Article

2004-12-08 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-12-08 5:53:18 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 My goodness. We, who used to be called simply 'parents', now have an -ism all our own. I guess its official now, 'cause its in the New York Times! D'you suppose parents are trying to make the best environment for their children outside the NYT delivery zone...like, say, Ghana or Venezuela?

Posted by trailing wife 2004-12-08 7:47:51 AM|| 2004-12-08 7:47:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Give me a break. This movement is as ficticious as all get out. So, people who want to raise families - away from the cities with drugs - and thus move to less populated areas are doing so because they are natists? Who the *((&& makes this stuff up?

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 8:00:02 AM|| 2004-12-08 8:00:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 hmmmm sounds like the blue staters wanna enforce a limit on numbers of red state children? I suppose they'd justify it as an environmental/abortion issue? LOL

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-08 8:03:32 AM|| 2004-12-08 8:03:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 lol! Just another weak attempt by clueless blue noses to view the Average American as gun totin' militia members. Look at the bright side, if this prevents the blue noses from having more children to prove their blueness - we all win.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 8:20:25 AM|| 2004-12-08 8:20:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Don't laugh - eugenics is coming back in a big way. I've heard plenty of leftists talking about "breeders" needing "birth licenses" before they can conceive a child. Of course violators would be given abortions and prison sentences. They weren't kidding when they said this.

The justification given was that if adoptive parents have to meet exacting standards in order to qualify for a child, natural parents should as well. Frightening stuff.

Posted by gromky 2004-12-08 8:20:33 AM|| 2004-12-08 8:20:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 gromky
You are not far off the mark The discredited and racist eugenics movement is still alive and well in "Planned Parenthood". The eugenics movement has alway been just under the surface with some of the well off left. It still has a foothold in some of the social welfare departments in the north east.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-08 8:25:49 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-12-08 8:25:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 whoa..whoa...whoa. eugeneics through Planned Parenthood? Let's not overstate the case. These people choose not to have children, generally because they are unwed. It may be murder, depending on how one views it, but calling it eugenics - seems a bit over the top.

As for birth licenses - there was a time when the wedding certificate was, for all practical purposes, a "birth license".

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating abortion or birth licenses, (definitely treading on dangerous ground) - but let's not confuse abortion - the (perhaps misguided) choice not to become a parent, with forced abortions.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 8:39:39 AM|| 2004-12-08 8:39:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 http://repositories.cdlib.org/blewp/10/

The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-12-08 8:41:51 AM|| 2004-12-08 8:41:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 And this would be different from 1996 (when Clinton won) how?

Posted by Tom 2004-12-08 8:43:40 AM|| 2004-12-08 8:43:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 moose - I get your point - but it's probably true that abortion results in a decrease in crime. Most of the people who are having abortions are young, unwed, women, whom we can all agree, do not make good parents.

Noting a probable fact, that abortion rates result in decreased crime is a long way from forcing eugenics. Rather, I'd suggest that they are presenting a case for keeping abortion legal.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 8:47:48 AM|| 2004-12-08 8:47:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Planned Parenthood offices were originally in areas where "the wrong kind of people" lived. There is something in that woodpile. I am not even talking about our current time I am talking in the near past. Check out the founders and the people involved in it. If you can, look at some of the old eugenics propaganda films. Some nasty crap.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-08 9:01:17 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-12-08 9:01:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 oh please. Planned Parenthood is in the neighborhoods where the "wrong kind of people" live it's because that's where the most of the young, unmarried women were getting pregnant.

What...so now you want the ghettos to multiply out of control? Look, if Planned Parenthood didn't offer abortions, they'd be in the same neighborhoods. The rich girls can get birth control from their doctors.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 9:04:33 AM|| 2004-12-08 9:04:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I'm done with this paranoid crap. Why don't we all just get a gun and move to a
~~commune~~ compound in Montana. There, the women will all do nothing but birth babies and we'll shoot our food and grow our crops.

