Thoughts on Blue Families and Red Families

I've been following the discussions of the new book Red Families v.Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture by law professors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone, since oddjob pointed out this excellent article about it by Jonathan Rauch at National Journal a couple of weeks ago.  The book raises a number of interesting issues with respect to culture, public policy, religion, economics, and political identity, each of which could probably occupy a long post. The major finding of the book, (and I haven't read it yet -- I hope to pick it up in an hour or so) reducing it to an oversimplified sound bite, is that families in Blue States are far more likely to be stable and intact than those in the more conservative states, with higher levels of educational and economic attainment, lower levels of divorce, and far less likelihood of teenagers becoming parents.  I think the thing that most struck me about the facts elucidated by the book is the rather hapless and helpless reaction to it from the culture warriors on the right, who seem to really have had the wind taken out of their sails by the cold hard numbers staring at them.

I take both a personal and political interest in this discussion, because it's something that I feel like I've observed throughout my adult life with the book affirming my own anecdotal perspective on this phenomenon.  I think I am part of the first demographic wave who began living the "Blue State" life depicted in the book.  If I had to reduce that lifestyle to a series of stereotypes it would be one in which pursuit of higher education, often including post-graduate studies, followed by some sort of professional career is at the heart of its culture.  It is a life that is typically urban-centered, where one's twenties are dedicated to acquiring the credentials necessary to a career and to a social life that is built around peer networks and sexual relationships that are often monogamous and long-standing, but do not necessarily result in marriage.  It is assumed that people will be sexually active long before marriage and that they will likely have a variety of sexual partners before and if they eventually marry.  The idea of a "shotgun wedding" in this milieu would be considered absurd -- and rightly so in my mind.  Cohabitation is pretty common and never frowned upon in this environment.  The use of contraception is a given and resort to abortion in the event of some failure of birth control is not stigmatized.  

As a commenter notes at one site that I was reading, "the book makes the point in several places that the “blue family” model is a mix of public tolerance with private discipline - that their sexual ethic locates discipline in planning for and managing the consequences of sexual behavior which translates into having access to and using contraception, planning for the chance that you might need the morning after pill and/or access to abortion."  I think that this notion of public tolerance and private discipline is correct in part, but I think it misses the broader point that in this culture sex is seen as a legitimate avenue of pleasure, personal expression, love, etc., but that it is demystified (to the extent sex can be demystified) and made a normal part of life, but just a part -- one that doesn't negate or interfere with other goals.  There is no passive acceptance of "accidents" no feeling that forced marriage is an appropriate response to an unwanted pregnancy. 

There is some hell raising that goes on in this world, but it tends to be of the kind that is managed in such a way that it doesn't detract from performance at either school or work.  One may wake up hungover in a stranger's bed on Sunday, but come Monday it's back to business. 

And when people ultimately do spawn in this world, they tend to become the most conservative creatures on earth -- oh not politically at all -- but in terms of life actually lived.  Once the kid or kids arrive, life pretty much revolves around them and work.  I see this in my circle all the time -- among couples both heterosexual and gay or lesbian -- a transition from what some denounce as an extended adolescence (I rather enjoyed it) to a highly responsible, heavily scheduled, and deeply regimented life. There's no time to get divorced in this world -- the SATs are going to be in a mere sixteen years and we need to get cracking.  (I exaggerate only a little.)  Seemingly every ounce of energy and every spare dollar is devoted to optimizing junior's prospects and it is a two-parent effort all the way (although to the extent that there are career sacrifices they still seem to fall disproportionately on the women even in this fairly egalitarian universe).  (Hell, I recently told a friend of mine who was boldly contemplating single parenthood at the age of 49 that I thought the appropriate parent to child ratio was actually 3 to 1 -- she made the leap nonetheless.)   

In short, this blue state model is one designed to permit people to achieve the highest possible educational attainment, establish careers, and then give maximum nurturing to eventual offspring.  It is a model designed for a sexually egalitarian, post-industrial environment.  And even though people like David Brooks, George Will, and Ross Douthat -- aided and abetted by the hysterical "you're going to die alone and with a withered womb being eaten by your cat set -- keep trying to make the case for early marriage and children, it's just not catching on for people in the real world.

Conversely, the red state model -- or a not complete exaggeration of it -- marry early and randomly after unprotected coupling leads to an unplanned pregnancy -- is not really optimal in any sense.  And is this surprising?  The idea that it would work well to take two young people -- teenagers even -- and immediately throw both marriage and parenthood on them simultaneously in this manner just seems so transparently preposterous.

And yet, empiricism just won't cut it in right wing world, where one still has to pretend that the only acceptable context for sex is within marriage -- a fairy tale that these jokers tried to turn into public policy during the Bush years.  Not only is the right obstinately opposed to abortion, it is publicly uneasy with contraception, opposed to fact-based sex education, ambivalent about women working (unless it's Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann or Phyllis Schlafly), and to some degree scornful of educational achievement.  The result is states in which access to both contraception and abortion are extremely circumscribed and where the predominant political culture shames those young women who would seek mastery over their fertility.   

Ross Douthat, one of those terminally nostalgic for days that never were, sounds woefully depressed as he describes the findings of Cahn and Carbone: 

The authors depict a culturally conservative “red America” that’s stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates.

This self-defeating cycle could explain why socially conservative states have more family instability than, say, the culturally liberal Northeast. If you’re looking for solid marriages, head to Massachusetts, not Alabama.   

Ouch, that last line's gotta hurt.  And so where does that lead the boy columnist in terms of policy conclusions: 

Liberals sometimes argue that their preferred approach to family life reduces the need for abortion. In reality, it may depend on abortion to succeed. The teen pregnancy rate in blue Connecticut, for instance, is roughly identical to the teen pregnancy rate in red Montana. But in Connecticut, those pregnancies are half as likely to be carried to term. Over all, the abortion rate is twice as high in New York as in Texas and three times as high in Massachusetts as in Utah.

So it isn’t just contraception that delays childbearing in liberal states, and it isn’t just a foolish devotion to abstinence education that leads to teen births and hasty marriages in conservative America. It’s also a matter of how plausible an option abortion seems, both morally and practically, depending on who and where you are.

Whether it’s attainable for most Americans or not, the “blue family” model clearly works: it leads to marital success and material prosperity, and it’s well suited to our mobile, globalized society.

By comparison, the “red family” model can look dysfunctional — an uneasy mix of rigor and permissiveness, whose ideals don’t always match up with the facts of contemporary life.

But it reflects something else as well: an attempt, however compromised, to navigate post-sexual revolution America without relying on abortion.

In other words, me and my fellow righties have embraced a political cultural model for the family that is an objective failure in terms of promoting the thing we claim to be central to our goals -- strong and stable marriages in which children can be reared.  Moreover, we've embraced a model that doesn't square in any way with the life actually lived by real people in real America.  But our consolation prize is that all of this dysfunction will take place within an environment in which women will either not have access to abortion or will not seek one because they have been propagandized into thinking it would be murder. 

So what then do Douthat and his ideological fellows suggest for those caught in this dysfunction?  Should we continue the abstinence only farce?  Is there really no way to make contraceptive use more universal and more effective -- statistics from Europe would strongly suggest so.  Should we adopt laws that make it easier to unionize, that protect domestic industry, that raise the minimum wage, that mandate paid maternity and paternity leave as means of leveling the playing field for those who do not have college educations in order to make their economic lives less stressful?  I don't think you will see any such suggestions emanating from the right.  Instead, they will take solace in the pyrrhic victory of lower abortion rates.  And they will encourage their fellow travelers to embrace the red state ethic -- the very opposite of the blue state one I discussed above -- personal license and public intolerance, where every sin I commit is forgiven, but you, well you need to live a better life. 

One final note -- for all of their expressed love for Real America, you notice you don't see any of these right wing pundits actually living there?  

