2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, America’s Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored
America’s most urgent home-front problem went entirely unaddressed at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. This is very bad news for the plebiscite for billions of reasons.
Even in the early days of the welfare state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan mentioned the danger that it would destroy marriage. Today, perhaps half of marriages are aborted before they happen, and another half are terminated midstream, because federal expenditures (and pass-through funding requirements imposed on states) entitle everything but marriage — and at the direct expense of marriage.
Marriage-absence is driving massive social spending deficits. The spending comes around to wreak further havoc on the marriage market. HHS is the largest line item in the federal budget at over 700-billion last year, much of the expense going towards weakening the marriage market or attempting to Humpty-Dumpty the downstream wreckage.
Certainly, we should help the poor bridge from one marriage to another, as a temporary tithe. However, the practice of permanently entitling non-marriage via billions in benefits and huge inflexible child support entitlements must end.
About 70% of poverty is actually single mothers and children, the vast majority of which would rise out of poverty simply by marrying. Marriage is impossible when the majority of poor men are unmarriageable because they cannot afford to pay imputed child support obligations, which are what led weak-willed women to have children out of wedlock in the first place.
Poverty is a crime for poor men and an entitlement for poor women, the consequences for both triggered by a woman “accidentally†getting herself pregnant. This forms a permanent prophylactic to marriage, deeper poverty for women and children, and asocial responses from men who have no stake or position in society.
The Democrat Feminist Machine
Senator Obama has no interest in marriage (other than his own). Obama is a classic Saul Alinsky community welfare/feminist organizer, who transcended the limitations of Alinsky’s secular approach by importing it into the churches around Chicago. He joined a church not to become a religious man – but as a step towards his monolithic quest for power. He uses his law license similarly – threatening lawsuits against publications that question him – and apparently intends to launch criminal investigations against the Bush administration if he wins.
Many religions and churches nationwide – and even conservative religions — have been similarly compromised. These people actually believe that preventing abortion means pushing for more welfare and child support (somebody please tell these lost souls that illegitimacy does not happen, that three-quarters of poverty will disappear, and abortion will not necessary when federal policy is reformed so that women become interested in marriage again).
Most Christians generically blame the divorce revolution on male irresponsibility because Adam disobeyed God’s command. Certainly, we all agree there are some irresponsible men out there. But Roe v. Wade, invisible forms of birth control, welfare stimulae, and divorce statistics show that women hold the cards controlling reproductive and marriage decisions. The men who truly deserve blame are the men and women of Congress who enacted Pharaohesque entitlement laws disobeying God’s command to uphold marriage.
The serpent of modern radical feminism places women on a precarious but magnetic power-pedestal of sexual liberation, prostitution, and cheapened motherhood. The decisions of weak-willed women lead them out of marriage, and into the hands of alpha-feminist politicians who quickly inject more opiated venom into the anti-marriage machine. The feminist invasion of church and state drives entitlement of Serpentine federal policy that weakens or destroys all men and women in its path.
Church and marriage are today being eaten alive by subrogated “Christian†feminists. Real Christians must do business here on earth, holding feminists responsible for accomplishing what they set out to do in the 1970’s – to destroy the church, the imagined “patriarchyâ€, and subsequently the institution of marriage.
Obama is an alpha male-feminist, proven by N.O.W’s prompt endorsement of him upon his nomination. A casual look at Illiniois’ feminist welfare state is proof that he knows how to build and run an aggressive welfare nation.
I submit that Obama got the nomination because he, as a black male religious feminist, could get away with things that a strident Hillary Clinton would be pounded for. This frees up Hillary to use as Ambassador to the U.N. — to execute building the planned feminist world order — and later to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court (which Hillary would accept in a heartbeat).
Senator Joe Biden is a feminist mannequin who inherited Senator Paul Wellstone’s feminist machine after he died in a plane crash. Biden staunchly blocked all opposing testimony (with Arlen Specter’s blessing) during the Violence Against Women (VAWA) reauthorization hearings — preventing volumes of documented truths of corruption, fraud, and abuse of women from becoming part of the public record.
But VAWA is not, in itself, the major issue. VAWA came about (and remains alive) because it is driven by profiteering corruption in the legal profession. Trial lawyers make billions arbitrarily destroying marriage. In a 2000 article “To Mock A Mockingbirdâ€, Ann Coulter vibrantly pointed out that VAWA’s footings are not based in our Constitution. This is precisely why Biden wanted to keep the Congressional record free of opposing testimony that would force him to drop the funding entirely.
Biden has been the front man for a number of expansionist feminist initiatives such as his “100,000 Lawyers†initiative that would federally fund lawyers to arbitrarily destroy marriage under the guise of preventing domestic violence.