Get a grip.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 9:17:21 AM|| 2004-12-08 9:17:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 No Planned Parenthood is everywhere now. When it started out was only in poor areas. You are not understanding me I think. When it started some people who believed in euginics were involved. I don't think that is the case now.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-08 9:21:26 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-12-08 9:21:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 fair enough. But let's keep in mind that birth control is a good thing.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 9:25:21 AM|| 2004-12-08 9:25:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 I never said it wasn't.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-08 9:27:46 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-12-08 9:27:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 I know you didn't spod. I was just referring to the thread as a whole. This nativist idea is a pile of leftist doo.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 9:39:32 AM|| 2004-12-08 9:39:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 just as an FYI aside - I read this week that blacks in California are now reproducing at a rate below latinos (of course) and whites! Education and income advances are usually the reason....

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-08 9:47:20 AM|| 2004-12-08 9:47:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 oops...natalism.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 9:47:29 AM|| 2004-12-08 9:47:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 If you wanted a one-sentence explanation for the explosive growth of far-flung suburbs, it would be that when people get money, one of the first things they do is use it to try to protect their children from bad influences

right you are Frank. Which is another reason why Brooks, in this (surprise) NYT article is so full of it. These families are moving to areas where it doesn't take a $200,000 a year salary to afford having a family. It's not because they are shunning materialism and opting to breed in great numbers, as he so obtusely puts forward, but they are simply going somewhere they can have room and space to raise a family without having to earn that much.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 9:58:34 AM|| 2004-12-08 9:58:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The movement is "natalism."

The only good movement is a bowel movement.

All across the industrialized world, birthrates are falling - in Western Europe, in Canada and in many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer kids. But spread around this country, and concentrated in certain areas, the natalists defy these trends.

Note how 'natalists' 'defy' trends. I bet you anything falling birthrates coincide with decisions not to have families at all, coincide with not having sex at all or with an improperly equipped person.

They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling.

That's why they call 'natalism' the Roe Effect. Let the LLL refuse to bunk in with someone who is fertile. The outcome is fewer leftists, not a bad idea.

In a world that often makes it hard to raise large families, many are willing to move to find places that are congenial to natalist values. The fastest-growing regions of the country tend to have the highest concentrations of children. Young families move away from what they perceive as disorder, vulgarity and danger and move to places like Douglas County in Colorado (which is the fastest-growing county in the country and has one of the highest concentrations of kids). Some people see these exurbs as sprawling, materialistic wastelands, but many natalists see them as clean, orderly and affordable places where they can nurture children.

Yeah! What the hell do they know? Let leftists raise what few kids they deign to have in filth and squalor.

If you wanted a one-sentence explanation for the explosive growth of far-flung suburbs, it would be that when people get money, one of the first things they do is use it to try to protect their children from bad influences.

Like this article, for example.

So there are significant fertility inequalities across regions. People on the Great Plains and in the Southwest are much more fertile than people in New England or on the Pacific coast.

Not more fertile. They just happen to know what to do with it.

You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates.

In The New Republic Online, Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe, "Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas."

Why have a child when you can deal with adults who never grew up.

Politicians will try to pander to this group. They should know this is a spiritual movement, not a political one. The people who are having big families are explicitly rejecting materialistic incentives and hyperindividualism. It costs a middle-class family upward of $200,000 to raise a child. These people are saying money and ambition will not be their gods.

Note the 'statistic', upwards of. That's some good propogandistic writing there. Also note what this writer calls pandering the sane world calls politics. Its kinda kewt how this guy can call politics pandering in a sleazy way, yet it is an issue with the writer in this article.

Natalists resist the declining fertility trends not because of income, education or other socioeconomic characteristics. Itâs attitudes. People with larger families tend to attend religious services more often, and tend to have more traditional gender roles.

Now, I am no expert but I am willing to bet you, were I to bed down with a willing leftist female I am willing to bet her equipment is the same as a conservative female.

I draw attention to natalists because theyâre an important feature of our national life. Because of them, the U.S. stands out in all sorts of demographic and cultural categories. But I do it also because when we talk about the divide on values in this country, caricatured in the red and blue maps, itâs important that we understand the true motive forces behind it.