Comments

[big bad wolf]

a funny take on the 16-years-until-SAT mentality

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/05/17/100517ta_talk_singer

[Corvus9]

It's posts like this and the data contained within that convinces me that liberalism is the objectively correct position and that attempts to claim equivalence or legitimacy to both political poles are the works of fools.

Thanks, Sir Charles!

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

That's funny -- and yet dangerously close to reality.

Alas, in 35 minutes we are going to have dinner with friends of ours whose daughter was just in the process of choosing between Princeton and Harvard. They are our dear friends -- and we hate them deeply. (Inexlicably, she is opting for Princeton.)

When we celebrated my 50th birthday we went out with five other couples and I realized that between us we had as many JDs as children -- nine of both -- plus an LLM, five masters degrees, and a PhD -- and 86 years of marriage. It was quite the blue state orgy.

It's good that I do what I do for a living. It keeps in tune with broader realities.

Corvus,

Thanks for your kind comment. I am interested in facts -- and policies that will actually make peoples' lives better. This would not appear to be the case for our brethren on the right.

Thanks.

[kathy a.]

wonderful post, and excellent last point, SC. none of the blowhards actually lives in the land of few options -- but they pick up followings by being blowhards who make things like the shotgun marriage seem noble. way to go, dudes!

also laughing about the tendency for those of us who promote learning and choices to have a hard time finding balance, and backing off [as BBW suggests] when the kids are older and grappling with choice points. that's a real pushme-pullyou, figuring out every day how to be a safety net without either [a] being the kind of total asshole you hate, and/or [b] being the kind of pushover who deserves grief.

[Sonic Charmer]

Couldn't people have the causality reversed? Do people attain comfortable/affluent/stable family life somehow because they are "Blue"? Or do they become "Blue" due to having a comfortable/affluent/stable family life?

To the extent that being politically "Blue" means to support a political establishment according to which people who have "higher education, often including post-graduate studies" are, almost automatically, anointed with high-salaried, powerful, respected, honored, and/or comfortable lifestyles, it's hardly surprising at all that states with a disproportionate # of people who come from families that value higher education/etc end up being "Blue". It's probably more surprising how weak the effect is.

[litbrit]

being politically "Blue" means to support a political establishment according to which people who have "higher education, often including post-graduate studies" are, almost automatically, anointed with high-salaried, powerful, respected, honored, and/or comfortable lifestyles

Ha!

Oh yes, let's consider my family, starting with the writer chick, she with the lone degree of the lot, she who is automatically respected (!), she who, like most writers, was clearly anointed with a high-salaried, powerful, respected, honored, and comfortable lifestyle (!!!)...(are you going to eat that lettuce garnish? Thanks...). Or no, wait, wait, let's consider the husband, the small farmer of no college--of no high school, even (just books, always books)--raised in a strictly (spare the rod, spoil the child) religious house...and yet: totally devoted to his children's education.

Unlike so many of the classic chicken-egg arguments, this one flows in a single direction: it's the state of mind that directs the lifestyle. But fear not, potential Blue State souls trapped in Red State bodies politic: it's a state of mind, and subsequent "lifestyle", that can be taught and learned--attained, if you will--even in the reddest county of a very red state like ours.

How? Education; exposure to a variety of ideas, cultures, and languages; an environment in the home wherein logic, science, and reason are given pride of place and all religions and cultures are treated with respect as well as healthy analysis and skepticism (and all this applies to the human body and its innate wisdoms, including that which dictates a blastocyst is not a baby); a general sense of being able to give, and receive, unconditional love and not having to "prove" yourself as a man, a woman, or a member of something.

I don't know of any families living "Blue" who raise Red kids, however.

[kathy a.]

well, sonic, here's the thing -- after my disclaimer, which is that i don't like the horribly clumsy efforts to categorize by blue/red states.

and the thing is, do we try to open options and support regular people in practical ways? or do we try to demonize and close options for them?

in the situation of abortion rights [and contraceptive rights, although that gets less airtime], a very vocal minority seeks to impose its religious views on everyone. which is truly awful, and it naturally comes out being most awful for women, who happen to be the ones who bear pregnancies.

i don't think there is anything elitist about wanting *everyone* to have access to reproductive information and reproductive health care, including contraception. and also abortion services if that is what the woman unexpectedly pregnant, or facing pregnancy difficulties, decides personally. it is abhorrant to me that complete strangers could not only presume to know what is right in a private and individual situation, but to impose that view on someone else.

[oddjob]

I don't know of any families living "Blue" who raise Red kids, however.

Secular parents who end up with fundy children? It happens sometimes.

[kathy a.]

along litbrit's lines, i was raised in a household that gave pride of place on a kitchen shelf to a can of "goldwater." education was emphasized, but we never had enough underwear; i was branded a goddam feminist marxist bitch for reading required texts and attempting to talk about them; and i was totally 100% "don't even call" on my own by 20. i and my younger sibs somehow managed to achieve advanced degrees without substantial parental support. we all lean to the liberal, from whence we did not come, because we believe the old conservative messages of education for all and opportunities for all.

[kathy a.]

well, maybe the old conservatives really didn't mean that, but i'm reporting filtered impressions heard from conservative parents. pride of place on a bookshelf when my mother died were a few signed photos of GW, thanking her for her support of the cause. and she did brag about her accomplished kids.

[Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle]

One final note -- for all of their expressed love for Real America, you notice you don't see any of these right wing pundits actually living there?

Doesn't Eric, son of Eric, Erickson live in a red state? And can you consider Northern Virginia(where Friedman and George Will live) a red state?

[Sir Charles]

Calvin,

Neither Friedman nor Will lives in Northern VA -- Friedman lives in Bethesda, MD (a liberal bastion) on an enormous estate and Will lives in Chevy Chase, MD, about a mile from my house in a lovely liberal suburb that borders right on DC. Northern VA though is very liberal -- Arlington, Alexandria, and large parts of Fairfax County are very liberal. They are definitely not "red."

Eric Ericson, a contemptible moron, does live in Georgia, where he should stay.

[Sir Charles]

Sonic Charmer,

I'm not really understanding your point. I think that there is a surprising amount of mobility in the blue state milieu if your parents are interested in you becoming educated. My father was a cop and my mother a nurse, but they were very invested in my getting an education. I have a number of other friends from Massachusetts from blue collar backgrounds who had the same experience. But it's a huge advantage to have parents who have been through the process and have the money to aid in your success.

What is not helpful is to have a kid when you're 17.

[litbrit]

Kathy, I was fortunate to have parents who took us around the world and pushed us to do well in school--who believed young women could and should achieve whatever they wanted, be that a career, a family, or both, and thus be free to avail themselves of modern family planning methods--yet would (at the time) have been considered "conservative" and would have called themselves that, too.

I am also reminded that Frank Zappa considered himself a Conservative. (It used to mean something very different, as I think we're all aware.)

What I think you and I are speaking to here is the fact that being liberal (or liberal-leaning) is not necessarily the result of being born into privilege--into an "elite" and/or wealthy and/or (Northern) East Coast family--nor is it always and exclusively the result of being raised by liberals.

[kathy a.]

yes, litbrit.

[Crissa]

And the quoted article about abortion rates is wrong, anyhow. It's selecting bad comparisons. For the most part, red states also have more abortions. There's some exceptions for blue states, yes, but of the top ten most, or top ten least.

And hardly at the same rate there are more red states vs blue states.

[Sonic Charmer]

litbrit: I didn't mean to suggest that my description was one of the society we have, but rather, a description of the society that "Blue" politics by its nature seeks. Your comment was not a counterexample.

kathy a.: Reading your comment one could get the impression that the "Blue"-"Red" split is entirely or at least primarily about abortion. I disagree.

Sir Charles: Yes sure, there is a huge amount of mobility. But as you say, it sure helps to have parents who have the push and the money to get you to the 'right' schools etc. But more to the point, it helps if society is all set up to reward those who went to the 'right' schools etc with maximal power and influence. My claim, to clarify, is that this is what is sought by "Blue" politics more than "Red" politics.