I-VAWA is Biden’s bill to export corrupt VAWA program overseas. I-VAWA is a piece of CEDAW, and the first step in turning the Supremacy clause over to U.N. feminist lawyers. It would directly entitle U.N feminists with billions of federal dollars they can use to invade us from without. I-VAWA would attempt to inflict radical feminism on marriage-responsible countries such as China, which could deeply radicalize it against America just like marriage-based Muslim countries came to hate us.
Electing Obama/Biden would signal further social policy radicalization in America and further radicalize our enemies. An Obama/Biden administration would be a social nightmare for America. But electing McCain/Palin would not be much better.
Republicans: AWOL on Marriage Policy
Certainly, McCain/Palin is a much better choice on conventional issues. But America cannot be a strong nation leading the world while being the laughing stock of socially-responsible nations. We cannot afford borrowing from them to continue running the most expensive welfare nation in the history of civilization.
When I spoke with Senator McCain at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last year, he had no comment on social issues. At a whistle stop this spring, he pretended that family issues are judicial matters that do not fall under the mantle of the presidency.
Former Senator Jim Talent, Senator Kit Bond, and Senator John Ashcroft all issued similarly evasive responses on social issues – telling me that the divorce problem is a state problem for which no federal response could apply. This is the greatest lie a federal legislator could make. Federal welfare funding, anti-marriage child support entitlements, the Violence Against Women Act, IMBRA, and other policies are destroying marriage and placing America at grave economic, social, and criminal risk. These programs were either forced on states or bought by pass-though funding requirements.
Palin passes conservative litmus tests on abortion and economic issues. On a positive note, she apparently opposes sex education and programs that mollycoddle teen illegitimacy.
Unfortunately, Palin is not a pro-marriage social conservative. She is an alpha power-feminist who, in a divorce-related personal family vendetta, grossly abused her powers to influence a family law case and get her former brother-in-law fired from his job state trooper. We already have hundreds of alpha feminists tampering with marriage in Washington. We do not need one in the White House.
Party loyalists pretend this is a minor issue – which it most certainly is not. Tampering with court proceedings, litigants, witnesses, and evidence is a felony in most states.
Palin hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her sister’s ex-husband because they were involved in a bitter custody dispute. Family law cases are classically won by hurling child abuse allegations and damaging the husband economically so he cannot afford to pursue the case. The PI came up with numerous allegations, including a serious child abuse allegation that Wooten used a taser on his child.
An internal police investigation found no wrongdoing on Wooten’s part, so the police commissioner refused to fire him. Upon election as Governor, Palin then pressured her newly-appointed Public Safety Director Walter Monegan to fire Wooten. Monegan refused, so Palin fired him.
The Chronology of the case suggests that Palin interfered heavily in the divorce case, injected very serious allegations against Wooten which were not found valid, with intent to influence the decision of the court.
False child abuse and domestic violence allegations are ruining marriage in America. Wooten was never tried or found guilty of child abuse or domestic violence. He was fired on allegations of improprieties.
Palin publicly pretends to be supportive of the father of her pregnant daughter, but quietly moved her daughter to another school to keep them apart. These are not behaviors consistent with one who believes in marriage or encouraging marital responsibility. Few teen girls get pregnant out of wedlock parents provide enough love, supervision, and guidance.
Tampering with family law court proceedings goes on every day in courts across the land. Horrendous feminist abuses of marriage will end only by firmly demanding that our elected representatives do not do it themselves. We should only support candidates who openly support “Responsible Marriage†reforms of federal laws.
Executing Marriage-Positive change
Historically, Republicans have done nothing to address the marriage-absence problem. After the 1994 “family values†landslide, Republicans promptly adopted Democrat plans to create an aggregated welfare/child support state, and to quickly pass the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans even put Democrats in charge of these committees!
The overwhelming majority of the electorate that voted for pro-marriage “family values†agenda was horrified. We eagerly anticipated change then, and Republicans delivered the exact opposite. Unsurprisingly, Republicans have mysteriously been losing elections ever since.
Today, Republicans don’t dare mention social issues because they are being blamed for what they permitted Democrats do for fourteen years. Republicans still have no pro-marriage policy ideas of their own. McCain is a deer in the headlights of social issues, and Obama plans to run him over this fall.
If Republicans had any brains attached to ethics and morals, they would reform federal programs to execute a painless and collaborative model of “responsible marriage†that is very attractive to almost all voters. (This will be discussed in my future articles).
American voters are far more ready for change than they were in 1994. But they will not get any of it yet. The 2008 elections feature machine candidates shilling to maintain the status quo for trial lawyers, K-street, and tremendous federal and state administrative bureaucracies that grow exponentially by destroying marriage.