Isn't that cute? The election of 2004 is now a caricature rather than a devastating loss for the left.

Natalists are associated with red America, but theyâre not launching a jihad. The differences between them and people on the other side of the cultural or political divide are differences of degree, not kind. Like most Americans, but perhaps more anxiously, they try to shepherd their kids through supermarket checkouts lined with screaming Cosmo or Maxim cover lines. Like most Americans, but maybe more so, they suspect that we wonât solve our social problems or see improvements in our schools as long as many kids are growing up in barely functioning families.

The Columbine killers were from small families, so you can chuck that 'fact' out the door. And there is no correlation the writer reveals that supports his/her cntention that large families engender social problems. In fact in view of the Columbine massacre, the obverse can be shown to be true.

Like most Americans, and maybe more so because they tend to marry earlier, they find themselves confronting the consequences of divorce. Like most Americans, they wonder how we can be tolerant of diverse lifestyles while still preserving the family institutions that are under threat

Somehow, I don't think this writer is a strong advocate of familes, not after he/she decries them when they are too large.

Posted by badanov 2004-12-08 10:26:48 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-12-08 10:26:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 SPoD:

You are correct in pointing out that Planned Parenthood was founded by a fanatic eugenicist (Margaret Sanger) whose objective was to reduce the "breeding" of "undesirables," including (but not limited to) black people. Before WWII, the organization was known as the "Birth Control League," and published the writings of German "racial hygene" theorists in its house magazine, The Birth Control Journal. The name change to "Planned Parenthood" came either during or after the war, a PR gag to mask the group's unsavory association with now-defunct Nazi Germany.

Have to disagree with you about PP in its current form, though. Take a look at some of the things PP and the "pro-choice" crowd say when they're talking to each other--the old desire to prevent the "breeding" of "undesirables" is alive and well, in an organization as dedicated to the wanton destruction of innocent life as any platoon of jihadis. Even if you think birth control is (or can be) a good thing, you still can (and should) recognize the PP crowd for the fanatics they are.

Posted by Mike 2004-12-08 10:28:13 AM|| 2004-12-08 10:28:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 badanov - great fisk.

Mike...sometimes when evil people plan evil things - good comes out of it. If "undesirable people" can prevent themselves from having babies when they are young and stupid - it allows them to go to school, grow up and be considered "desireable" by the society as a whole. Oops... I guess their plan backfired. Too bad.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 10:37:11 AM|| 2004-12-08 10:37:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Sticking my head in here to represent the womanly point of view. FTR, I don't have kids but would like to. :-)

My position on abortion is mixed.

The science has gotten way ahead of the ethics; doctors are able to deliver and incubate preterm babies so tiny that they could legally be aborted. How can you decide which baby lives and which baby dies? (And to add fuel to that fire, is it "right" to spend $1 or 2 million dollars to save that one tiny preemie?)

BUT. I don't really recognize the State's assumption of privilege over my womb. My body. Mine. Not the State's. Not the Republican's. Not the Democrat's. Not my husband's. And not the Supreme Court's. Mine. Mine. Mine. Get that?

OK then:

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger in the 20's. If you Google around enough, you'll see plenty of evidence that she did good things for sometimes shady reasons. Here is a link to some of her own writings; it's long but worth it.

In closing, I just wanted to say that one thing that I've noted about religion (of every flavor) is that the more Orthodox it gets, the fewer rights have the wimmin and the more babies they are expected to bear.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-12-08 10:42:33 AM|| 2004-12-08 10:42:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 is that the more Orthodox it gets, the fewer rights have the wimmin and the more babies they are expected to bear.

well....I have to ponder that. To some degree, I would argue that Christianity made possible the environment that allowed women's rights to get off the ground. But...then...only because our Christian nation supported the idea of "equality for all". Certainly the churches themselves are always pushing for more members and the bible doesn't seem to weigh in on it.

yep..you're right.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 10:55:17 AM|| 2004-12-08 10:55:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 bad, Seaf-- have you guys read anything else Brooks has written? If you had, you might grasp that Brooks is not "decrying" large families, rather he's simply recognizing a crucial social divide that has huge political ramifications.