[Sir Charles]

Sonic Charmer,

State the policy basis for your claim. If you can come up with one thing I'll be shocked.

Who is supportive of unions, higher minimum wage, enforcement of overtime laws, etc. If you read this blog, you will understand that these form my core concerns and they reflect the concerns of a large component of the Democratic Party.

Cutting taxes for the rich and deregulating the economy don't really help high school grads.

[litbrit]

Well, Sonic, you're either a very unclear writer or a very clumsy goal-post mover, or both.

Three people, two of whom are attorneys and the other of whom is a writer who works in a couple of languages, took your comment to mean what it said.

And this: it helps if society is all set up to reward those who went to the 'right' schools etc with maximal power and influence...

...reeks of misplaced class resentment and paranoia. I mean, we're all aware that there are certain top universities that are disproportionately represented in our government. But that is the case in Britain, too (Oxford, LSE), as well as France, Germany, and pretty much any developed country. There are only so many hundreds-of-years-old institutions of higher learning that any one country can offer. In the American ones, as it turns out, even the biracial son of an impoverished single mother can further his education.

I mean "society is all set up to reward those..."? Society isn't "set up" by some mystical, domineering force. Society is us. WE reward intelligence, innovation, hard work, and, I like to think, creativity. And as numerous people have pointed out, WE are not all children of privilege, certainly not at this blog, certainly not the level of privilege you're implying, which you haven't clearly defined but which I'm guessing involves substantial amounts of family money and connections.

Those setups exist, of course, as they exist in every culture. But they are quite tangential to the discussion here, which is about the correlation of education, and the value placed on it in the home--and the avoidance/delaying of childbearing by young people--with the likelihood of raising a liberal or liberal-leaning person, regardless of family money, family connections, and even whether or not one's parents are liberal.

[Sonic Charmer]

I am speaking in generalities (as we all are, including you in your original post). If I say simply that "Blue" politics seeks (for better or worse) an expanded role for government and for experts/technocrats within government, are you really going to dispute that?

For a specific example, let's take climate change. "Blue" ideologues generally want a national climate change policy of one kind or another, directed by experts, whereas "Reds" generally don't. Leaving aside the merits of this or that view, objectively which stance - if carried out - would endow credentialed, schooled experts with more power/influence/funding?

P.S. For what it's worth, I disagree (for example) that minimum wage & overtime laws and 'supporting unions' really helps 'high school grads', and I disagree that lower taxes and deregulation don't. If I didn't, I'd probably have the opposite views that I do.

[Sonic Charmer]

litbrit: Au contraire, I think my class resentment and paranoia is very well-placed! ;-) But seriously, once again your comment was not even a counterexample let alone rebuttal to the point I was making. Best,

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Welcome aboard, Sonic C. I expect I will be one if the people who will most argue with you, but I've been hoping for an intelligent Conservative to dive in. You'll at least force us liberals to 'sharpen our blades.'

Unlike some others here, I'm going to argue that you are right that there is more room for graduates of 'elite' schools in the current Democratic than there is in the Bushified Republican Party -- this would not have been true for any previous period, when both parties welcomed them equally. What I would argue is that this is a reason to condemn the right, not the left.

But before we look at the first Administration that was to consider a degree from Liberty University superior to one from Harvard, let's make a point about 'elite' Universities. The ones we are talking about are not 'elite' because of the 'social standing' of their alumni or their students, but because they attract both many of the best students and the best teachers.

For example, compare the reputations of -- and meaning of a degree from -- Princeton (a 'social elite' school) and Columbia. For that matter, at least in the reasonably recent past -- not sure if it is still true -- compare Princeton with the various branches of what was CCNY and is now CUNY. And they are designed as schools for the 'non-elite' with low tuition and classes mostly of 'city kids' who were frequently the first of their family to make it into college.

In fact, I think you will find most of the elite schools you are talking about -- and this includes far more tham the Ivy League, think Notre Dame, Georgetowm, several California Universities, U. of Chicago -- share a very generous scholrship policy for those who are intellectually but not financially or socially gifted. (And, in passing, I believe that, for any of these schools, that policy was instituted by liberal forces over the strong objections of the 'social elite.')

I have not seen such a breakdown, but I think you will find that a very high proportion of those elite school graduates who have achieved high places in government were recipient of needed financial aid and that very few of them, relatively, were the children of alumnae.

I also remind you that the greatest 'opening up' of the college population since the land grant colleges was the GI Bill, which made, for the first time, a colege education almost the norm rather than the exception, and which got its recipients used to thinking of their children as 'college-material.' That was a program passed by liberal democrats, as has almost every increase in making college easier and more affordable -- and usually opposed by the conservatives in both parties. And when liberals tried to institute a 'new GI Bill' for Iraq war veterans, guess which 'penny wise, pound foolish' party which makes loud claims of being pro-military blocked it?

[Joe]

I think that after a time of a population living in a diverse environment (with at least formal equality) and with increased education, you have the development of a "blue state culture." After a while, you get a place that looks more like Connecticut and less like South Carolina. You have liberals in Red States, but they are isolated individuals or live in small enclaves. On the other hand, after a few generations of widespread education, you see a dominant blue state culture emerge.

I think we're seeing this transformation in VA, NC, and parts of Georgia, Tennessee and Texas.

[Corvus9]

It's probably worth pointing out that what is under discussion here is not really Red States versus Blue States but social conservatism versus social liberals. To wit: socially liberal values are better adapted to our modern post-industrial society than socially conservative values. To whatever degree blue states versus red states are involved is as rough petri dishes reflecting the predominance of socially liberal versus socially conservative values, and the societies that resulted from such weightiness in either direction. Also, economic concerns aren't really even part of the discussion, and to a large extent don't really even seem to be related.

I am actually quite curious precisely what Sonic Charmer's political values actually are. S/he seems to be on the right, but I don't understand how class resentment and paranoia come into the mix. I mean, I have lots of class resentment and paranoia too! That's why I'm leftwing.

[Joe]

The first couple of times trying to post that comment I was blocked. There may be a technical glitch. I was a bit concerned Sir C had me blocked for defending Greenwald.

[litbrit]

Sonic, may I suggest a remedial course in point-making, then? If you don't like the rebuttals to the point(s) you've made, it's rather bad form to try to claim you were actually making different points altogether, ones that fly over our pointy liberal heads (or something).

(P.S. If you're worried about power/influence/funding falling into the hands of a questionable élite, may I also suggest you catch up on news in the world of defense contracting. There's a good piece in today's NYT about just one such enormous flashpoint: private spy networks in Af-Pak that we pay for, run by that rough-and-tumble embodiment of bootstraps bravery, Yankee ingenuity, and can-do attitude known as Lockheed Martin.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Joe: I've asked somebody to put this on the site permanently, but it's time for my regular reminder:

If your comment doesn't go through, copy it, open COGITAMUS in a new window or tab, and paste the commeent in, and it will go through.

No one has ever been blocked for disagreeing, but that glitch gets you every time. And refresh doesn't work, it has to be a new window.

[Corvus9]

Yeah, I have had that problem too. And that's precisely how I deal with it.

[Joe]

Thanks, guys (or gals)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sonic C: It's been a while since I've needed, or been able to, make the case against 'lower taxes.' Ironically, you come along just the day after Steve Benen handed me a beautiful demonstration of the evidence in the case. (And, just to knock down another point, what those evil elitist scientists want is for the policy to be determined by evidence, not 'experts.')

Now before we look at the negative impact 'lower taxes' has on the 'high-school grads' let's look at the only counter argument that stands up, that 'lower taxes' (and 'deregulation') produces job growth.

We just had eight years of George Bush as President, someone who -- at least to some extent, you might argue not strongly enough -- practiced both tax cutting and deregulation. There were also two wars during his Administration, traditionally 'job creators' in their own right. It might be possible to argue that you should discount some of the job growth there, but I'll ignore that.

