Last Tuesday night, something died on the stage of American politics.
It was an ideology; a particularly repugnant one, whose adherents believe that they have the right to control the private lives of their peers for the sake of promoting moral order. Needless to say, its rampant implementation over the last decade or so cost the congressional Republicans their majorities on Capitol Hill over the course of the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. It has a name, which is particularly deceptive in its nature. It is called "social conservatism." In all honesty, a more fitting title for this oppressive school of thought would be social authoritarianism. After all, as most conservative political philosophies seek to limit the control of government, can anyone seriously refer to the idea of imposing a narrow, restrictive agenda onto the lives of millions, and enforced by the Feds as anything remotely resembling conservatism? I did not think so.
The cause for the so unfortunately prolonged demise of social conservatism can be almost solely attributed to the United States' failing economy, which is evidenced by the Federal Reserve's recent attempt effectively to monetize our nation's staggering debt. Though, thankfully, the GOP managed to capitalize on this seemingly endless recession during last week's midterm elections, its overall performance was not as stellar as many had expected: the Republicans did not manage to capture the Senate, despite enjoying a total blowout in the House of Representatives and winning a vast majority of gubernatorial and state legislative races from Florida to Alaska. The reason for this damper on what was otherwise a spectacular evening was that a cadre of far right senatorial candidates, Ken Buck of Colorado, Sharron Angle of Nevada, Christine O'Donnell of Delaware, and a few others not worth mentioning, during the final days of their campaigns chose to place their focus on such relevant issues as whether or not homosexuality is a choice, what exactly is it that makes a person look Hispanic, and of course, why the practice of abortion should be criminalized, even when a woman's life is placed on the line. All lost because of those choices.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
There are sixteen new members of the Senate, three Democrats and thirteen Republicans. Of the Democrats, all but one of them (Joe Manchin) is pro-choice. Of the Republicans, all but one of them (Mark Kirk) is pro-life.
2 - Baronius
Permit me to make another observation, one I've made before on the relationship between fiscal and social conservatism. Unstable families are the surest way to drive up the cost of government.
There's nothing in the world cheaper than governing a community of stable, rural, intergenerational, home-schooling families with their own wells. Those conditions don't apply any more though. Some increase in government spending across the past century is appropriate. And a lot of the societal changes in the past century have been for the better.
But a good deal of the costs of modern government have their origin in the darker side of family disintegration: poverty and crime. This is what the Schwarzeneggers of the world don't understand. Progressive policies that weaken the family will lead to social crises that will in turn lead to greater demands on government. Cali could go bankrupt paying for social services and prisons alone. The more they accomodate the broken family, the easier it gets to become one.
(If someone latches onto that last sentence they could make me look bad. I'm not saying we should abandon the poor. I'm not. I'm saying that we need to change policies that make it easier for the next generation to become poor, and that includes any policy that weakens the family.)
3 - Dr Dreadful
Joseph, your thesis is somewhat kneecapped by the failures of marijuana legalization initiatives in California and three other states, the approval of a measure restricting abortion in Alaska, and the results of several other referenda in which the voting public appeared to approve of the government Poking Its Nose In Where It Doesn't Belong.
Admittedly there were fewer of these types of ballot initiatives this time around, and my general impression is that public opinion is gradually coming around to the notion that privacy doesn't require regulation. Nevertheless, to declare the demise of social conservatism with such confidence is premature.
4 - handyguy
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey are as socially conservative as any sitting senators. Jim DeMint, who thinks gays should not be allowed to be schoolteachers, is a strong influence on them and has a lot of influence in the GOP. The incoming Republican House members are hard-line conservatives, and if you can find any social moderates among them, you let me know.
5 - handyguy
Baronius, you don't specify what you mean by "progressive policies that weaken the family." Gay marriage? Does that lead to poverty and crime? Legal abortions -- which made obsolete the horrendous back-alley abortion industry?
Social conservatism tends to be about sex [gay rights, abortion rights] or about guns, or about religion [prayer in schools, teaching creationism in schools'].
6 - zingzing
a "scientist" who "studies" creationism. and the painting in the back! such art.
7 - handyguy
Eek, zing. Scuse me, I have to go find metal blankets to hide under.
