Turn the argument on itself: divorce and disrupted family life are often as much a function of economic dislocation as the other way around. It's a phenomenon that simply feeds itself -- economic dislocation makes it harder to maintain stable family lives, and once disrupted, it becomes harder and harder to regain the economic stability that would allow for domestic stability.

Ironically, the only thing the GOP has really done about culture war items is profit from them.

So it's not because they've been bent over financially, it's because they fear gay marriage, because divorse is so much more economically dire, because ... oh wait, I know this one - it's because they've been bent over financially.

So, yes, they are bitter about their financial situation, and this in turn leads them to embrace diversive cultural issues instead of sorting out the root financial causes.

Tell me again how this yes gets turned into a no.

So those who have low income experience higher divorce rates, yet they're concerned about higher divorce rates?

Um ... seems like a bit of a feedback loop, doesn't it?

I will say, however, that from my totally non-scientifically-deduced experience, that lower income folks are also less educated and, thus, more easily swayed by emotional arguments, rather than intellectual ones.

I'm not trying to sound "elitist" or anything -- it's just that those who may not have the best critical thinking skills present rich targets for propaganda (which is probably why Republicans have made being educated into a negative).

The two parts of the argument don't seem to fit at all.

1.) Americans worry more about social issues because even working-class Americans are pretty well off financially, so they can afford to think about social issues.

2.) The people who worry about social issues most are relatively poor people, in the South for example, because the poor are most affected by the decline of traditional values.

Perhaps I missed something, but it sounds like special pleading.

Why does divorce impact poor people more, for example? Because poor people have a harder time staying married because of economic problems, and because divorce hurts members of poor families worse, for exactly the same reasons.

I am willing to grant Douthat's first point. Most conservative Christians are not the stereotypical impoverished hillbillies, but well-off educated people with pretty good jobs.

Too bad that these poor, church-going folks don't accept the evidence that every time they vote for Republicans, they make it ever more likely that they will suffer seriously if something goes wrong in their life.

When my son was just a kid learning about politics, he said that "a poor person voting Republican was like a chicken voting for Kentucky Fried."

What's not said in your post is that poor people have a higher preponderance of "low-information" voters and thus are more easily jerked around on these issues.

Democrats need to educate these voters: See Obama's "Guidance"ad about lobbyists, for an excellent example

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/guide_ad

(Everyone's ganging up on Obama because he said people were bitter because of the bad economy and were turning to guns and God. Memo to Obama: you should have said people are bitter because the damn Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, is a friend to the rich and hostile to the poor and middle class.)

Sure I'm bitter...bitter about Clinton's millions, McCain's beer heiress trophy wife, Obama's boyish good looks and gift of gab.

Then there's the bitterness I have about the billions CEO's have accumulated and spend on crazy luxuries life Lear jets, and 400 million dollar yachts, and Bush's insane war which will cost 3-5 trillion and, yes, I'm bitter because I can just about afford my cat food diet and now I worry that Purina might be bought out by some hedge fund. But, please,don't mourn for me, organize.

Heck, I'm bitterness incarnate. But, I decided to move on. I started a group supporting Obama for president. It's called "Bitter People for Obama." Bitter as I am, I think he would be the best president ever.

One might also note that divorce rates, teen pregnancy, poverty, etc., are highest in the areas of the country where conservative social and economic policies have been most thoroughly implemented. After, oh, several decades of this, we might begin to question whether the "solution" is in fact the problem.

Don't you go dissin' God, there Peter. Just ignore the fact that God didn't actually demand any of those stupid policies and don't even bring up that Jesus was a bleeding-heart liberal or that the early church in Acts was communist. The New, American, Gawd-Fearin' folks know what God wants and they tell us that God wants people to suffer, so they suffer in those places.

... that they will suffer seriously if something goes wrong in their life.

Which is obviously because of (delete as appropriate) teh gays, gun control, athiests, terrorists, arabs, democrats, women, blah blah blah., and not because you voted in the guys who decided to screw you over wage, health care, and everything else they could get away with.

It's the usual double think of refusing to accept the position you are in - "obviously I'm not poor" so "those" poor people should stop spending "my" taxes ...

Mark D: you may not have intended it, but you certainly came off as an utter elitist. Lets see, people who are better off financially have better critical thinking skills.
In fact you could be acused of having deficient "critical reasoning". Your contention clearly seems to be based on an inductive leap predicated on unknown and unstated evidence.

It simply could be that the "bitter" class values things differently than you do. Their choices may reflect a well founded ("critical") understanding of how to best promote those values that they want promoted.
The key is to argue about which positions should be valued. Telling people that they are stupid, or bitter, isn't going to convince them. And, it shows a lack of critical understanding and thinking on your part.