How much 'job growth' did the Bush policies produce. Quoting Steve Benen -- I always find it hard to link to his articles, it's from yesterday at 10:50 --

Indeed, it went largely ignored at the time, but the Republican Bush/Cheney ticket sought a second term in 2004 despite the fact that it was the first administration in the modern era to go four years with a net job growth of zero. The campaign was largely about national security, so voters overlooked this painful detail.[emphasis mine]

In fact, as the article goes on to state, the total job growth net gain during the Bush Administration was 1 million. To give the quote from Ron Brownstein that starts Steve's post

"If the economy produces jobs over the next eight months at the same pace as it did over the past four months, the nation will have created more jobs in 2010 alone than it did over the entire eight years of George W. Bush's presidency."

And that is an understatement. The current rate would produce 1.7 million jobs this year alone.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

aargh, thought I'd checked all the HTML and closed tags. Why doesn't Typepad have a warning or a 'close all tags' feature, for idiots like me -- who hate doing 'preview and getting a word verification?

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I'm sure you're kidding, but I have never banned anyone from commenting and I particularly value your contributions here. And I don't object to people defending Greenwald at all. I have some disagreements with him which I've laid out at length, but I don't imagine I've cornered the market on wisdom here.

Sonic Charmer,

You've come up with nothing as far as I can see, which doesn't surprise me. All you seem to have is that strange inchoate resentment against educated people, as if they are the group holding down working class people. I would suggest you look to the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Business Roundtable, and the right wing think tanks if you want to find a culprit there.

You claim that unions and the enforcement of wage and hour laws don't help high school grads. Please explain, because all empirical data point to unions raising wages and benefits for primarily just that demographic, while it is hourly workers who benefit from raising the minimum wage and enforcing wage and hour laws. Similarly, it is the same group of workers who benefit most from other aspects of the social safety net -- unemployment insurance, workers compensation laws, OSHA, and ultimately, Social Security and Medicare. Tax cuts and deregulation detract from these programs and harm workers.

Explain for me how the Bush tax cuts or the deregulation regime of the last thirty years has helped the average high school grad, who is most likely an hourly worker?

Lastly, a move toward green energy will help everyone because we all have to live on this planet. The negative externalities associated with carbon based fuels ought to be self-evident right now. As far as I know, high school grads like to breathe clean air, swim on clean beaches, and not be subject to catastrophic weather events, just like the rest of us.

Additionally, there are enormous economic opportunities associated with the development of alternative energies domestically. One of my local union clients has half of its membership working on a wind farm right now installing wind turbines. It's an especially good time for this given the scarcity of jobs in commercial construction. A similar effort to build a smart grid, development and install more sophisticated climate control devices in buildings, and to build more mass transit and high speed rail would have huge benefits for high school educated workers.

Explain to me the benefits of the status quo versus what I've described.

Again, resentment isn't a political philosophy -- it's an attitude, and a lazy one at that.

[litbrit]

Tags are fixed. Apologies to all, but it's a Typepad bug that's been around for a while, I'm afraid. If you use HTML tags, just do a quick double-check of your post before you submit it to make sure you've closed them all with a (/x), where ( = < .

[Joe]

Yes, that was a joke Sir C.

[Corvus9]

Sir C., I would actually be very interested to see you (or litbrit) lay out your opinion of the various controversies surrounding the Administration's approach to civil liberties (though we have talked about trials for the torturers. Endlessly). I don't think we have actually had any kind of in depth conversation around here about those specific issues, just touched upon how they must be considered in the larger context of the political scene as it presently is. Considering what is at possibly at state is America turning into a police state (which I think is what Greenwald thinks the Obama Administration is doing) which would be something worth putting a lot of other priorities on hold for, I am curious if others think such a scenario is actually the case or not.

[Corvus9]

Not that I'm telling you what to post about, or anything.

(cough, cough)

[kathy a.]

SC's post [and discussions and book that inspired it] looks at the interesting finding that families in so-called "blue" states tend to be more stable. the thesis is that progressive policies further the goal of stability.

this makes total sense, both from a policy perspective and from the perspective of personal experience. individuals and families are less stable when they lack education and job opportunities, and when they enter marriage and/or parenthood too early or without the resources and experience necessary to sustain a family, when they lack the skills or opportunity to make good decisions.

people and families are more stable when they have the skills and opportunities to work, when working will allow them to support themselves and their families with fair wages, when there is a safety net for those times when things go badly, when they are able to evaluate information and make good decisions, when they are able to contribute to their communities.

i'm a little confused about some anti-government and anti-education comments in this thread. government exists to protect less powerful individuals against the powerful; constitutional protections exist to protect individuals against excesses of government. job protections, protections against financial abuse, protections against crimes, maintenance of infrastructure, and on and on -- those are things that benefit most people individually, and society collectively.

education is important because it enables critical thinking and exposes individuals to a variety of ideas, so they can evaluate information themselves instead of just relying on what someone tells them is right; ideally, it also allows individuals to put themselves in the shoes of others, to think in larger terms than their own desires.

as prup pointed out, at the intersection of education and government, we want government to be making decisions based on Evidence -- not party loyalty or religious beliefs or magical thinking. we want people in government to have some experience relevant to the task they are doing, so they don't fuck things up for large numbers of citizens. that's not "elitist" -- that's common sense.

i do not think the "blue/red" split is primarily about abortion, although that is certainly something the religious right has taken up as a bludgeon for a few decades. my personal body is not everybody else's business. i have always found it very hard to reconcile the "we'll decide on reproduction for you" piece of right-wing rhetoric with the "get government out of our lives" piece -- they are internally inconsistent positions, and have the added disadvantage of both disrespecting the right of ordinary people to live safe lives, earn their own way, contribute to society, and share in the richness of that society.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

I may try this one of these days, but I tend to follow my own muse pretty much.

But let me at least summarize a few things here. I don't believe in torture, enhanced interrogation, or coercive techniques of any kinds. I believe thatthey are illegal, immoral, and ineffective.

I do not favor attempting war crimes prosecutions because I do not believe that they are viable politically and would result in the complete crowdng out of all things on the political agenda and could even keep Obama from beng reelected. Deborah and I disagree on this issue and I respect her opinion and those of others who disagree. My position is not very principld sounding. It's the utilitarian pat of me -- I don't mind windmill tilting that advances my causes, but that which will prove counterproductive (in my possibly erroneous opinion) to the things I hold dear I would rather avoid. I am informed in this by my less than flattering opinion of the American elecorate.

I found the Padilla case to be one of the most chilling episodes of my life. The idea of indefinite detention of an American citizen at the President's say so is so fundamentally at odds with the Constitution that I couldn't believe it was seriously being argued by the Bush Administration.

I am much more ambivalent about the case of the cleric in Yemen. He has clearly joined in with those fomenting violence against U.S. citizens and he has put himself in a place that is outside the scope of law enforcement. To me that does look like someone who is a genuine enemy combatant and as a result, I believe the use of lethal force against him is arguably legitimate.

[Sir Charles]

Sorry for all of the typos -- this keyboard is incredibly crappy and I am in a hurry.