The key fact here is that Democrats, once the party of large moderate-income northern Catholic and southern protestant families, are now the party of childless secular bicoastal yuppies.

The Democratic party of my childhood (1960s-70s) was quite strong among large, non-rural white families, particularly Catholic families, and was very competitive in the suburbs. This was the party of the Catholic Youth Organization, of patriotic Americans who admired the Kennedys as much for their image as a large and devoted family as for their liberal idealism and commitment to public service.

In fact, in the postwar American Catholic mind, the two went hand in hand: you took care of your family and you took care of your community, with no one left behind. Feminism, gays, abortion: these controversies, while troubling, had not emerged as litmus tests for loyal Democrats, who in the domestic sphere were still mainly concerned with bread-and-butter economic issues. Neither was religion in the public schools an issue; these Democrats tended to send their children to parochial schools. Patriotism, like the paterfamilias, was an unquestioned good.

No more. As the Democrats' unionized base has shriveled, the Democrat leadership has shifted its domestic attention from economic to cultural issues. Abortion and gay rights stir the souls of Democratic activists these days, and these are the preoccupation of secular, urban, childless yuppies. The emblematic old-style Dem leader was Tip O'Neill, a blue-collar Catholic ward-heeler. Today's archetypal Dem leader is Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco socialite whose Catholicism, if it exists, is so muted as to be invisible. One can easily imagine O'Neill playing softball with his local CYO league and having a pint with the parents afterwards. But you can't picture Pelosi in her off-hours in anything but evening dress, shmoozing with software and money guy gazillionaires (does San Francisco even have a CYO these days?).

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 10:57:49 AM|| 2004-12-08 10:57:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 have you guys read anything else Brooks has written? If you had, you might grasp that Brooks is not "decrying" large families, rather he's simply recognizing a crucial social divide that has huge political ramifications

I know I didn't just pull it out of thin air that the writer has a condesending attitude towards 'natalists.' Does his article repudiate the man's views in his books?

Posted by badanov 2004-12-08 11:01:14 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-12-08 11:01:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Here's another way of looking at it: who are each party's diehards? What % of Repub activists, Freepers, Rantburg regulars have kids? What % of
Dem activists, Daily Kos/DU/Calpundit regulars have kids?

My guess is >50% for the former and <25% for the latter. If you ever scroll through the posts at Calpundit or (horrors) Kos, you'll notice something very strange: almost none of these people ever references his or her children. A large number reveal themselves to be gay. Almost all of them live in urban or college town enclaves. An old-time large-family liberal Democrat feels very much estranged from these people, whose lives seem to revolve around the internet, dating, internet dating, and the kind of globalist outlook that most people embrace for a year or two during college. It's a fair bet that less than one third of these people have children. Single and looking, they're highly sympathetic to the gays' preoccupation with sexual freedom and tend to be paranoid about the religious right.

When you look at Democratic party activists, you see the a slightly less flamboyant version of the kinds of people you encounter on Daily Kos or DU. Dem activists show far more interest in gay rights and abortion than in the needs of working-class families, perhaps because a large number of these activists are themselves gay or single women.

These Democrats' preoccupations overlap nicely with the news agenda of the preeminent liberal lifestyle guide, the New York Times: gays, feminism, European opinion, race relations, real estate prices, investments, fashion, Hollywood. If you're thinking of living in Democratville... just don't bring children along. Anyone with a large family feels completely left out of today's Democratic party.

This, I think, is the essential point of Brooks' article. He tends to be too cutesy in his descriptions of social mores and taste badges, but the man has his finger on a crucial-- probably the crucial-- problem of the Democratic Party today.

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 11:02:49 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:02:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 bad, you're focusing too much on his stylistic flourishes and not enough on the essential point. A semi-smug air of condescension is the price of admission for anyone writing for the urban ledt-lib lifestyle guide that is today's NY Times.