Or, boiling the entire thread down:

It's the economy, stupid!

Now, where have I heard that before?

Any words following "Ross Douthat says" should automatically be ignored. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Douthat seems to be the best the mainstream right has to offer, unfortunately.

Rural or blue collar males dislike Democrats because of state mandated child support payments they have to make. They are probably very happy to have no fault divorce, though.

Which brings up the question of why do not rural or blue collar women support Democrats because of state mandated child support?

The Republican party, like the Army and the Roman Catholic Church, is into behavior control in a big way.

The GOP values compliance above all -- question the authority of the party's designated leaders or disrupt the status quo in any way and you're off the reservation. Women who question a man's authority, consumers who challenge businessmen, artists who challenge perception and public taste -- these are disrupters, non-compliants, bad people. Liberals.

We need to re-define the status quo in positive ways that emphasize independent thinking, creative problem-solving, fairness. And do it in non-threatening ways that don't sound shrill and turn off more moderate-leaning voters.

"Douthat seems to be the best the mainstream right has to offer, unfortunately."

At least he is offering up a competing thesis instead of focusing on whether drinking orange juice confirms that Obama is a crypto-Marxists.

Ya'll just give the conservatives way to much credit for deep thinking and moral behavior...

Both liberals and conservatives have cultural issues... they're just different. Liberals have their economic egatarianism, gender equality, and environmentalism, which are kind of cool I guess...

But conservatives have their "gays are sinners", poor people are lazy and irresponsible, immigrants come here to suck up our free stuff, abortionists are murderers.

Conservatives are such because it's much more fun and a lot less work to rail against people we don't like, than it is to try and actually to improve the world.

pj, the status quo, by it's very nature is not independant thinking. People (in general) will always be uncomfortable with change. The problem, is that the GOP have sold reckless, unregulated change, under the guise of "it's what we've always done", when nothing could be further from the truth.

We need to show that the liberal goals are basically what people "always thought they had", and show that they actually don't. Tell them that they can't pick their own doctor - that's done by the HMO. No, they don't have privacy in ther own home, the police have no knock warrants and can listen to your phone calls and email. You can be sacked at anytime by your employer, for no reason. Of course there isn't any disaster cover - all the national guard units are in Iraq.

This is not what they thought they voted for - but it's what they got!

There is another thing that I have run into on doorsteps of lower income homes while canvasing here in Canada.
The dizzying red tape and condesending feeling that people with low incomes feel in thier interactions with government has left them with little appreciation for those that have put in the system.
They feel humiliated and confused in dealing with the programs even while they feel grateful for the much needed help.
It creates the feeling that these programs are created for the benefit of the lawyers, civil servants and scammers who understand the system rather than those in need.
This is a powerful push away from the liberals and a reinforcement of the conservative idea that in the end you will have to take care of yourself.
These voters have bought into the conservative ideology because on the ground they don't see these policies that are supposed to be for them, as being for them, but as separate that they end up getting the dregs from. Liberals come off as self serving liars buying thier votes while conservatives become seen as honest idealogues who they don't agree with, but well, at least thier honest.
I don't know if this experience is translated in the US but I have become convinced that the renewal of liberals here has to include a real revamping of the point of contact process for citizens to access government services.

Mr. Douthat should spend a year raising a family on $30k. Then get back to us.

And when was the last time blue collar America experienced a "robust economy"?

Of course working class people here in Pennsylvania and other places are bitter. Fear does that to people. They're living on the edge, and they know it. Working class income is a far cry from the median $56k that Kevin cites.

Common man: Wow, it sure hurts to put this fork in an electrical socket.

Elite: So, don't do it.

Common man: Don't tell me what to do, you intellectual elite!

Wow, that was a couple of really stupid arguments.

The number one cause of first divorces, last I checked, is arguments over money. So, the notion that lower-income communities are more worried about the moral outcomes than the economic causes only strengthens the notion that they've got their heads up their asses and are easy to manipulate.

The number one cause of second divorces is arguments over step-parenting prerogatives, meaning that divorce (w/ children) begets divorce.

So, to go into these communities and claim that morals are the problem, when moral problems are aggravated by economic problems, is exactly the kind of con-game we've been hanging around the necks of the goddamned parasite class. It's an excuse to punk people out of their votes while doing nothing to address the underlying causes.
.

Great post, Kevin. This is why I'm a regular reader (and even subscribed to the WaMo during one of your pledge drives).

.

Lets see, people who are better off financially have better critical thinking skills.

