics above that Frum asserts and my posts below about sexual revolutionaries. Any analysis that dismisses those very real cultural left forces that want to impose their morality on America is either being intentionally obtuse or is an anti-intellectual. Ill be the whipping boy for sexual liberty but only when people start admitting to themselves that very real forces of degeneracy have had effective cultural control for decades.
85 jjv // Mar 13, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Bristol Palin not getting married is not representative of anything larger than that. I agree with Fitz. Expecting that people w have chidren marry and promoting governmental and social policies that encourage it is hardly unforgivably “right wing.’ Sarah Palin has a grandson. The defense of life and of marriage, like opposition to slavery and the opposition to polygamy in the 19th century are historic and civilizational responsibilities of the Republican Party and of conservatives who would call themselves by that name.
86 Rhampton // Mar 13, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Fitz — You’re right in part. When the colonies were formed, they established laws to promote their particular religious beliefs (the exception was William Penn’s Pennsylvania — he was a Quaker). That’s why Thomas Jefferson’s “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom”http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html was passed by the Virginia legislature in 1786. http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html Until its passage, Anglicanism was promoted by the state to the disadvantage of all other beliefs. James Madison was pivotal in persuading members to vote for its passage, and in turn Madison used Jefferson’s Act as the model for the First Amendment. Both men have written extensively and eloquently on the Rights of Conscience — I suggest you educate yourself post haste.
87 Rhampton // Mar 13, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Fitz — And like many other freedoms, it has taken two centuries for the equal application of Religious Liberty to catch up with the letter of the law. Some folks are just too stubborn to support the freedom of others (see Segregation)
88 barker13 // Mar 13, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Wow. That Frum brings the matter up in the first place tells you all you need to know about him. (*SHRUG*) BILL
89 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Fitz: Here is what Rush Limbaugh said in December 2007, when it was revealed that Jamie Lynn Spears was pregnant. “CALLER: Would you tend to think that a family in this position, though, wouldn’t you think that there would be a more watchful eye as a parent to be watching over these kids so this doesn’t happen to them? “RUSH: I would certainly pe so, but it’s long past time for this to happen. The parents here are the culprits!” See, Fitz, I happen to agree with some of the things Limbaugh says. It’s just that I don’t apply those things in a totally partisan way. Another thing Limbaugh said, when observing the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, that I agree with, was: “Anger doesn’t win elections.” Too bad that the GOP base has forgotten that. They used to laugh at Howard Dean. Now they’re screaming like Howard Dean.
90 sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Fitz: Of course we need standards. But I want to start from a different place than you. I don’t want to try to suppress the sex urge. That’s an inappropriate thing for a political movement, let alone a national political party, to be doing. Suppressing the sex urge should be left for individual conscience, the extended family, the church, the physician, and/or the therapist. The GOP cannot be the Junior Anti-Sex League from Orwell’s “1984.” If you REALLY want to do something to support the family, then w about reforming our divorce laws? No-fault divorce has broken up more families than teenage pregnancy has. The breakups are rarely smooth, and the trauma can be long-lasting. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Changing the divorce laws so that you really need a good reason to deprive children of a two-parent home (”self-fulfillment” of the parents ain’t enough), seems like an appropriate thing for a political movement.
91 danbmil99 // Mar 14, 2009 at 1:20 am
sinz54: Interesting suggestion (divorce), but frankly it’s a political non-starter. Philosophically, I just don’t think the Govt should be involved in culture wars at any level — certainly not the federal gov. What annoys me about Bristol Palin is that she is a poster child for what’s stupid about the “abstinence only” idiocy. Once you decide to ignore that advice and have sex, you have no backup plan. You don’t know about contraception, so you just go ahead and get pregnant, or get an STD. w is that helpful to society?
92 sinz54 // Mar 14, 2009 at 6:50 am
danbmil99: Telling the SoCons to work on reforming divorce laws would force them to put their money where their mouth is. Because I’m sure that lots of THEM have gotten divorced. And hence they would have to stop preaching and chanting, and actually start THINKING, about w their own divorces could have been handled better. It certainly is a more productive use of their time than attempting to create a “chaste culture,” with far fewer total sex acts, as this article in National Review is suggesting: http://tinyurl.com/bblqev Good luck with that one.
93 sinz54 // Mar 14, 2009 at 7:02 am
danbmil99: Was Bristol Palin given abstinence-only education? I don’t recall her saying that. Nor her mom. The usual way this happens is that the young couple didn’t really intend it. They figure they’ll just make out. But with their raging rmones, one thing quickly leads to another. Young people haven’t yet learned control.