8 - Dr Dreadful
Did you watch that episode of Mythbusters too, Handy?
9 - handyguy
No, I'm just scared of that crazy lady in zing's YouTube link.
10 - zingzing
she is something else, isn't she? and the text that's on the right side of the "vidio..." my god. classic stuff. i just hope she's not some liberal plant, although that is the only plausible explanation. beyond pure insanity. but what, really is the difference? yes, yes, reptilian aliens is a little far-fetched, but what of a lonely bearded man floating in the heavens?
11 - Arch Conservative
You call social conservatism social authoritarianism.
I call sociali liberalism moral relativism.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
Progressive policies that weaken the family will lead to social crises that will in turn lead to greater demands on government. Cali could go bankrupt paying for social services and prisons alone. The more they accomodate the broken family, the easier it gets to become one.
Sooo...if that's the case, then red states should generally have lower divorce rates and lower teenage pregnancy rates, right?
From census.gov (you've got to compile them and resort to get the following result):
Divorce rates, 2008, top ten:
Massachusetts 2.0
Iowa 2.4
District of Columbia 2.5
Illinois 2.5
South Carolina 2.5
New York 5 2.7
Rhode Island 2.7
North Dakota 2.7
Pennsylvania 2.7
Maryland 2.9
And the bottom fifteen:
Oregon 4.0
New Mexico 5 4.1
Alabama 4.2
Tennessee 4.2
Colorado 4.2
Alaska 4.3
Mississippi 4.4
Florida 4.5
Idaho 4.7
West Virginia 4.8
Kentucky 4.9
Oklahoma 5.0
Wyoming 5.1
Arkansas 5.6
Nevada 6.5
(California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota did not submit stats)
For teenage pregnancies:
States ranked by rates of pregnancy among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per thousand):
1. Nevada (113)
2. Arizona (104)
3. Mississippi (103)
4. New Mexico (103)
5. Texas (101)
6. Florida (97)
7. California (96)
8. Georgia (95)
9. North Carolina (95)
10. Arkansas (93)
States ranked by rates of live births among women age 15-19 (births per thousand):
1. Mississippi (71)
2. Texas (69)
3. Arizona (67)
4. Arkansas (66)
5. New Mexico (66)
6. Georgia (63)
7. Louisiana (62)
8. Nevada (61)
9. Alabama (61)
10. Oklahoma (60)
The above were from a survey in 2000. Here's what the CDC said about 2008:
Whatever the reason, the regional disparities are stark. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, for instance, 2008 birth rates were less than 25 per 1,000 teens aged 15 to 19, CDC found. In the same year, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas all had rates topping 60 per 1,000 teens.
Mississippi had the country's highest rate (65.7), CDC says, while New Hampshire had the lowest (19.8).
Sooo...Baronius! Since it is quite clear above that the divorce rates and teenage pregnancy rates are generally HIGHER in red states, exactly how is it that progressive ideals weaken the family and lead to more crises and greater demands on government?
I'm really, truly looking forward to your answer!
13 - Glenn Contrarian
(doggone it - there I go again! I forgot that FACTS mean absolutely squat to the Right unless those facts somehow support conservative dogma!)
14 - zingzing
so, archie... you'd rather be told what to think rather than be able to make up your own damn mind about something's morality?
15 - Clavos
For one thing, Glenn, just exactly WHO are the teens getting pregnant?
Daughters of well-to-do upper middle class Republicans? Perhaps a few, but I'd wager that the vast majority of teen pregnancies in every state occur among the poor and disadvantaged, most of whom vote Democrat, not among the comfortable and wealthy.
Further, most of the poor ignorant crackers vote Democrat, as do the poor blacks in the South, regardless of how the Census categorizes their states of residence.
That, too, is FACT.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Remember, the South has been conservative since just about forever...and it was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed by the Democrats that the South began voting Republican. Whether Democrat or Republican, the South has always been conservative. That point is beyond question.
1 - You're absolutely right that the vast majority of the teen pregnancies occur among the poor and disadvantaged...but WHY is it that these red states have been under conservative governance since before the War - meaning, the Civil War - and it is current conservative dogma that Republican governance that will lead to economic prosperity, lower crime, and (as Baronius implied) stronger families and fewer (familial) crises. Sooo...Clavos! Since the South has been solidly conservative for well over a century, WHY ain't they better off yet?