--Someone unable (or lacking the guts) to sign their comment

Actually, what I said is that lower income folks tend to be less educated (both a known and stated fact) and, thus, have weaker critical thinking skills.

I also never blamed them -- and never would -- for that lack of education (which is basically what you're implying). And why should I? Economic conditions often make it impossible to go on to college, or, in some cases, see why high school matters when they haven't eaten in days and see no way out. So there is no blame here, other than on a system that has failed far too often.

Your contention clearly seems to be based on an inductive leap predicated on unknown and unstated evidence.

Actually, my contention is hardly hardly unknown and has evidence to support it.

For example, people with less education tend to be against inter-racial dating in greater numbers than those with more education, even though there is no reason other than emotion to be against it. They also tend to support women going back to their traditional role, even though it's virtually impossible economically for either spouse to spend all day at home. (This is taken from here.)

Their choices may reflect a well founded ("critical") understanding of how to best promote those values that they want promoted.

So ... voting for Republicans who reduce taxes for the rich while cutting programs that help the poor, and doing so because the GOP convinced them that gay marriage is a critical issue, is a "well founded ... understanding of how to best promote those values" ... ? Really?

Perhaps you could explain how that works.

Telling people that they are stupid ...

Show me where I called anyone "stupid."

Critical thinking is not an innate skill—it's learned. So if someone doesn't learn it, it doesn't make them stupid, it makes them someone who didn't learn a skill. I don't call a three-year-old stupid because she can't answer "What's 50 + 50?" I call her someone who hasn't learned that yet. There's a big difference.

Also, doing something based on emotion is not always a bad thing. Hell, I do it myself, as does pretty much everyone who's not a robot.

The point is that the GOP depends upon people making decisions based on emotion rather than logic.

Because of this, their favorite people to sway and get support from are those who are more likely to respond to emotional appeals. The less educated are part of that group (which explains the right's disdain for anyone in academia), as are those who are educated but have nothing better to worry about (which is part of Douhat's argument).

I should also note that, as my lead-in from my previous comment clearly stated: this is from my experience in dealing with a lot of folks who never made it out of high school. You can disagree all you want, but I've seen it firsthand time and time and time and time again and will defer to that experience, rather than some commenter unwilling to post his or her name.

.

Peter has already said it, but I'll emphasize that an approach to social problems that attacks "moral" outcomes is utterly dependent on a particular rhetoric of morality, which is unanswerable to reality.

This is why, when "moral" laws fail to produce desired results (and when they produce worse results), said loser laws stay in place.

Teen pregnancy is out of control in area with "abstinence only" education. But it goes on. Why?

Because people who can be distracted with "morals" don't give a shit about their children, they want to hear the pretty story about how duh Sky Fairy is worried about teh genitals.

In simpler terms, "moral" policy starts with mythology, which is why it's for suckers.

Fuck, teenagers in Florida think drinking bleach will protect them from pregnancy. There's your precious traditional values for you: ignorance.
.

I admit, I cringed at Mark D's original post, because I've taught college kids, and they're often dumb as posts.

But it's our job to fix that. Teaching critical thinking is a real eye-opener, precisely because it doesn't come naturally. Thinking critically means taking account of the weakness of your own mind and using it for its strengths, working on your game even if it hurts, for instance, your pride.

But, working class American culture stigmatizes education and critical thinking. I know that because I grew up among utter, compulsively self-destructive white trash. Future criminals and Klansmen of tomorrow type trash. Everything Chris Rock says about "N-----s" you could say about these guys.

And Rush Limbaugh tells them, in so many words, that "critical thinking is just code for attacking traditional values."

The traditional values rhetoric is a tool for keeping people as livestock. Thinking is hard.

That said, lots of people come out of college stupid, despite our best efforts. Smartest person I ever met was a college drop-out stripper.
.

In a robust economy, most Americans — yes, even most blue-collar Americans — feel like they can control their own economic destiny;

They're wrong.

even now, on the cusp of a recession, huge majorities of American will say their own financial outlook is relatively rosy. Which means that their worries, not implausibly, turn to sociological and cultural questions. Are my streets safe at night, and will my neighborhood still be a good place to raise a family in ten years?

It fascinates me that someone can write the above without realizing that the question of whether the streets are safe at night or that the neighborhood will remain safe is as much or even more so an economic issue as a sociological/cultural one.

Maybe it's "Marxist" to note that the right-wing ideologues who push the idea of free-market supremacy will then turn around and blame the effects of that ideology on liberals.