[minstrel hussain boy]

education is a hot button issue for me. i tell people that i stole my education. literally. my cousin and i acting on a hot tip from the lutheran missionary who was teaching on the rez that year broke and entered into the room where the donated books were kept before being gone through and those deemed to be dangerous or unsuitable for our indin minds discarded.

i still own the full set of harvard classics i stole that night.

i went far from home to live with a mormon family in order to attend an accredited high school.

i went into the service during the height of the vietnam war, went to that war, in order to get my g.i. bill (back when it was fucking real too) and go to college.

i went to ASU, while my cousin, due to his astonishing fucking brilliant mind, and some heavy duty string pulling by the udall brothers, mo and stuart, and barry goldwater got accepted and granted a scholarship to harvard. there, he performed with his usual excellence, the free ride was continued on to law school where he again remained in the upper 2% of not only harvard law students but all law students across the nation.

upon graduation he was offered every dream gig by every dream law firm in the country. he chose to return to the rez and work for the nation. mainly because his time off the rez and away from our culture had shown him that ya'll's society is no place for a gay man to be anything but a faggot, and in his case, an indian faggot to boot.

the first thing we did with our gambling money was to take over our schools. we have real teachers and our children don't have to steal books anymore.

also, the same schools that used to suspend and beat the snot out of us for speaking our own language now have it as a required part of the curriculum.

i come to my "progressive" positions most of the time from either a conservative or, if you will, an old school liberal mindset.

public liberty, private discipline is a beautiful concept. the conservative "they govern best that govern least" spouters of today forget that those words were first printed by henry david thereau in "civil disobedience." most of them would love to have any study of thereau taken out of any school the same as they have begun to purge the lists of jefferson, adams, and our other "inconvenient" founders.

i went the route of full disclosure of fact, free access to birth control and disease protection with my kids. going as far as to have letters with their doctors on file that told the doctor if any of my kids sought treatment for any condition and wished me to remain uninformed that my consent could be presumed.

not one of my kids ever got a disease, or had an unplanned pregnancy.

i'll put my 100% success rate up against sarah palin's any fucking day of any fucking year.

bring that shit yo.

[kathy a.]

MHB is on fire. excellent.

[Sonic Charmer]

Thanks for the comments all. To try to address the points made (apologies in advance if I leave something out, which is probably inevitable):

Prup - glad you agree substantively with my characterization of "Blue" politics. Regarding that being "a reason to condemn the right, not the left", for the record I don't believe I was "condemning" anyone. On your citing stagnancy during the Bush administration as a counter to my preference for lower taxes/deregulation/etc, suffice to say that Bush admin economic policies hardly resembled the sort I would favor.

Litbrit - I'll be sure to check my local community college catalog for Remedial Classes In Point-Making ;-P But, to be clear it's not that I 'don't like' your rebuttals, it's that you haven't made any. Which is ok! After all it's not obvious that you or anyone else disagrees with the point I was actually making, which is simply that perhaps certain sorts of families (the sort lauded in the original post and several comments) lead to a "Blue" tendency, rather than vice versa (i.e. "Blue" politics leading to happy/stable families, as most here would have it). Again, reading through these comments, it's not obvious to me that anyone genuinely disagrees or disputes what I said.

Sir Charles re: minimum wage laws etc: Well sure, if someone has a minimum-wage job and then the minimum-wage is raised, and they still have that job, this ends up helping that person in particular. I have in mind, however, the unseen & larger effects (such as the fewer total # of such jobs that results) - as you no doubt could have guessed. To the idea that I have to defend or explain "Bush tax cuts" in particular, I refer you to my answer to Prup above. As for whether I have an inchoate resentment against educated people, that would be strange (since I am one, I suppose) but perhaps not unheard-of.

However, I don't believe that's what I've been expressing here. The observation that families who, among other things, instill a value of 'postgraduate education' are more likely to favor government policies that systematically reward and empower, e.g., people with postgraduate degrees, seems to me pretty value-neutral (if not obvious, even boring).

Best

[Sir Charles]

Sonic Charmer,

So really you have no policy prescriptions to help people with lower levels of educational attainment. I could easily name a dozen things that could be done that would be helpful, but that's because I actually give a damn about doing something. Your minimum wage claim is a well known and oft-debunked canard by the way.

You, on the other hand, are content with a fairly silly attack on people with post-grad education supporting certain government policies because it benefits them. By and large, this is a demographic that doesn't need a whole lot of help from the feds -- but your theory seems consistent with the kind of "new class" bullshit that neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter were selling 30 plus years ago.

Again, what do you propose we do for people caught in the red state bind? What kind of action could be taken to better their lives?

As for the resentment issue, Jesus, there is a cottage industry of Republicans who play this game -- look at Douthat -- a Harvard man and the ultimate affirmative action hire -- Kristol, Will, Goldberg -- there's a host of well educated people attacking elitists. Why shouldn't you get in on the fun?

[Sonic Charmer]

"Policy prescriptions"? I didn't realize that's what this conversation was about. Sorry but (unless you really want me to hijack your blog, which I doubt) there's a limited scope of topics I can feasibly address in one comment thread with a half dozen people coming after me, now I need to solve the economy too? :-)

I said before that I disagree that policies such as a minimum wage help lower-educated people, and that policies such as lowering taxes doesn't. I would assume my preferred policies on these fronts can be easily deduced. I understand you in turn are likely to disagree with my preferred policies, and am content to leave it there. For avoidance of doubt though, calling someone's POV an 'oft-debunked canard' does not constitute an actual debunking of same.

Where did I "attack" people with post-grad education? I am a person with post-grad education. Nor did I "attack" people supporting policies likely to benefit them, I merely made the observation that (drumroll) people support policies likely to benefit them (an observation which seems to rub people here the wrong way, yet at the same time, which nobody seems to be able to bring themselves to actually dispute).

What is the "red state bind" exactly, who's "caught" in it, and what does that mean specifically? Who brought up "elitists" (not me)? I appreciate the responses I've received here, and the spirit of (most of) them, and am trying to address, but admittedly at times it is a bit difficult when I can barely recognize my own views in how they're being reflected and projected back to me....

[kathy a.]

just to be clear, sonic, i disagree with what you have said. to the extent i can figure out your points, which i admit is a bit of a challenge.

if you're thinking my graduate degree was the result of some kind of insider game, or that it has made me rich and powerful and rewarded -- that's just baffling.

i worked my way through, doing a lot of different jobs. i work for poor people, and defend the constitution. it's not the kind of stuff that makes one socially popular, powerful, or wealthy, but it has shown me the devastating effects of poverty, discrimination, ignorance, hatred, assumptions about others, and "i've got mine, you can go to hell" polcies. it makes me angry that the richest and most powerful have kept getting more so in recent decades, upon the shoulders of those they despise.

tax cuts for the rich, minimum wage workers ought to be grateful, who cares about climate change, haha you're elitist if you got more than one degree -- this is not exactly a thoughtful approach to large societal problems. try harder to make some sense, ok?

[Sonic Charmer]

if you're thinking my graduate degree was the result of some kind of insider game, or that it has made me rich and powerful and rewarded -- that's just baffling.

Baffling indeed. Fortunately I don't think that (how on earth would I know?) and certainly didn't say that.

...who cares about climate change, haha you're elitist if you got more than one degree -- this is not exactly a thoughtful approach to large societal problems. try harder to make some sense, ok?

I will if you will. Who do you purport to be paraphrasing?

This is precisely the sort of projection and misrepresentation I'm talking about. Should I not respond? just exit the conversation? Or will there be some effort here to accurately apprehend & characterize my actual statements? (Which is not to say 'agreement with', by any means, of course)

[kathy a.]

The observation that families who, among other things, instill a value of 'postgraduate education' are more likely to favor government policies that systematically reward and empower, e.g., people with postgraduate degrees, seems to me pretty value-neutral (if not obvious, even boring).

sonic, i want to respond to this, too. i've got an advanced degree, but this is not at all an expectation for my children, and the policies i am advocating are not geared to get my children in line for the goodies. i just do not understand what policies you are referring to.

my son didn't want to go to college, and that is OK with me, even though he is by objective standards really a brilliant guy. our requirement was that he work and be self-sufficient. and he makes me proud because he is doing that, working at a job that barely pays enough to live in this area, even though it is above minimum wage. it kind of kills me to see some of the awful places he has lived, but what is important to me is that he be self-sufficient and independent in his thinking.

my daughter is in college, doing well thanks, but i will not support any effort to go to grad school until she has a better sense of where she is going in life, and has more work experience.

as to your later post -- well, as SC pointed out, you haven't offered actual policy solutions, just a bunch of general disrespect for liberals, government, workers.

[Sonic Charmer]

i just do not understand what policies you are referring to.