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 11:04:23 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:04:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 I'm sorry lex - regardless of any good ideas he may have had in the past, "natalism" is the stoopidist thing I've ever heard of. People aren't foregoing materialism and choosing to have more babies - they are just having a family and want to be able to afford some space, so they are moving to "red states" where the cost of housing is cheaper and they can afford to enjoy the luxuries of life.

Putting this all under a heading of "natalism" is insulting and stoopid.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 11:05:04 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:05:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 A few years ago I read "Generations", by Strauss and Howe. It's an interesting look at American history grouped by generations and their characteristics. A little New-Agey but fun.

But I got the chills when I read about my generation, the "Thirteeners" (roughly those born between 1961-1975). We were the generation everyone tried really hard not to have. Between birth control pills and Roe v. Wade, my generation is tiny compared to the self-involved and soon-to-retire Baby Boomers.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-12-08 11:09:41 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:09:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 yeah...but the baby-boom echo is coming on strong. I've always heard that 57- 75 were the "tweeners" as in between the baby boom and the start of the baby boom echo.

57 - 61 is technically part of the baby boom, but they don't share the same ideas, since the "beautiful ideas" of the 60's generation was already looking a bit tarnished with drug addiction, unwed mothers, welfare dependency and the killing fields by the time they came of age.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 11:15:49 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:15:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 People aren't foregoing materialism and choosing to have more babies

2b, I agree the "natalism" rubric is splashy and dumb, but this is how a columnist gets noticed. People across the spectrum are talking about Brooks. They don't talk about Krugman, or Jonah Goldberg, or Kos or Sully.

As to what's actually happening and why, neither of us, or Brooks, has hard data points so we're all just speculating here. My own guess, based in fair measure on my own experience, is that Brooks is right to argue that there's a very signficant trade-off between having children and advancing one's career today. If the Dems don't figure out a pro-family platform, they will be in danger of becoming the Eunuch Party

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 11:21:26 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:21:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 "Go forth and multiply." Old Testament. I think most, if not all, god based religions do push a vigorous procreation plan.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-12-08 11:21:37 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:21:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 DB... I have to agree with you and Sea. More members means more money in the offering plate :-)

Lex...ok..maybe so. I don't argue your point about gays, but I live amongst the blue and they have kids. I think it's something else that makes the urban areas that way. I don't know what exactly, but it's not for a lack of families.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 11:27:11 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:27:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Lex, Seafarious, 2b, et al., you might be interested in an article and discussion of "Generation Jones," someone's cutesy term for 1954-65 model year human beings, that appeared earlier this week over at the Brothers Judd site.

I'm a '61-model myself (and a refugee from Planned Parenthood via Catholic Social Services and a nice adoption agency whose name escapes me). It seems a lot of us in this thread are "Jonses" here.

Now let's see if the rest of you can keep up with us. :-)

Posted by Mike 2004-12-08 11:29:50 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:29:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 Every one of the liberal high achiever types I know has moved significantly rightward after having kids. Every one of the diehard liberal Bush-haters in my circle is childless. Brooks may have the causal link reversed, but there is no question that Dems are increasingly the party of people who care more about helping African children than about properly raising children here at home.

The evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker puts it well. He notes the idiocy of Chomsky's contention that we should adopt socialistic policies because "no one would treat his family the way we treat our fellow citizens." Well, yes: of course we favor our own kith and kind. We're programmed that way. The childless jokers who make up most Dem activists simply cannot grasp this fact.

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 11:33:11 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:33:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 Mike..interesting to see that in print, cause I've been noticing for years that those born after 56 have very different than those born before. Those born before seem vested proving their failed ideas from the 60's - or at the very least, they just seem to accept them without question.

Lex, I've lived in several very blue places and ...while I agree with much of your point - it's just not true that the dem's don't have kids.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 11:38:47 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:38:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 I'm speaking of the hard core activists.