EVERYTHING we deem as wrong, evil, and negative about modernity has its roots in an economic model that alienates people from their environment. On the one hand, workers are supposed to suck it up, work 60 hours a week, and even move to Texas. And then they're supposed to adopt the "traditional values" that prevailed in 1950s America.

What's bizarre here is not that we have double binds posing as an ideological paradigm. It's that some people can actually impute any degree of internal logic to this right-wing jujitsu.

Here's a link to video of the Chris Rock routine I mentioned.

No fucking way is it safe for work.

I find Rock's rant very useful for undermining racist assumptions, because everyone who's lived in a marginal neighborhood has seen people act this way. Race has nothing to do with it.

Or, as I like to say, trash comes in all colors.
.

That said, lots of people come out of college stupid, despite our best efforts. Smartest person I ever met was a college drop-out stripper.

I guess this is the problem with the Internet -- it's hard to post a complete thought that covers all bases on something so complex. Especially in fewer than 500 words.

By no means did I mean to imply that college educated = wonderful critical thinkers and/or automatically smart. I lived in a fraternity house for three years, so trust me ... I know lots of really dumb people with college degrees.

:-)

And the smartest, most common-sensical person I ever met was my great-grandmother -- she never got past the sixth grade.
.

i think ross is really overthinking this. small town red staters vote republican because they're convinced that all democrats want to do is take away theirr guns and teach their kids gay sex techniques in school. economics never enters into the discussion.

Let's see. White working class people marry too young, have children that they can't afford to raise - then they split up because they don't have the self-discipline to keep their families together-and so they vote to keep gay couples from marrying! Is that the argument? It makes sense how?

Sorry, Mark D, I meant to say that I agreed with you completely, but I knew it was going to rub someone the wrong way. One of those "oh shit, please tell me he didn't go there" moments.
.

royalblue Tom:

Status quo is not necessarily a bad thing.

Status quo has different connotations. It can mean "the current state of affairs." At the moment the current state of US political affairs emphasizes compliance, non-critical thinking, blind adherence to the unconstitutional and unfair foreign, social and economic policies advocated by the GOP, much of it under the misappropriated banner of "patriotism."

The definition of "status quo" I intended in my comments is simply "what is normal." We need to re-define (or reclaim) the definition of what is normal -- social fairness, level economic playing fields, competently managed government programs, military as a last resort, US as a leader in world development & fighting poverty & disease.

These are the kinds of things that should be normal but unfortunately they are not.

People vote on economic issues period, there is no evidence whatsoever that working class people vote on cultural issues or vote for the Republican party. Working class citizens voted for the Democratic Party at the same rate in 2000, 2004 as they did prior to "value" issues becoming salient - notning is the matter with Kansas - Ftank was wrong and people should stop rolling out this stupid theories that are based on rhetoric not reality.

So the Red states don't want to be like the Blue states because the Blue states are elitist (more educated), higher paid, and immoral.

And Red states have lower taxes, unlike the "socialist" Blue states.

Yet the Red states want better education, higher pay, and lower divorce rates, just like the Blue states. They just don't see the connection between Blue state taxes and Blue state schools and universities.

I don't think Douthat has it right. Voting on the basis of economics has not been a real option for working class voters because neither the Clintons nor the Bushes have delivered what they were promised: the return of family-wage jobs. Instead, these voters got NAFTA, shuttered factories and low-paying service sector jobs. Since there has been no difference between a Clinton or a Bush administration as far as their economic self-interest was concerned, they voted on who best represented their other interests ("values"). Their voting pattern has not been irrational or stupid at all, nor have they been hoodwinked. Their voting pattern has (sadly, I think) been extremely rational. After all, if they can't get family-wage jobs, at least their guns won't be taken away, because the gun-lobby politicians deliver.

I think what Douthat and Salaam seem to miss is that poverty is mostly relative. If you make 56,000 or less/yr in a society normalized in terms of cost, culture and material attainment at the 200K/yr range, you feel, and I would argue-are, impoverished. Outcomes generally attributed to poverty and material impoverishment track closer with the level of inequality (as estimated by the concentration of wealth in the top 1%) than with absolute measures like GDP. A good example of this is infant mortality in which the US has rates significantly worse than that of other industrialized nations, closer to that of the developing world despite the highest GDP ("US Mortality... Sorlie et al, AJPH 1995). This tracks well with inequality measurements. Of course this could also be due to f'd up health care, but I suspect it would be true of other non-health related outcomes of poverty as well. Even in health care, population wide measures like infant mortality track closer to relative impoverishment than access to health care, arguing against a bad health system as the cause of the US's poor outcomes ("Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health" Adler et al. JAMA, 1993).