Ok, I already gave the example of climate-change. The "Blue" approach to climate-change conceives of a large and powerful role for government, guided by the statements of experts; the "Red" approach, does not. Therefore, if "Blue" policies carry the day, people fitting the definition of 'experts' (and those who associated/work for/with them or in support of them) will be more funded and have more jobs (at least, jobs created by government tax collection) - and will literally have more power - than if "Red" policies carry the day.

Do you genuinely dispute any of this? Or do you need more examples of policies to illustrate it (I could list many more, all in the same vein)?

as SC pointed out, you haven't offered actual policy solutions

As I pointed out, that was not my intent, which (again) was simply to point out that the causality between (a) certain sorts of families and (b) "Blue" politics might run in the other direction from the one y'all suppose. If you disagree with that (do you?) then fine, I'm happy to entertain counterarguments...not sure how/why the necessity for me to 'offer policy solutions' to (something?) came into play.

just a bunch of general disrespect for liberals, government, workers

What "disrespect" are you referring to? Could you be reading more into my posts than is there?

Best,

[kathy a.]

you're kidding, right? climate change is about jobs for "experts"? sweetheart, i've spent more time on you than you deserve. go on home, now.

[Sonic Charmer]

I didn't say it was 'about' that. I said it would lead to that.

Again: Do you genuinely dispute that?

[oddjob]

The "Blue" approach to climate-change conceives of a large and powerful role for government, guided by the statements of experts; the "Red" approach, does not.

That's because the Red approach is to insist that it's all nothing but a bunch of lies foisted on the rest of us by a conspiracy of elitist scientists.

[oddjob]

Worst.

[Sir Charles]

Sonic Charmer,

I must be in an unusually good mood, because I am going to join in this little circle jerk one last time.

The book that prompted the post reveals that (for want of a better short hand) that Red State ideology, theology, and public policy have produced families in which divorce and unplanned, often teen, pregnancies abound. This is not a result pleasing to social conservatives such as Mr. Douthat. (I don' find it all that desirable either.) I noted that the Blue State approach seems to produce better real world results if one values family stability.

You posited a not altogether clear premise to the effect that affluence leads to adopting the Blue State ideology rather than vice versa. I engaged (and there my troubles began).

You made a claim, seemingly based in global warming denialism, that people on the left are only concerned about it as a matter of policy in order to enhance their power. I explained why carbon based power and its attendant ill effects and policies designed to move to alternative energy would be in the interest of hourly wage workers -- presumably the bulk of high school graduates in the economy.

You had nothing -- claimed we were all speaking in generalities -- but I was pretty specific.

I explained why unions, wage and hour laws, and the social safety net help the same group of people.

You came back with libertarain bullshit that minimum wage laws hurt workers.

I don't have time to deal with mandaciousness nor bullsit.

So you're welcome to join in, but I really have no interest in engaging with what appears to be run of the mill right wing claptrap.

[Corvus9]

You know, sometimes I think it's a good idea to engage rightwingers. Maybe test your theories. See if they point out your blind spots. But usually it's just a bunch accusations that you believe things you don't actually believe. How do you argue with that? They don't believe you when you say that's not what you think, and you know their wrong. It's enough to make you despair.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

Not to mention that we have seen right wing policies in action and watched disaster ensue in the realm of environmental policy, fiscal policy, economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. The Bush years, in particular, stand as testament to the nightmare of unfettered right wing power -- wars of aggression, torture, a world economy on the precipice of disaster, declining real wages, an exploding deficit, the near-death of a great American city, and incompetence and veniality at every turn.

Empirical evidence is a bitch.

[oddjob]

Right now in the Gulf of Mexico we're witnessing yet another expression of right wing deregulatory policy philosophy.

[Corvus9]

Well, yes Sir Charles, obviously they're wrong, but I guess I was saying is that sometimes (not very often) I wish it was possible to engage with them for some kind of mutual benefit (we weed out our bad ideas, they become liberals) but it never seems to happen. And we can't win if we don't convert. It's not just a question of being right. It's a question of making others be right with us.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

Yeah, there's not a lot of meaningful dialogue at this juncture. My hopes are with the younger generation.

[litbrit]

I think we've just encountered an odd but nonetheless rather boring kind of troll, the hybrid Shit-disturber/Goal-post mover. For me, it was at least somewhat novel to have my thoughtful rebuttal referred to as a non-rebuttal when in actuality it both rebutted and effectively disassembled the egg-chicken-egg argument he was trying to make. Perhaps he thought he was making a different argument altogether, who knows, but that would explain the peculiar denial of reality.

Anyway, the nervous application of emoticons were a dead giveaway that our friend's Out of Depth alarm had began beeping.

[Sir Charles]

Indeed.

[Corvus9]

In completely unrelated news, Sinead O'Connor's Faith and Courage album continues to be totally awesome.

What?

Corvus +3.5

[Crissa]

I wonder what good having a job that doesn't pay minimum wage, do?

As it is, I know people who have minimum wage jobs. They don't make enough money to rent a room for the month and feed themselves. It's not an 'or' matter - they don't make enough money to rent that room, period.

Ten years ago here (when I last worked minimum wage) the maximum take home pay (assuming you got all hours) for someone at minimum was $1200. At the same time, the median studio or granny-suite rented for $900. There's a serious disparity and wrongness there!

There is no supply-demand market which will raise the minimum rate at which people are hired at and get them the basics for food and lodging - let alone the clothes and transportation needed for these jobs. It's never worked, why would it magically work now? People can't say no to being paid a low wage - the less they make, the less time they have to decide to take the next job. Which means that someone is always going to be willing to take that job - be it legal or illegal employment.

Only when some skill or certification gums up the supply, will higher wages ever be seen.

Rich people getting tax deductions don't sink their savings into hamburgers or apartments or social services. So those dollars are never going to have the impact of either people employed at minimum wage or just giving them dole.

PS - when I got that message refused page, I was a bit startled. I'd gotten a delayed reaction to my message being shown before, but never a refused message. A refresh fixed it, but apparently my branch of Comcast is banned from commenting on several big blogs - I just moved here, though, it was some previous resident of this IP, alas.

[Sonic Charmer]

Briefly:

oddjob - concedes my point about Blue vs Red (by way of saying "..that's because"). Thanks oddjob.

Sir Charles - yes I understand the book's thesis to be that "Red State ideology" etc leads to divorce/etc. Again, my thesis is that the causality is far more likely to run the other way. If you disagree with this thesis, feel free to say why. Alternatively, feel free to point out what the supposed mechanism supposedly is by which "Red" ideology "leads to" divorce/etc.

For the record I never said that people on the left "only" adopt views on such things as climate change etc to enhance their power. Why many here feel the need to exaggerate and warp my statements in order to argue against them is beyond me. Combine that with the tired, repeated familiar slings of terms like "troll" (which means: "one who disagrees with you") and I am forced to take back what I said about appreciating the comments/responses, and the spirit of them. It appears I simply misjudged the level of conversation & willingness to engage here. I apologize & you can happily return to all agreeing with each other now and not having to entertain/confront viewpoints that don't conform to your own. Best,

[oddjob]

Sonic Charmer fails to notice that when one side approaches a problem and the other side simply states there is no problem despite abundant data to the contrary, what is actually occurring is that one side is acknowledging reality while the other is merely firmly resisting having its collective head pulled out of its ass, and no one in their right mind regards that as an "approach" to solving anything.

You're welcome.

[oddjob]

I apologize & you can happily return to all agreeing with each other now and not having to entertain/confront viewpoints that don't conform to your own.

Most of us here have lived through thirty years of your viewpoint being dominant in our country's national politics, and we've seen the destruction it causes. When you've done the same you'll understand our intolerance.

[Sir Charles]

Sonic Charmer,

You've got nothing dude. Can the self pity and the claims of intolerance.

You're a goal post mover extraordinairre, bereft of genuine ideas.

You want to stake out an actual policy positions and back them up with facts, have at it. I have no problem confronting -- and eviscerating if necessary -- viewpoints that don't conform with my own. But it's nice when someone actually has the intellectual balls to assert a position and back it up with facts.