2 - You are absolutely WRONG that most among the "poor and disadvantaged" vote Democratic. Most of the MINORITIES do...but minorities comprise only a MINORITY of the "poor and disadvantaged". Most of the rest of the poor and disadvantaged proudly call themselves REDNECKS...and they very strongly vote Republican.
YES, Clavos, when it comes to this, I DO know the people of the South better than you. I grew up there, remember, and I go back there every year or so to see my family and their friends - almost all of whom are poor, disadvantaged, white, and hate Obama.
Tell you what, Clavos - I won't try to educate you about life in Mexico, and you don't try to teach me about people Down South...because if you knew ANYthing about the South, you'd know that Florida AIN'T the Deep South - it's just the Great Northern Retirement Home. That's not an insult, btw - it's a simple fact about what is and what ain't the South.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
And Clavos -
If it's the poor and disadvantaged who normally vote for Democrats, that strongly implies that you think that those who are prosperous and educated normally vote Republican.
So...why, then, are the blue states - which are generally better off by almost ANY standard from income to poverty rate to divorce rate to teen pregnancy rate to crime rate to life expectancy - WHY do the blue states REMAIN blue when their people are generally more prosperous and educated than those in red states?
But you know what you're going to do? You're going to do your doggonedest to tap-dance your way around these FACTS, all the while never approaching the REAL reason: states (NOT inner cities, but the STATES) that are more urbanized tend to be better off by almost any measure you care to name even though the blue states generally receive LESS money from the federal government than they pay in taxes and the red states generally receive MORE money from the federal government than they pay in taxes!
- And they tend to vote Democratic.
- And they REMAIN generally better off than the red states.
- And they STILL vote Democratic.
- And they REMAIN generally better off than the red states.
- And they STILL vote Democratic.
- And they REMAIN generally better off than the red states.
D'ya see a little pattern developing here? Yes, you do - but you'll never admit it.
Tap-dance all you want, but that's the reality of the American political scene for at least the past forty years.
18 - zingzing
oh, glenn... how is that brick wall doing? you've been bashing into it for so long now, it must be getting rather stained.
clavos: "Further, most of the poor ignorant crackers vote Democrat."
goddamn man! the south is loaded with well-to-do folk! must be like 70% of them, given them voting patterns. funny thing... the per capita income down there must be ASTOUNDING. sheeit.
all joking aside... ignorant crackers voting democratic... that's just ridiculous... let me wipe away this tear... ok. the ignorant cracker is just one of the many republican bases, and it is especially powerful in the south. i grew up in the south among many an ignorant cracker, and they are, without exception, all republicans. of course, that's part of what makes them ignorant in my eyes, i guess. that and they got no education and shoot guns INSIDE their own homes at times. (actually, i fired off my only gunshot INSIDE an ignorant cracker's home, at his behest. he's a fine fellow, except for being ignorant.) and they fry EVERYTHING. would you ever consider owning a deep fat fryer? they're everywhere! it's crazy.
19 - Dr Dreadful
The only thing liberal about Archie is his spelling... :-)
20 - zingzing
maybe he types too fast... but really, to get from the "L" at the end of "social" to the "L" at the beginning of "liberalism," you don't even have to move your finger. it's just inexcusable.
police: DON'T MOVE!
archie: i
*blam*
police: told him not to fuckin move. all he had to do was not move. but what did he do? mother fucker moved. that's expressly what he should not have done given the situation, if he intended to live. i have no idea why he did it. we'll never know now... oh well, tag em, bag em. let's move on. another soul gobbled up by the irresistible urge to do just what you shouldn't do just at the moment you shouldn't do it.
police #2: shut up.
police: but, you see, i'm just trying to explain that he didn't need to do what he done. it's just as easy to do nothing, if by doing nothing, you obtain your objective. "don't move." i was very clear. i'd have let a twitch of a thumb go by, but he came out with all that "i" shit, and i just blew my top. that's blatantly disobeying my express request. and because of that...