If anybody thought about this for a while you would see the truth of this argument.

Please put aside some of your elitism for a moment and consider that their might be some wisdom to conservative morality.

To me its very obvious that loose social mores hurt the poor much more than they do the rich.

What happens when an NBA player gets six different women pregnant out of wedlock? Easy he just sends out checks because he can afford to cover up the results of his libertine lifestyle with the abundance of funds at his disposal.

What happens when a poor man, trying to practice the same libertine lifestyle as his NBA heroes, gets one woman pregnant out of wedlock? A child is raised who will probably be in poverty for his entire life.

You can go through the conservative mores, marital fidelity, sexual abstinence, moderation in alcohol, hard work, stay in school.... and similarly demonstrate how for the rich, paying for a mistake is easy, but for the poor, a moral mistake creates very much misery which will probably have ramifications for at least a generation.

This is why i dislike so much of liberal dogma. Their moral stance is livable by the rich who can afford to pay for poor morals with indulgence funds. However, the modeling of poor morality by the rich liberal celebs causes horrible problems for the poor.

I don't expect most of you to understand this. Most of you have too many years invested in liberal dogma to change, even whcn good arguments are put forth. But maybe some will be effected by it enough to maybe consider that David Mamet was right and liberalism really is not a valid viewpoint in modern America. His essay says it much better than I ever could.

John Hansen=full of shit.
Morals are not liberal or conservate dillweed. Liberal dogma? What the fuck is it? And also having a lack of morals does not make you a liberal or conservative.
Now on the other hand it would seem that the people in government with the greatest lack of morals would be in the conservative camp. This is only based on observation and the fact that the smallest amount of investigation of the so called conservatives who have been in power in this country have committed act after act of criminal contempt for the american people.

Gandalf -

Abortion on demand - liberal or conservative position?
Gay marriage allowed - liberal or conservative position?
Easy divorce laws - liberal or conservative position?
Non-traditional gender roles - liberal or conservative position?
Feminism - liberal or conservative position?

Please read carefully -Its not lack of morals which makes you liberal or conservative. I have known many fine liberals who live better quality moral lives than some hypocritical chuch goers.

It is the view you have on moral issues that correlates with the political label. Not the way you live.

Gandalf -

On demand abortion - liberal or conservative position?
Gay marriage supported - liberal or conservative position?
No fault divorce - liberal or conservative position?
No taboos on sexual relations outside of marriage - liberal or conservative position?

Its not lack of morals which correlates with political position. I have known many very moral liberals.

It is the viewpoint on moral issues which correlates. Liberals by far advocate policies of looser morals than conservatives. I would not think this would be a controversial statement.

But for someone who wants to find a reason to reject everything that conflicts with his own dogma, maybe it has some controversy to it.

$56,000 a year average income? Wait a minute. How many of those making $20,00 or less did Warren buffet bring up to that number? How often does that represent two incomes with both spouses working menial jobs with no health benefits, no retirement, no future, and NO HOPE. I work construction and as a union electrician I'm one of the highest paid people on the job. I have health care and other fringe benefits, but to put 56,000 on the check I have to work overtime. Am I bitter? No. Cynical? Yes. $56,000 does not provide a grand lifestyle in today's economy and inflation is taking big bites out of the purchasing power of the dollar. The next election should hinge on the economy, but it won't. Our government has long since been sold to the highest bidders whose interests are best served by keeping the poor majority at each others' throats. Try listening to AM talk radio for a few hours if you can stomach it. Seemingly intelligent people call in damning liberals as a scourge worse than Al Queida. Don't talk to ME about God, guns, and gays, but unfortunately, there are far too many who consider these important issues (I see them every day). they're not bitter; they're just plain fuckin dumb.

Posted by: John Hansen on April 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Or maybe, John, liberals in general are less hung-up and fear/guilt-ridden about sex than conservatives, and less obsessed with the enforcement* of all those "taboos" you seem to think so vital to the social health of the nation. Dressed up as "morals", of course.

*PS: just an observations: it doesn't seem to be so much the "looser" (i.e. more realistic) morals prevalent in this day and age that gets the right-wing culture warriors bent out shape: it's the fact that society doesn't feel obligated, any more, to shame and shun the "transgressors" with the proper degree of pious public outrage. There are few emotions so violent as that of suppressed self-righteousness. Just listen to AM radio....

Jay C -

You are making my argument for me. Shame has gone away. People no longer feel shameful about practicing sex outside of marriage. But if pregnancy ensues - the rich can easily pay for it. On the poor it has bad consequences.