Republican and Democrat analysts are worried because their constituencies are not excited about the candidates. The “family values†voting majority (that powered the 1994 Republican landslide) is disgusted with both parties. This constituency is now powering the “Ron Paul†revolution to a great degree. I know quite a few formerly-diehard liberals and conservatives who are voting Ron Paul this time around. Party pollsters are not asking questions to quantify this issues-based majority, because they do not want to recognize its existence. Recognizing us means changing the machine destroying America – a machine deeply embedded in both political parties. Whether they like it or not, our majority does exist. By not catering to us, Republicans are again taking tremendous risk of losing to Democrats in this cycle, and running even greater risk of political collapse in coming cycles.
Republicans have all the tools they need to effect positive change. They simply have to use the assets available to them. Certainly, getting support from the massive “system†(The A.B.A, A.P.A, federal and state administrative bureaucracies, and NGO’s), and winning support from the economic conservative community will take a lot of work. It is doable because the changes we propose will not kill the system, it will only change the nature of the work they do. I know many individuals who work in these fields who hate their work. The average bureaucrat will help us change their work so they can go home every night knowing they actually did something good.
There will be a sociopolitical revolution in America. The Klannish gender-based power liason between unethical lawyers, feminists, and politicians controlling Washington’s political machines will fail – hopefully before America fails entirely. Until this is accomplished, we will continue to see unethical lawyers driving the looting of marriages and assets, banking, oil futures, real estate, home loan sharking, and anything else that can make a fast buck while somebody else takes the rap and goes to jail.
America cannot survive the withering social, economic, and criminal costs of marriage-absence indefinitely. If Republican think tanks are wise, they will start planning positive forward-looking policy changes attractive to the majority of candidates and voters now, so conservatives are ready to win landslide elections perhaps in 2012 or 2016.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
September 25th, 2008 at 12:01 am
[...] Americas most urgent home-front problem went entirely unaddressed at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. This is very bad news for the plebiscite for billions of reasons. Even in the early days of the welfare state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan mentioned the danger that it would destroy marriage. Today, perhaps half of marriages are aborted before they happen, and another half are terminated midstream, because federal expenditures (and pass-through funding requirements imposed on state source: 2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, Americas Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I haven’t endorsed anyone.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Roger,
Not counting possible write-in candidates, I have not yet heard a presidential candidate “openly promise to fight for effective policy changes for restoring the institution of family and individual rights.”
Do you know of such a choice?
September 17th, 2008 at 7:20 am
It is clear from your many comments and articles that you support McCain-Palin.
Actually, I have not endorsed the Republican ticket. I’m an analyst and you should take my comments literally, without imagining ulterior motives. Three Election Pledges
September 17th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Hi Roger,
It is clear from your many comments and articles that you support McCain-Palin.
I would agree that (once again in this presidential election cycle) the Republican ticket is the lesser of two evils vs. the Democratic ticket. (Frankly, I am aghast that a traitor like Biden is encouraged/enabled/paid for his traitorous behavior.) However, in the last presidential election cycle, the lesser of two evils has turned out to be a superb disappointment.
I would disagree that getting to the bottom of Palin’s role in the firing of Monegan is nothing but a distraction. Furthermore, perhaps it would better to cast a vote for a positive rather than for either of two negatives.
You point out that “from a legal perspective, she could fire Monegan.” I won’t dispute that. However, tenuous (to far fetched) legal justifications for making bad moral choices is the path that brought us here.
It is legal perspectives that have twisted our country into something, increasing contrary to the U.S. Constitution, and increasingly contrary to what we need to be to thrive.
Roe v. Wade was a legal victory (for lawyers) that has made it “legal†for millions of women to murder more than 50 million humans (so far), criminalize any of those baby’s father’s who might have intervened to mitigate that onslaught. Thousands of “doctors†have become financially comfortable, have profited from this, but does any of this “legal†justification make abortion right, or good?
It is legal for politicians (almost exclusively lawyers) to make laws that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution (VAWA, IMBRA, and much more). Politicians and judges who commit this treason are given a pass only to later execute, legislate, and adjudicate further degradation.
If McCain-Palin is an acceptable choice, why are 3rd party candidates being kept out of upcoming debates?
Nasty divorces don’t happen unless (at least) one of the partners/parents is nasty. If Palin used her power to exacerbate the nastiness of her relative, then this story is not just pertinent to the upcoming presidential election, it is case in point to men’s/father’s rights issues.