94 Fitz // Mar 14, 2009 at 10:53 am
The lack of sophistication of the libertine mind is on full display in multiple posts below. In no particular order one can say effectively that a right to conscience doesnt require the state to endorse polyandry nor require the state to indorse polygamy as a branch-Mormon religious freedom. Good public policy in matters of sexual behavior as in anything else is simply that: good public policy. One can say that promoting abstinence and sexual restraint is unrealistic (and it is) but no more so than promoting the 10 commandments is unrealistic -Or the war on drugs is unrealistic, or prohibiting prostitution is unrealistic or discouraging crime is unrealistic. Laws have a teaching function as well as a line drawing function as well as a crime & punishment element. Suppressing the sex urge is not an accurate moniker for what our law and culture has always done regarding marriage. Promoting personal responsibility and channeling people into marriage and responsible procreation has always been a fundamental aspect of the civil law across time & cultures. We simply farm out to the states massive bureaucracy the effects of family breakdown this achieves neither better child outcomes nor a smaller less intrusive government. As far as the (obnoxiously common) refrain that suddenly (when marriages very definition is under threat) social conservatives should divert their attention to discouraging divorce, I would say: Were have you been all my life!!!! – Multiple initiatives have been intellectually, culturally and legally forwarded. These include multiple State covenant marriages laws, waiting periods and marriage training programs, as well as waiting periods for divorces involving children. All these efforts are under reported and have a almost impossible time getting traction among (all important) elite circles. Like any agenda, including the immense social problem of reducing illegitimacy, a degree of consensus needs to be built among opinion leaders and the politically powerful in society. As to why such a consensus has not emerged (despite the overwhelming evidence of social conservatives public policy acumen) One needs to reference those considerably powerful sexual revolutionaries whos existence is (tellingly) ignored in so many conversations of this sort. It takes two to tango and someone is always leading the dance.
95 midcon // Mar 14, 2009 at 11:47 am
Fitz: Laws do not have a teaching function. From Black’s law dictionary.
Law- That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomenon or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.
Laws have a governing and controlling function without which anarchy reigns. Good public policy has some basis in logic, reason, and common sense. Traffic lights at intersections makes sense. But not all traffic lights make sense (I’m sure we can all name a few). The ones that do not make sense tend to be ignored by society because people in a society make their own rules and when something is perceived to make no sense it is consistently and flagrantly ignored. When that happens, it should give sophisticated people pause to ponder the necessity and legitimacy of the law. Just because someone said something is “good public policy” does not make it so. If you had said “it is good public policy because…..” and then provided an explanation about the impact and consequences that articulated the benefits or cost to society then you might gain a wider audience. Until then, a purported sophisticated statement about good public policy that is supported the argument ipso facto is on very shaky ground.
96 Claude // Mar 14, 2009 at 11:51 am
For those of you w are quick to blame social conservatives for the Republican Party’s recent defeats, who are the politicians you admire? Whose leadership should the party be following? Most if not all of the moderate Republican governors, for instance, have been forgettable failures.
97 sinz54 // Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Claude: Mitt Romney was a successful Republican governor of Massachusetts. The health care reform he signed into law was better than anything the Dems have proposed, and yet it covers 95% of Massachusetts residents. In the 2008 campaign, I was a supporter of Rudy Giuliani. I thought he combined moderation on t-button social issues with pro-growth economic policies and a tough stance on terrorism. As mayor of New York, Giuliani demonstrated competent management skills.
98 sinz54 // Mar 14, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Fitz: I agree with you that laws have a teaching function. Unfortunately, sometimes what they teach is not what their sponsors intended. The 55 mile per ur speed limit, the laws against medical marijuana even for terminally ill patients, teach our young people that our society is irrational, and that we are being forced to comply with a heavy-handed government bent on social engineering. The laws against sodomy taught sexual citizens that they were not protected by the Bill of Rights–and it was such things that forced them to take to the streets in protest. It’s often useful to ask those w would be affected by a proposed law, what “teaching lessons” *they* would take away from it, should it pass. They may not be the lessons you desire.
99 midcon // Mar 14, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Claude: Actually I admire very few social conservatives and politicians, especially those that act in a purely partisian manner, putting party and ideology, before people and country. I admire those who can cross the aisle; those who put country ahead of party; and those who employ logic, reason, and common sense rather than the desire to stay in office or hold power in order to foist their ideology upon the rest of society. Way back when, I would have put Colin Powell in that catergory, but after he compromised his principles in selling the WMD story at the UN, he fell off my list. Mark Warner former governer of Virginia and curret Senator is another that might make my list. Yeah he’s a Dem, but then I’m and independent, so I have the freedom of choice.
100 petty boozshwa // Mar 14, 2009 at 2:22 pm
midcon, isn’t it at least concievable that Colin Powell honestly believed the stuff he reported about WMD? He spent several days in the CIA archive room putting together his presentation to the UN, trying very hard to winnow out anything not supported by facts. It turned out we couldn’t find the WMDs Saddam had had [that had been cataloged and analyzed by Richard Butler's UN mission] but it would have been more realistic/less gullible to believe OJ Simpson was actually innocent than to believe Saddam did not have WMDs in 2002.
101 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.
102 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.
103 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.
104 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.
105 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.
106 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!
107 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.
108 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.
109 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.
110 rightsusan // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:50 am
‘meant to say, “The mere fact that metrics *exist* which divide…”
111 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?
112 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.
113 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.
114 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?
115 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.
116 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.
117 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.
118 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.
119 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…
120 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
121 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
122 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.
123 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….
You must log in to post a comment.