[litbrit]

A commenter who shit-disturbs (introduces a contrary viewpoint without any supporting argument, for the sole purpose of inciting emotional and/or argumentative reaction), and dances, fact-free, around any real argument but nonetheless has to have the last word, and then flounces out with a self-pitying You can go back to your agreeing with each other now, and by the way, I'm not a troll, I'm NOT a troll! THEY dressed me up like this, and this isn't my nose, it's a false one..."?

Totally a troll.

And correct me if I'm wrong, people, but since when do we all agree with each other around here?! That would be a first. Even in this thread, Sir C admits to disagreeing with me on a rather significant issue (war crimes prosecution).

Where is Stephen when we need him--he disagrees with everyone. Except me. On some things anyway, heh.

[oddjob]

Okay, litbrit, but on the other hand (especially if you're going to call in Stephen), aren't you actually wondering why liberals don't always agree with other liberals?

(Not that all commenters here are necessarily liberals. One at least largely regards himself as a pragmatic, anti-conservative moderate. ;) )

[litbrit]

oddjob, no, darling, I don't wonder about that. I know from my own life and family experiences that thoughtful, intelligent people will invariably disagree, often with shocking levels of passion in their arguments, too. Whenever I forget that little truism, someone will sweetly remind me of that, usually right before he races out the door after having swiped the last cup of coffee from the pot.

[oddjob]

:)

[Corvus9]

you can happily return to all agreeing with each other now and not having to entertain/confront viewpoints that don't conform to your own

Sonic Charmer is evidently not a lurker. I think most of us don't even bother to comment most of the time unless we have something to disagree with.

Also, I still miss Stephen. Arguing with him was really fun.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I hate to give Sonic C any more attention, since I'm sure his tighty whities are already stiff and crusty from responding to the wonderful feeling of finally getting noticed but it is a shame he was a sham. I think the high level of our discourse could only be improved if we had a sincere, intelligent humane Conservative -- I'm thinking of someone like 'von' of OBSIDIAN WINGS. For that matter, there can be a different perspective from a true Red State Progressive -- some of you live in red states, but you've grown up with the sort of 'blue state mentality' Sir C. describes -- though I'd argue his point about being of the first generation with those attitudes.

I'm talking about someone who is a lifelong liberal, but also a lifetime resident of some place like Nebraska, Idaho, Iowa, Alabama or Oklahoma -- each slightly different types of conservative environments. They have a different tone, and sometimes a more understanding one, at least judging by the blogs I've seen from there.

But one last word to the Charmless Sonic. Thanks. I'm quite sure that the rain storm heading for Brooklyn was deflected South by the gales of laughter coming from Canada at your 'parting shot' about 'all agreeing with each other.'

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I always hate generational commenting where one presumes one's cohort has invented a given thing. I often felt that my peers were that way about parenting. Christ you would have thought no one ever cared about their kids before we appeared on the earth.

But I will actually stand by the broad assertion that this blue state mode of being was pretty much established and fleshed out by a generation of people now in their early 50s and late 40s -- in response to a host of complex developments of the Sixties and Seventies -- from the pill, the sexual revolution, the feminist movement, the deindustrialization and de-unionization of America, the tentative move back into the cities in the post-white flight era, and the rise of what might be described as the grad school economy -- the trinity of law, medicine, information and financial services that came to the economies of many blue state urban centers like New York and Boston.

[Joe]

Prup, Iowa is actually pretty liberal/centrist. It's much closer to rural Minnesota than to Alabama. Iowa seems like closer to a true purple state than Oklahoma or Alabama.

[Sir Charles]

Yeah, Iowa has a long progressive and somewhat pacifist tradition. Henry Wallace came from Iowa after all.

And Iowa has had a host of progressive senators over the years -- Harold Hughes, Richard Clark, John Culver, and Tom Harkin come to mind -- when none of those other states have had anything comparable.

[Amy]

It seems obvious and entirely reasonable to question the direction of causality with respect to "blue state" (aka "middle class") values and middle / professional class lifestyles. In fact, from what i know of the sociological literature on the subject, the direction of causality is in fact generally found to go the other way. As people move into the middle (by which i mean professional - i realize people define it differently) class, they adopt the values associated with that class. As someone pointed out above, the gi bill was instrumental in moving a vast number of (mostly white) people into the middle class; in other words, they became middle class because of educational and vocational opportunities (and white male privilege), not because they had different or better values than those who were excluded. And once in the middle class, they adopted that hyperparenting (great word, btw) culture that is currently associated with that group.

Of course, as many have pointed out in this thread, social mobility exists, and it is indeed possible for people from working-class backgrounds to achieve middle class lifestyles. (And for overeducated people from professional families to make little money; i am an example of the latter.) But it doesn't follow that anyone who works hard and reads lots of books can necessarily achieve whatever they want to do. Even if everyone in the "red states" adopted exactly those above-mentioned values with respect to education, delayed parenting, etc., there would not be enough stable, professional jobs to go around. Structural inequality is built into the system. Might "red state" values actually be an effect rather than a cause of lack of opportunity (in the aggregate, not in every single individual case)? It actually sounds really bizarre to me to hear self-identified liberals arguing that "good values" are all you need to pull yourself out of poverty and that social mobility is unlimited. Aren't those right-wing arguments? Or am I totally misunderstanding?

Anyway, thanks for a great discussion.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Awww, Sir C, you kids always think you invented sex. Seriously, the attitudes you express were the attitudes I saw around me, maybe limited to a smaller proportion of the society, but fully there when I was 16 and you were five. (Hmmm, one day someone will look at the science fiction fandom of the 60s and 70s -- which was a true society back then, mostly of young professionals and with little of the 'Geekiness' that came in later -- and be surprised at how many of their ideas spread. Blogs themselves, the style of writing and interplay between posters and commenters, ane even some of the abbreviations and verbal quirks all are little different -- except for the instantaneous response possible with the net -- from what I met in fanzines when I started getting involved in active fandom. (Fanzines were as wide ranging then as the blogs are now, with many of the fans making a point of never discussingcience fiction at all.)

The social and sexual attitudes were just as you described, with a little less expectation of 'faithfulness' in marriage, and they were also the atitudes I saw in much of the society around me -- vision skewed of course as if everyone's -- in mundane life around me, ad this was at a time slightly before such matters were probably of interest to the 8 year old Sir Charles.

Agreed on Iowa, which really is mixed. I should have said something like North Dakota except that I can't recall knowing or reading anyone from there and forget it exists.

[Amy]

Also, while it's true that most elite colleges and universities do offer some scholarships for low-income students, it's still the case that the children of the extremely privileged are vastly overrepresented there.

[Sir Charles]

Amy,

Thanks for your comment. I don't think that we're arguing good values as the road to success. At least that's not my intention.

I don't know if you've spent any time here in the past, but my concerns tend to be the opposite. I am interested in policies that can help people for whom professional status is not a likely outcome for whatever reason.

What I was trying to get at here is a couple of things: 1) that the so-called "blue state" approach is one that is fundamentially pretty damned conservative and is labeled otherwise due to its real world views with respect to premarital sex, contraception, and abortion; 2) that red state policies don't lead to the ends professed to be valued by red staters, i.e. stable families geared toward proper child nurtuing; and 3) in the end, conservatives don't seem to really care about results, but rather much more about the ability to posture.

(I realize by the way that a lot of this is very crude shorthand and has its limitations.)

Personally, I would like to see policies that promote a realistic view of sexuality and a proper public health approach to the issue -- one that stresses the desirability of making child bearing a voluntary and considered activity. I would also like to see a variety of measures that make child rearing less stressful for everyone, including national health care, paid maternity/paternity leave, and subsidized, high quality day care and an economy that does not treat hourly workers like detritus.

I am afraid that social mobility in the U.S. is actually becoming quite constricted and that the advantages afforded the children of the blue state model really tip the playing field further in the direction of class stratification. I am particularly concerned at the erosion of blue collar wages and the fact that it makes entry into the middle and upper middle classes far more difficult.