*blam*
police #2: he wouldn't shut up.
21 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
wait - there's a brick over there on the right - it ain't stained yet!
Ready...
Aim...
OWWWW!!!
Cap'n Ahab had his Great Cracker Whale, and I got me that there brick wall that I'm a-wailing at with my stupid head. "To the last I bash my head upon thee! From mediamatters.org's heart I stab at thee! For factual and accurate reporting's sake I spit at thee!"
Arr...avast, ye swabs! There be another brick! Ready...aim...
======================
btw, zing - d'ya know why pirates say 'Arrrr!"? Easy. You see, ol' Blackbeard knew his pirates weren't too literate. He could teach them only one letter, so he tried different letters, one at a time. "Ayyyy" sounded too much like a sitcom based in the 1950's, "Double-Youuuuuu" was too complicated, and "Peeeeee"...well, the ship almost capsized from all the sailors running to the leeward side to relieve themselves. So "Arrrr!" it was!
22 - Irvin F. Cohen
In short response to comrade Glenn the exalted and most esteemed comrade, fellow traveler, commie-lib, commie-symp, true believer, sophistic, nay, make that the highly sophistic, Neo-Marxist, New Age Marxist Contrarian,
To paraphrase (cause I can't quote anyone to save my life) a fellow honky, cracker, good 'ol southern boy of yours, Mark Twain; "there are lies, damn lies and statistics."
My question to you is are all these so-called facts of yours, when taken out of their full factual context of which you appear to be so expert, that does that make you a liar and a damn liar?
Where there is divorce that by logical necessity presupposes marriage, yet you very conveniently leave these rates out and their obvious relationship to both the former and to birth rates. Moreover, you also conveniently leave out the percentage of how many births there are to married women and and how many are to out-of-wedlock and below the age of majority, all of which I would assume are extremely important contributing factors to all the phony issues you raise.
Then there are a myriad of other factors, such as social, cultural and yes, religious factors as well which would go a long way in explaining, defending or refuting your phony, highly contrived statistics. All of which you do not address.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
I would further like to discuss your rhetorical MO, but that has already been addressed in this article and elsewhere by other commentators. And to do so would detract from the author's article herein, that of comrade Cotto.
But I'm here, and I'll address the former in another comment. So here goes:
You establish these rather elaborate straw-man arguments of yours based upon rather dubious and spurious so-called, supposed facts. The problem here is that these arguments of yours are essentially built upon a house of cards in which only one card need be proved false, because then this straw-man, house of cards of yours will simply fall apart and implode of its own accord into contradiction and nothingness.
However be forewarned cause I'm going to commit and perpetrate a bit of Classical Greek philology, rhetoric and grammatical construction and analysis herein, hereat. The Greeks devised and created a special mood and conjugation for such sophistic and spurious argumentation (as embodied and embraced by you) called the "potential optative."
The operative phrase here is for "statements contrary to fact" amongst many others phrases. Or as I would generically describe and characterize them as a whole lot of "should have, would have, could haves."
Well, after having read many of your articles and far, far too many of your comments here and elsewhere, and on my own articles as well; I must conclude that the overwhelming vast majority of your so-called, supposed facts, are nothing more than pure, unadulterated "could have, should have, would haves."
Such so-called, supposed facts of yours, are in fact, never facts. But rather are purely in the realm of factional and partisan desire, whim, caprice and wish, or also solely a matter of partisan and factional demand, dictate, dogma and orthodoxy. And again, all of the former is never fact.
But I am quite certain such a refutation of your ideological sophistry shall fall on deaf ears. Well so be it. Because you are a true believer ideologue and partisan who never enters a debate to discover wisdom and more importantly, ultimate, absolute truth, but only enters to win and persuade through sophistic deception
and factual lies, untruths and mistruths. The more deceit the better.
23 - Clavos
if you knew ANYthing about the South, you'd know that Florida AIN'T the Deep South...