I long for the return of shame for behaviors which cause such devastating problems. The world would be a much better place if young men were shamed into committing to a woman before having children, rather than dooming mother and child to poverty. Maybe that past shame had a little bit of wisdom to it. Can't you even consider that idea. Or are you so impressed with your "enlightened" ways, you can't see the harm and devastation the banishment of shame has been to the poor community.

John Hansen sorry I don't buy your Victorian mores. If you want to feel shame then go ahead. I opt for responsibility. It's a big word a lot bigger than shame. All your bullshit has to do with your own sexual repression. If you want to think your Charlton Heston bringing the stone down the mountain to the despoilers and sinners well you go right ahead but what you call liberalism opts for education over repression.

John Hansen sorry I don't buy your Victorian mores. If you want to feel shame then go ahead. I opt for responsibility. It's a big word a lot bigger than shame. All your bullshit has to do with your own sexual repression. If you want to think your Charlton Heston bringing the stone down the mountain to the despoilers and sinners well you go right ahead but what you call liberalism opts for education over repression.

I long for the return of shame for behaviors which cause such devastating problems.
Me too, but unfortunately it doesn't look like Bush, Cheney & Co. will be exhibiting any shame any time soon.

Liberals by far advocate policies of looser morals than conservatives. I would not think this would be a controversial statement.
...thus proving Gandalf's equation, John Hansen=full of shit.

There is a lot more to morality than just sex, Hansen.

Hansen:

Out of wedlock pregnancy is a result of liberal social mores? Just ask Strom Thurmond's. They'll set you straight.

Ironic, isn't it, that within the last six months we've had two major public admissions of using prostitutes by leading public officials -- Senator Vitter (a Republican) and Elliot Spitzer (a Democrat). Before that we had a Republican Senator soliciting gay sex in a public restroom and before that a Republican congressman soliciting gay sex from teenage Congressional pages.

Are you trying to argue that Democrats caused Foley, Craig and Vitter to misbehave or that Spitzer misbehaved because he is a Democrat? If so you give liberals and Democrats way too much credit for influencing our nation's social behavior.

Egg---Chicken. Chicken--Egg. Seems to be some confusion about what came first here. The REASON incomes are lower, divorce rates, etc. are higher in the South is because there is still a lot of reactionary ignorance, and the culture for the past 250 years is of a scrappy, tribal people who are suspicious of working together in any form or fashion. The people who who say feedback loop are right.

Go ahead and flame me. I live here and I know. And yeah, I'm bitter.

How much child support do rapists pay?

John Hansen: you could not be a worse spokesperson for "conservative" values. Smug, superior, condescending, uninformed, and frankly fairly dense.

Keep up the unconscious bigotry. You are doing more damage to the "conservative" (read: reactionary old futz) cause than any "liberal" ever could.

BTW, acknowledging the existence of birth control destroys your entire argument about "loose social mores" ending in poverty. You don't need to be rich to buy a condom, but you do need to be free of archaic religious controls to use one.

The rest of what you wrote was incoherent kerflubble.

Pop psychology analyses seem to in general be a means of disparaging, insulting, or showing contempt for others disguised as psychology. This is the problem Obama ran into; his politician's mask slipped.

they are making a chicke-or-egg arguement. WHY are their communities worse off than in Massachusettes in the first place? Could it be their lack of education, their narrow-mindedness, their religious extremism? all those "christians" in their corrupt Louisiana style crony-old-boy governments? Creativity flourishes where people feel free to express themselves and have equal opportunity.

Tell me again why I should have to have their values ruin my fab state of NY?

they are making a chicke-or-egg arguement. WHY are their communities worse off than in Massachusettes in the first place? Could it be their lack of education, their narrow-mindedness, their religious extremism? all those "christians" in their corrupt Louisiana style crony-old-boy governments? Creativity flourishes where people feel free to express themselves and have equal opportunity.

Tell me again why I should have to have their values ruin my fab state of NY?

"Are working class voters really "bitter"? Does this explain why many of them tend to vote Republican based on culture-war issues even though their economic self-interest ought to push them into the Democratic column? Ross Douthat suggests that it's really the other way around: it's self-interest that pushes them into the conservative camp:"

----------------------------------------------

I agree that they are looking for some way to get a handle on things of interest to them.

It all depends upon what you want to emphasize. If you don't know where your economic woes are coming from, then you might as well focus on the problem you think you understand.

And Republicans have been telling a lot of Southern and rural people for decades that it's the Liberal immorality which leads to the breakdown of their world.