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 11:43:24 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:43:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 I think some here may have seen NY Times and jumped to conclusions about the thrust of the article. David Brooks may have his columns published in the NYT, but he is really the antithesis of the NYT. He's moderately conservative and objective. He does not put forth an agenda. And when he does give 'opinions' (he understands the difference between opinion and reporting), he is introspective and usually acknowledges his own biases or the biases of those he is quoting.

His conclusion, âWhat they cherish, like most Americans, is the self-sacrificial love shown by parentsâ is meant as a compliment, not derogatory.

-- PH, Now Three Days Without a Human Rights Violation!

Posted by Psycho Hillbilly 2004-12-08 11:43:38 AM|| 2004-12-08 11:43:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 lex..re: hard core, agreed. PH.. ok, but I still think the idea of "natalism" is stoopid.

I'm going to take a stab at this...I think that the political distinction between the boomers and the tweeners can be understood if you understand that the earlier leftie boomers are just terrified of "growing up". Their whole youth and being was wrapped around this idea that they were ringing in the new...and the older establishment was prudish, stodgy and dull. Thus, to grow up is to become those things, stodgy, dull, grey, colorless...old.

When it comes to sex, they can't deal with telling their daughters and sons to abstain to prevent aids, disease and pregnancy - because that makes them "prudes", a fate worse than death.

Likewise, they have to believe that war is bad, because to do otherwise would be shuck ones ideals of youth right into the trashcan - again making them feel old.

For a woman to put her emphasis on the family was "old fashioned". Women need to be free - like a cosmo girl should be. A family requires acknowledging the self-sacrifice that comes from quitting a job to stay home and enjoy your kids....

and it goes on.

But those of us born later looked around and said, hmmm... jobs suck, staying home with kids sounds kind of fun, maybe girls shouldn't feel the need to act like a mattress, and even a retard can have sex, drugs addiction is not cool, and if you have a war and nobody shows up, it means that good people get murdered, raped and subjugated by thugs.

anyway...sorry...just my two dollars.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 12:03:05 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:03:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 The Dems will continue to lose national elections so long as the emblem of the party is the Nancy Pelosi type rather than the Tip O'Neill type.

As this analyst in The New Republic points out, the Dems need to get back to child-friendly, pro-family policies such as emphasizing home ownership. It's not about "moral values", it's about an economic program that's in tune with what most Americans really need and want:

http://www.joelkotkin.com/Politics/NR%20Parent%20Trap.htm
"...what do Democrats need to do? The unimaginative answer is to say that they should moderate their positions on issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, where the most liberal stance tends to turn off married parents with children. And perhaps they should.

"But far more important is for Democrats to return to a worldview centered around the baby-making electorate. Historically, Democrats appealed to families by stressing the need to expand home ownership--the GI bill, for example--and by emphasizing the importance of government in providing basic services, such as roads, libraries, and water and power systems, to suburban communities. They were also advocates for educating the middle class, which in the 1950s and '60s moved into suburbia. Today, Democrats too often seem preoccupied with either top universities--home of their much-beloved creative class--or inner-city schools. Improving suburban education needs to be once again placed front and center on the Democrats' agenda...."

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 12:08:32 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:08:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 baby-making electorate

they just don't get it, do they?

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 12:10:45 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:10:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 This is apt:

Perhaps more than anything else, Democrats need a change in style. Democratic legislators too often seem hostile to suburban concerns, and indifferent to the aspirations of those who would like to buy a home and a small green place to call their own. In Albuquerque, for example, planners working for the local Democratic regime advocated banning backyards, an essential part of the middle-class family lifestyle. One [Democratic city planner] even told a local developer that his having four children made him "immoral."

A small--and probably extreme--example? Undoubtedly. But it speaks to a stereotype that Democrats have been battling for years now: that they disdain suburbia and the families who live there. It is long past time for Democrats to start undoing that perception.