When did you ever hear me claim Florida was the deep south (note the lower case), Glenn? Not only is Florida NOT the deep south, my part of Florida, is not even AMERICAN anymore. We are the financial and cultural capital of Latin America -- an area where white Americans comprise only 12% of the population -- a share that is steadily declining as we drive all of you the hell out of here. As for the rest of Florida, the north of it is referred to by those of us fortunate enough not to have to live there as L.A., lower alabama, while central Florida, thanks to Uncle Walt, bears a much closer resemblance to southern california than than it does to the deep south. As for the northern retirement home canard -- those days are receding fast, as the yankees retreat to cheaper places to live, primarily the carolinas and sun states in the west.
The Latinos are taking over Florida, as we will the whole country, so long as we can make more money here than back home. You'd better learn to speak Spanish, Glenn -- and soon.
No, Glenn, I know where the deep south is and what states comprise it -- I lived in one of them, Georgia, for 20 years, and I found the Crackers voted Dem far more than they did Rep -- at all levels: city, county and state (and in Atlanta, a majority black city for more than 40 years, the blacks have consistently voted democratic that whole time). It was the carpetbaggers like me who voted Republican.
24 - Clavos
And, of course Glenn, you still have not addressed the point that correlation does not imply causation in regard to the reasons for your "fact" that the "blue" states outperform the "red" states.
So the granite wall remains -- intact and unblemished...
25 - Glenn Contrarian
*sigh*
Irvin, back in the Navy, this...
Where there is divorce that by logical necessity presupposes marriage, yet you very conveniently leave these rates out and their obvious relationship to both the former and to birth rates. Moreover, you also conveniently leave out the percentage of how many births there are to married women and and how many are to out-of-wedlock and below the age of majority, all of which I would assume are extremely important contributing factors to all the phony issues you raise.
Then there are a myriad of other factors, such as social, cultural and yes, religious factors as well which would go a long way in explaining, defending or refuting your phony, highly contrived statistics. All of which you do not address.
...is what we called tap-dancing. George Orwell would've called it something else.
But you, like so many other conservatives, feel that if the statistics (the divorce stats and CDC observations were taken during the BUSH administration) don't say what YOU want them to say, then the statistics must be wrong.
That's why you call them 'phony' and 'contrived' - because they don't say what YOU want them to say.
But howzabout I give you a chance to expose my ignorance to all and sundry? All you gotta do is explain why it generally is that:
- Residents in blue states are MORE likely to be covered by health insurance than residents in red states
- Residents in blue states have a LONGER life expectancy than residents in red states
- People in blue states are generally healthier than people in red states
- People in blue states generally have a HIGHER level of education than people in red states
- People in blue states generally have a higher median and higher per capita income than people in red states
- Blue states generally receive LESS money from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes, whereas red states generally receive MORE money than they pay out in federal taxes
- Blue states generally have a lower crime rate, a lower violent crime rate, and a lower murder rate than red states
- States that do not have a death penalty generally have a lower murder rate than states that do carry the death penalty
- And of course there's the divorce and teenage pregnancy rates which are generally LOWER in blue states than in red states.
- But there is ONE area in which blue states are worse off - residents in blue states are generally more likely to use illegal drugs than residents in red states.
References for all of the above can be found here.
So...let's see if you'll do what NO BC conservative has even attempted to do - will you explain exactly how it is that all of the above has nothing to do with conservative governance? Here's a clue - I gave the explanation in the comments to the article...and in comment #17 above.
But you will NOT do that. What you WILL do is bury your head in the sand and claim that the statistics (all from reputable sources, most from the Bush administration) are still 'phony' and 'contrived'. Not a one of you will even try to give an honest and forthright explanation concerning the disparities listed above...because they don't fit your DOGMA.
Back in the Navy, after every event where something went wrong, there's always a 'lessons learned' meeting of some sort or another (and sometimes it's in the form of a court-martial). During these meetings, pride is checked at the door. The officer or chief testifying has to own up to where he was right AND where he was wrong...because it is only then that the real cause can be determined and (hopefully) the problem can be avoided in the future.
That's why I am NOT afraid to give an honest and forthright explanation concerning any problem pointed out to me. But this is NOT the case with the BC conservatives. They will NOT give an honest and forthright explanation of the statistics I pointed out. They will only say the statistics are 'phony', 'contrived', or that they simply don't matter.
Honest and forthright explanations take guts, take courage. Avoiding the questions...takes quite the opposite.