Problem is, most of these people don't know how the rest of America lives and thinks their low wage, low tax, high problem way of living is all there is. They're being kept in the dark and treated like crap and they don't know there is a better way.

In most blue states the divorce rate is lower, the teen pregnancy rate is lower and most other problems are less. Liberal governance.

So, that raises a big question: if blue states are doing better, then what is causing the problems for the red staters? There certainly aren't Liberals being trucked in from Massachussetts to mess up their local government or businesses.

Who keeps them from unionizing?
Who holds their wages down?
Who ships their jobs overseas?
Who owns the t.v. stations that degrade kids?
Who?

It isn't Liberals. It's Rich, mostly Conservative people.

-------------------------------------------

" In this reading of the culture wars, middle-income voters privilege culture over economics because they perceive the breakdown of "traditional values" — manifested in everything from divorce, marriage and out-of-wedlock birth rates to what's shown on television and taught in schools — as a greater danger to their well-being than, say, the specter of outsourcing or the spike in CEO salaries."

---------------------------------------

T.V. isn't run by Liberals. It's Rich Conservatives.

What's taught in schools is decided by the local school boards. They can get involved there to straighten it out.

Liberals are no where in sight when you describe their problems. In fact, bringing Liberals into their lives might help them solve some problems.

----------------------------------------

" In a robust economy, most Americans — yes, even most blue-collar Americans — feel like they can control their own economic destiny; even now, on the cusp of a recession, huge majorities of American will say their own financial outlook is relatively rosy. Which means that their worries, not implausibly, turn to sociological and cultural questions. Are my streets safe at night, and will my neighborhood still be a good place to raise a family in ten years? What are my kids watching on TV, or being taught in school? Will my daughter's marriage break up, and will my son do the right thing by his girlfriend if he gets her pregnant? And, more broadly — does my government reflect and promote my values, whether in marriage law or welfare policy or what-have-you?"

------------------------------------------------

Liberal governance isn't just for bad times. Liberal governance is about freeing people and sometimes empowering them.

People who are concerned about a changing society have every reason to be concerned and wonder what is influencing their community.

If they look around I don't think they'll find Liberals standing on street corners preaching immorality or in the schools teaching godlessness or in their local store selling divorces.

But, they can find a lack of civic responsibility in their local company which doesn't pay them well or ships their jobs overseas and doesn't let them unionize. They can find a lack of civic responsibility in politicians which pander to their fears and then lead us into disaster (war, depression, fear).

It isn't Liberals who bring these problems to their community. It's the Rich Conservative Bush Republicans and other politicians which support Bush.

--------------------------------------------

" ...
working class communities are more concerned about the breakdown of traditional mores because it's working class communities that are most seriously affected by the breakdown of traditional mores.

As Garance Franke-Ruta put it a couple of years ago in the American Prospect:

Lower-income individuals simply live in a much more disrupted society, with higher divorce rates, more single moms, more abortions, and more interpersonal and interfamily strife, than do the middle- and upper-middle class people they want to be like. It should come as no surprise that the politics of reaction is strongest where there is most to react to.

People in states like Massachusetts, for example, which has very high per capita incomes and the lowest divorce rate in the country, are relatively unconcerned about gay marriage,

while those in Southern states with much higher poverty, divorce, and single-parenthood rates feel the family to be threatened because family life is, in fact, much less stable in their communities. In such environments, where there are few paths to social solidarity and a great deal of social disruption, the church frequently steps into the breach, further exacerbating the fight.

Middle class whites don't care much about rising divorce rates, for example, because (a) divorce rates aren't that high among middle class whites and (b) divorce isn't all that catastrophic when it does happen.

Working class communities, however, have higher divorce rates and are therefore naturally more sensitive to its effects. That's especially true since the economic effects of divorce are far more dire for low-income families than they are for higher-income families.

... Still, it's a worthwhile observation that one of the reasons working class voters care more about the post-60s breakdown of the family is because they're much more intimately affected by it in the first place. In a way, this is an argument that economic factors do drive cultural anxieties, but in a subtly different way than we usually think of it.

—Kevin Drum

-----------------------------------------------

The post-60s breakdown of the family apparently isn't happening the same in blue states. Why?

It's important to worry about problems and to seek support from the church and family and community.

Abhorrence of seeking help from the government is killing those folks. They fear the government and taxation and don't realize they can use government as a tool to fight off the wolves. They're choosing to live in the wilderness and then wondering why it's so wild there.

Republicans are telling them it's wild because Liberals promote that. Facts say otherwise, but they aren't hearing those facts. They've been duped into listening to people who talk to their worries. They've been duped into believing government is the problem and that it is to be feared.

They've been lied to.