Finally, Democrats might want to consider a change of venue for their next convention. They have held their last four gatherings in four of America's most liberal cities--New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston. Maybe next time, they should hold their convention in Houston, Orlando, or Phoenix, where families are growing, people are moving, and the future of this remarkably fertile nation is being nurtured. It's worth a try, because, after all, Democrats have little choice. Demographics will not save them. On the contrary, the Democrats' task now is to try to save themselves from demographics.

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 12:18:43 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:18:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 one last thought...now not only does the "boomer generation insult the older seniors with this baby making electorate crap, but they insult the tweeners, X'rs and the baby-boom echo who really don't share their fear that growing up to raise a happy family or to be happily married, is such an embarassing fate.

Today, people have the freedom to choose the lifestyle they want. Women can choose a career and stay single. Men can choose to stay home with the kids. We just don't share their hang-up that the choice to focus on family makes one some sort of neanderthal.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 12:25:09 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:25:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Seafarious-I am about where you are on this. I grew up in a large family and it was great, but others saying that you MUST incubate for society's sake is not only ludicrous but disgusting.

As far as Planned Parenthood starting in poor areas-well, I was born in 1960, so I can't comment on locations prior to that, but one of its first locations in the county I grew up in was between Wheaton and Carol Stream-hardly poverty central.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-08 12:27:44 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:27:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 lex... that really nails it!

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 12:28:10 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:28:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 2b, fine, do your own thing. No problem here. The point though is that Dems are completely ignoring the largest, fast-growing and arguably most important demographic this nation has. The result of this oversight is an absurd focus on Dem-leaning subgroups like 18-24 year-olds, who do not, repeat, do not vote, and african-americans, whose share of the population is shrinking.

The high-growth sunbelt suburbs are the key to political power in this country. Ignore them at your peril.

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 12:48:12 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:48:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 hmm.. I thought I was agreeing with you.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 12:50:43 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:50:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 2b, oops, I'm sorry, so you were. My apologies - never mind...

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 12:52:15 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:52:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 :-)

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 12:54:13 PM|| 2004-12-08 12:54:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Very good comments, all. I've long said that I was born on the cusp between the boomers and the GenX-ers, but I'm glad to know we have our own name, because we definitely have a post-boomer outlook. I can even see a difference between me and my husband, who was born in two years earlier, in 1959. Loathing Viet Nam informs his outlook in a way it does not do mine, f'r instance; fighting for women's equality ditto (our big fight before the wedding was whether I would keep my maiden name: he was appalled that I chose not to).

Like 2b, I do have a small problem with the having babies makes people conservative and take on traditional gender roles thing.

I know half a dozen families where the husband is the one staying home with the children. In each case both spouses worked until the first child was born, but then it was the lower paid spouse (the man in each of these cases) who quit his job. In all of these families there are three or more kids, and the woman's career is going great guns. (It turns out that when men choose to stay home, they attack the job very methodically, and don't whine about being disrespected or not being able to go out because the wife is too tired when she comes home from the office.)

In conclusion, having children may make people more conservative in their overall outlook, but it certainly doesn't mean unthinking reversion to traditional behaviours.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-12-08 1:20:15 PM|| 2004-12-08 1:20:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Longest thread ever with no...... flame.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-08 1:28:06 PM|| 2004-12-08 1:28:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 My grandfather was 11th of 14 in the late 19th century. They were neither Mormon or Roman Catholic. It was considered "normal". This may have been an extreme case for now under this scenario, but, not so then. By the way, they were Methodists...

Posted by BigEd 2004-12-08 1:40:07 PM|| 2004-12-08 1:40:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 TW & 2b: I would propose that while having babies does not inevitably make you conservative, it has a strong tendency to do so. When the neonatal nurse handed me #1 Son nearly 12 years ago, it was the most transforming thing that ever happened to me. Life is no longer about what you want, it's about what you have to do.

Posted by Mike 2004-12-08 1:41:08 PM|| 2004-12-08 1:41:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 TW great comments.

Mike - I guess a baby really puts life into perspective. Reminds me of the ol' saying: if you are a conservative at 20, you have no heart, and if you are a liberal after 30 you have no brain.