Ultimately, I see little practical concern among right wingers for policies that will actually help working people. Their policy prescriptions are pretty much limited to cut taxes, deregulate, and abstain, none of which are going to help people in the working class.

[Amy]

Hi Sir Charles,

I agree with everything you've just said (and i've been here enough to know the basic outline of your views, which is in part why i was so surprised / confused by the direction of the discussion). Maybe it's a matter of the distinction between right-wing politicians and pundits and the people they claim to speak for (?) Related to that, and to the question of class politics, values, and red/blue states, I highly recommend this book if you haven't already read it: http://redbluerichpoor.com/

[Sir Charles]

Amy,

Thanks. I haven't read the book , but I remember when it came out and I was quite interested in the analysis of it. The thing that isn't emphasized enough in some of those capsule points on economic class is the issue of race and region. So yes, it is true that poorer and working class people vote Democratic more than wealthier people, but if you back Black and Hispanic voters out of those categories, you find that white voters in these economic groups vote much more Republican than you would ever expect. This is expecially so in the Deep South where white voting is almost monolithic -- see Mississippi and Alabama where 88% of the white vote went to McCain. (I have not broken down those underlying racial figures by economic class, but I am guessing the 12% who did vote for Obama were probably whites in urban areas and college towns.) I also believe that Obama overwhelmingly carried voters with graduate degrees and I believe won a majority of those making over $200,000 a year -- the latter being surprising to me.

White working class people -- particularly men -- who are not in unions vote distressingly frequently for Republicans. I hate to speak in crude Marxist terms, but it strikes me as false consciousness writ large.

[kathy a.]

i fundamentally agree with SC's shorthand construct. the divide i see is not "professional lifestyle" vs. others, or red/blue states per se. it is policies that help the many live decent lives vs. what SC calls posturing on a few designated "values."

the posturing just strikes me as the weirdest thing; one ends up with strange alliances between the very wealthy and powerful, the religious right, and people who are scared of losing what little they've got. and i'd argue that the first 2 groups do all they can to cultivate the fears of the third group, move them to support policies that are objectively harmful to their own interests, and those of a stable and productive society generally.

[Mandos]

In some poorer countries, the tiny rich and the vast poor live cheek-by-jowl and share some of the same social expectations and environments, while the small middle class lives in enclaves. The idea that the poor and the rich might find cultural common ground around the middle class doesn't surprise me.

[Amy]

Yeah, sorry; i didn't mean to be pointing to the specific details highlighted on the promo page - just to the overall argument of the book, which is that states are not particularly good units of analysis in thinking about patterns of voting, lifestyle, values, etc. It seems to me that "red state mentality" and "blue state mentality" (as used in this thread) are very problematic generalizations which distract us from those distinctions (particularly class) that are much more closely correlated with things like attitudes toward childrearing, education, etc.

cheers

[Sir Charles]

Amy,

I'm sort of backed up on intended posts, but one of the things I definitely want to post about is the response to my working class clients to the Health Care Reform provision allowing "adult children" -- love that phrase -- to remain on their parents' health insurance until they are 26 -- and possibly up to 27.

I love it. My clients are incredibly offended by it.

[Corvus9]

To lazily respond to Sir Charles at 12:25, I am pretty sure I saw somewhere once (probably in a Yglesias post) that (even) in the South, the whites in the lowest quintile actually DO tend to vote Democratic (that is, at a slight majority). It's the second and third quintile that go overwhelming to Republicans. (Likwise, while the top quintile goes Democratic, the higher up you go that smaller that edge gets until it's gone.)

Again, I saw this somewhere eons ago, so take it with a grain of salt, but it was so counter-intuitive that that basic gist stuck with me. Not all of those whites who went to Obama have gone to college, I bet.

[Jess S.]

SC,
You argued above that liberals support things (like climate change) because it is in their best interests as members of a group of "experts" who will benefit from some policies. You're now saying that it's not "about" this, but will lead to this. Those are completely different arguments. Additionally, while believing in using experts leads to jobs for experts, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. This is not the motivation for anyone outside of certain STEM fields in backing climate change policies.

You're misunderstanding the situation. The point has been made repeatedly that even those who will never benefit as experts because of government policy support policies guided by said experts. This makes perfect sense - liberals support education, and they believe in education, and as a consequence believe in the fruits of education - experts in a given field.

You can contrast this to the general red-state distrust of experts, the ivory tower, etc, which leads to believing any random person's opinion on scientific matters like evolution or climate change are equal to (or deserve equal time as) the opinion of someone who has spent years studying the phenomena in question.

My parents are working poor, my brother is a line cook with half a semester of college, and while I have an advanced education it is in a useless humanity that the government will never (and should never) hire me to discuss outside the context of a university. Despite the fact that neither my parents, their children, any extended family members, nor anyone in their blighted rust-belt red-state town will ever benefit as experts, they back climate change. Because they know that scientists are better qualified to discuss such things than Joe the Plumber.

However, if you have a rational argument for why experts shouldn't be in charge of things like climate change, I'd love to hear it, since I've never really understood how anyone can believe such a thing.

[Corvus9]

Jess, I don't think Sir Charles is saying what you think he is saying.

Also, liberals tend to be against climate change. We would like the climate to stay just how it is, if we could help it.

[Sam]

I come late to this conversation, a friend of mine just linked me to it. There's a book that came out in 2008 that squarely contradicts the claims made above about democratic families being more stable, healthy, etc. "Democrats and Republicans-Rhetoric and Reality," by Joseph Fried uses, to the best of my knowledge, very legitimate sources to come to an opposite conclusion. I would generally like to believe that "blue" families are more stable and better educated and all that jazz, but I think this book (which does clearly favor republicans) makes a pretty good case to the contrary and deals with individuals rather than states, which seems like a more meaningful measure of marital success between parties to me. If nothing else it shows that one can have one's way with numbers. I haven't read the book at issue in this post or the one I'm referring you all to cover to cover, but I think it would make an interesting comparison to read the two side by side to see who's hedging their numbers more.

[Sir Charles]

Sam,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

I have not read Fried's book, but I notice that he is the author of an anti-Social Securit screed, which makes me think he is not a very honest person.

I have read Re Families v. Blue Families and I believe that the authors were scrupulously honest. Indeed, I am afraid they give Republicans far more credit than is warranted in terms of being willing to discuss matters of policy in a constructive fashion. Fried also does not appear to control for race in the few things I found onhis web site, which is a startling omission.

I tend to think aggregate statistics like Carbone and Cahn use -- concrete facts about age at marriage, age at first birth of a child, divorce rates, and levels of educatinal attainment -- are a lot more reliable than
polling data, which Fried seemed to be relying on.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I don't see how polling data can be even possibly useful in this. One difference between red and blue attitudes is the level of guilt that is produced about sexual matters. This affects not just the level of honesty between the two groups, but even the percentage of the groups willing to answer such questions.

Polls are, after all, to some extent self-selecting, even if they don't depend on volunteers or paid participants. It is very easy to hang up on a poll taker, even in the middle of a poll. So any percentages are, i.e., 'of Rerpublicans willing to answer questions about their sexual life, X% say that...'

And, of course, there is no way to compel poll respondents to tell the truth, but even beyond deliberate dishonesty, many people -- and again I would expect a higher percentage of Republicans -- are incapable of being 'honest with themselves' to admit urges, or even experiences that they would consider shameful.

I would also be curious as to how the polls were taken, because this would matter in this area more than in most. For example, there might be an argument that phone surveys were more accurate than in person surveys because it is easier to 'admit things' to a faceless voice than to someone whose response you can see -- and, if you have a sense of guilt, fear.

On the other hand, the honesty of a 'phone survey' depends on whether the respondent is alone in the room or can be overheard by someone who would be affected by the answers given. (And some people, and I'm an example, have such resonant voices that they can be heard throughout the house when they are talking on the phone.)

Survey data seems worthless unless the surveys are subjected to a very high level of scrutiny, more than seems practical, or even possible.