They should be pushed to use the Internet to expand their horizons, to learn about the rest of America and how the world lives.

It's like the health care debate and how the American system is held up as a paragon of care while 'socialist' systems are said to be disasters. But, those stubborn facts say otherwise.

The Truth is very important. Seek the Truth. Use the Internet and stop listening to biased reporters or politicians. Form your own opinions.

Then, YOU have the power to choose your representation instead of them controlling you.

Lose the fear and take control of your lives.

$56,000 a year average income? Wait a minute. How many of those making $20,000 or less did Warren buffet bring up to that number? How often does that represent two incomes with both spouses working menial jobs with no health benefits, no retirement, no future, and NO HOPE. I work construction and as a union electrician I'm one of the highest paid people on the job. I have health care and other fringe benefits, but to put 56,000 on the check I have to work overtime. Am I bitter? No. Cynical? Yes. $56,000 does not provide a grand lifestyle in today's economy and inflation is taking big bites out of the purchasing power of the dollar. The next election should hinge on the economy, but it won't. Our government has long since been sold to the highest bidders whose interests are best served by keeping the poor majority at each others' throats. Try listening to AM talk radio for a few hours if you can stomach it. Seemingly intelligent people call in damning liberals as a scourge worse than Al Qaida. Don't talk to ME about God, guns, and gays, but unfortunately, there are far too many who consider these important issues (I see them every day). they're not bitter; they're just plain f------ dumb.

Posted by: sparky on April 15, 2008 at 6:58 PM

In other words, to be more blunt: Why are (so many) working-class people so stupid? (I don't like using that term, but I can't think of a better one.) The elites don't really care; they're laughing their heads off at their ignorance, as they continue to control the agenda.

Red States have the highest divorce rates and the highest rate of single and teenage mothers.

Abortion on demand - liberal or conservative position?

Not teaching about contraceptives which, if it were done, would actually prevent 99% of unwanted pregnancies -- a conservative or liberal position?

Gay marriage allowed - liberal or conservative position?

Actively advocating discrimination against millions of consenting adults -- conservative or liberal position?

(FYI -- Homosexuality is not immoral, and the only marriage that affects my marriage is ... my marriage. No one else's relationship has any bearing whatsoever on mine, or anyone else's.)

Easy divorce laws - liberal or conservative position?

Who has the higher divorce rate -- conservative states or liberal states?

And which of the presidential candidates has been divorced -- conservative or liberal?

Non-traditional gender roles - liberal or conservative position?

Keeping women in the kitchen and ensuring men run everything -- conservative or liberal position?

Feminism - liberal or conservative position?

Misogyny -- conservative or liberal position?

Face it -- your ideology is dying and being replaced by acceptance and equal rights.

You all took the moral high ground while wallowing in the gutter -- Foley, Delay, Vitter, Craig, Gingrich, and many others have proven themselves hypocrites and liars.

The bonus is that they exposed neoconservativism as a sham philosophy whose followers are unable to govern with any shred of competence.

You all had enough rope to tie up the world, but wound up hanging yourselves with it instead.

Congratulations.

.

The reason that class issues are now creeping into the conversation is the only reason I need to support Obama. If this is any indication of the type of media frenzy we'll have during an Obama administration (as opposed to Abu Ghraib or cigars and blue dresses), then President Obama will have done us all a bit of good. Everyone is elitist in his or her own way; it's the flip side of belonging to something. Obama reminds us that "American" can still mean something more than a god-damned lapel pin.

Please put aside some of your elitism for a moment and consider that their might be some wisdom to conservative morality.

Pastor Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Jeff Gannon....it seems that "conservative morality" mainly involves cheating on your wife with a gay hooker while snorting meth off your office intern's bare ass, so I'm not sure what the wisdom is supposed to be, exactly.

Kevin: regarding the culture wars, this post from Rob Paterson takes an interesting approach on the kinds of leaders people gravitate to depending on the "Values Phase" people are in in their life.

http://tinyurl.com/6j4ugl

John Hanson makes no sense. he rails about
Abortion on demand, Gay marriage allowed, Non-traditional gender roles and Feminism.

how , for example, does the existance of gay marriage hurt finacially disadvantaged people?

beats me

There is a story in today's NYT about foster care abuse in Oklahoma and for the past year much evidence about abuse in the Texas juvenile corrections system has become public. Bible belters are the worst abusers of children in America. Their values make them do it.

Median family income $56,000

Republican party . . . distracting voters from noticing that their economic policies are aimed almost entirely at promoting the fortunes of the rich and the mega-rich.

Cognitive dissonance?