I really think that the blue baby-boomers are stuck in the liberal mode because they are terrified that if they "grow up", they grow old.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 2:13:01 PM|| 2004-12-08 2:13:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 It's not that bearing and raising children makes one more conservative across the board. It's that it focuses your attention on a different set of issues, and these issues-- home ownership and schools quality, savings and ownership generally, and national security-- used to be front and center for Truman-JFK Democrats. Today, for whatever bizarre reason, these bread-and-butter liberal concerns are deemed "conservative."

To elaborate, when you have kids, you instantly become focused, laser-like, on the quality of the schools in your area. You start to compare the cost of private schools to increased mortgage payments for a house in heavily desired school districts.

Secondly, you become more focused on saving and less on consumption, which mainly means less going out, which means you spend less time in the company of single and childless urban yupsters.

Third, you take a much greater interest in security issues. The slaughter of children in some far-off land by muslim fascists gets more attention from you than news stories on gay marriage or the environment.

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 2:14:33 PM|| 2004-12-08 2:14:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 There is a difference between smugness and pride. There are some fairly sweeping generalizations in this thread that may OR MAY NOT reflect reality.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-08 2:23:29 PM|| 2004-12-08 2:23:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Succinctly put, the hypothesis is Red States: Knocked up; Blue States: F**ked up.

Posted by Random thoughts 2004-12-08 2:34:34 PM|| 2004-12-08 2:34:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Lex...that's a good point. But the problem with the Dem's is, if history is to be a guide, that they worry more about how to "express" to the electorate that they "care" rather than making tough decisions that lead to actual results.

As long as I can remember - the Dem solution to improving failing schools and increased crime was to increase taxes, and throw money at the problem, without actually making any difficult changes that would make a difference. It is the Repub's that pushed forward the ideas of accountabiliy or longer sentences, ie: tough things that make a difference ...all against the shrill shrieks of "mean racist" by the left. But what was really mean and racist was holding the poor back with low expectations and allowing criminals to roam free in their neighborhoods.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 2:37:00 PM|| 2004-12-08 2:37:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 rt...lol!

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 2:37:23 PM|| 2004-12-08 2:37:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 The Dems should wipe the slate clean and set about re-ordering their view of national priorities with an eye toward answering this fundamental question: How can we best help improve security (economic and physical) and quality of life for moderate- and low-income families?

If they were to do this, they'd find that national security, reforming and expanding health insurance, and expanding home ownership and school choice would zoom to the top of the list. In fact would displace just about everything else.

Posted by lex 2004-12-08 2:44:34 PM|| 2004-12-08 2:44:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 lex...The Dem's have always had those things as their talking points. Health care, schools has been their mantra ad nasuem. It's not what they proclaim to care about but how they propose to fix it that's causing the stampede to the Republican's door.

How can they fix schools when they they are 100% beholden to the Teachers Unions?
Their proposal for fixing health care - tax and give away for free. Great! Just what we all want, crappy socialized medicine.
Social security - taxes, taxes and more taxes.

I'd suggest to you that if you want improvements in those areas, look to the party that can and has been best producing, rather than clinging to a sentimental hope that the Democratic party will someday get a clue.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 3:00:17 PM|| 2004-12-08 3:00:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 I gotta go. It's been intersting.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-08 3:07:42 PM|| 2004-12-08 3:07:42 PM|| Front Page Top

06:02 reesh
23:52 Carl in N.H.
23:33 Bomb-a-rama
23:30 anonymous2U
23:21 Uleque Glavise4887
23:12 Alaska Paul
23:11 Bomb-a-rama
23:10 2b
23:06 Alaska Paul
23:06 Uleque Glavise4887
23:02 2b
23:00 True German Ally
22:57 gromky
22:54 Uleque Glavise4887
22:47 Uleque Glavise4887
22:46 Alaska Paul
22:36 Laurence of the Rats
22:23 gromky
22:13 Alaska Paul
22:09 Asedwich
22:07 smn
22:04 Frank G
21:43 Uleque Hupavise4887
21:42 Anonymoose