Scott Strohm
September 17th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Republicans Sue to Stop Palin Investigation
September 17th, 2008 at 12:22 am
David,
There might not be anybody worth voting for, but I think you’re burying yourself in a dead-end argument. There is no silver bullet demonstrating that Palin is lying about firing Monegan. From a legal perspective, she could fire Monegan for whatever reason she pleased, without reporting to anyone regarding the reasons. It doesn’t even matter if she thought about firing him for some other reason than the one she now gives, or was angry with him for some other reason. The “investigation” is a he-said / she-said dispute that her political enemies are hoping will dampen the McCain / Palin campaign. For us, it’s nothing but a distraction.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
All,
McCain/Palin are making huge mistakes attempting to bury this issue.
see: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/palin.trooper.probe/index.html
The above is a total lie intended to firewall attention from the issues that would take Palin down instantly were they were revealed. Palin continues trashing Wooten, in defiance of the court order.
I regret there is nothing worth voting for in 2008.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
… But is the political solution to the above pattern of systemic and systematic abuses, conservative reform or a full counter-revolution ?
Wheras conservative reform will only tinker with existing mendacious proceedures within existing feminist instututions, a counter-revolution will involve a substantive whole-sale restructuring.
A misspecification of the origins of the problem in feminism instead of male cultural degeneracy leads one to conclude that conservative reforms are adequate. They aren’t.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Roger,
It is a very long shot suggesting that Palin would do different in public policy than what she has done personally. Why would she want to change the status-quo, when it would reduce her feminist power? Could anyone think she is reform-minded where her record is devoid of a position, and where she fell overboard exceeding her own statutory authority, which is far more than what the average person has?
Feminist abuses of marriage at the federal and state administrative levels are considered “personal” matters to be buried alive wholesale in family courts. This is what has permitted neo-conservatives to look good while yammering incessantly about the importance of marriage, while passing federal laws aborting marriage, and also while doing things in their personal lives that are tremendously irresponsible or damaging to others around them.
Over the years, I have seen many abuses of public power by families involved in divorces. One guy was committed to an insane asylum by his wife, who was having an affair with a well-placed public official (who pulled the public strings), to put him in a defenseless position. She then filed for divorce and quickly cleaned him out. There was nothing wrong with the guy – I went and visited him.
Another was a Texas case. An ex-wife who married a minister in a small Texas town. They were close friends with the local judge and police. They kidnapped a child from the custodial father in St. Louis. Despite orders of the court of jurisdiction in St. Louis, a letter from Gov. Ann Richards, and a forceful letter from the State’s attorney of Texas (who declined to enforce the Missouri order), the local judge insisted on keeping the child there. As usual in maternal abduction cases, the FBI refused to act (saying it was a state issue), but told the father they would “look the other way” if he hired a PI/pilot to fly to Texas and kidnap the child back. They managed to get messages to the child, who met the pilot at the edge of town in a field. The ex-wife’s parenting time was then terminated by the court in St. Louis.
There are plenty more cases I have been involved in.
There is a pattern of local abuses, which continues unabated because federal policy and our federal officials not only condone it, some do it themselves.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Wherein is the above quote misleading?
Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask whether Sarah Palin engaged in behaviors that abetted a Parental Alienator.
And it matters not that Wooten might be an unsavory lout. That’s no excuse.
Nor is this a private family matter — because as we all know, the father, in this case, is the State.
It’s a fair question.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
We don’t want to become the people making false accusations in support of political goals, or supporting others who are doing so. I would be against that.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
We need a national dialogue on abuses of human and parental rights in family courts. Palin and the family apparently abused VAWA, child abuse laws, and additionally governor powers in an attempt to seize custody of children. That is the classic national problem that needs illumination.
The Newsweek article is a start. We will see where it goes.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Well – I would be quite pleased to see more discussion on family policy. Pushing the scandal isn’t going to be productive. That’s not about national family politics. It’s just a he-said, she-said kind of thing in the family’s personal lives being milked by Palin’s political enemies.
I think anyone who thinks they may have a chance to get some serious Q&A going in a productive way on the subject of national family policy should go for it. But once again, that’s not where the alleged scandal goes.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Last comment crossed in the mail, and had an error: McCain will not allow Palin to speak WITHOUT a script. He knows she’s unqualified, which is actually an even larger issue than her vindicative, child-abusing ways.
The woman doesn’t have enough of a record for us to evaluate her on the issues, so the evidence we have of personal behavior is very important to filling in the gaps. And it’s almost all gaps.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The McCain campaign is not allowing Palin to speak a script, and have in fact kept her under wraps for two weeks now. The chances of somebody asking her a question in Town Hall setting are essentially nil. Palin is not remotely qualified to be Vice President, and McCain knows it.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Richard,
I’ve said that in fact, I don’t want to be involved in this discussion. I don’t regard it as productive. I haven’t believed Newsweek for a long time – not just on this one story – they have a long record of publishing nonsense. A random blog is a more credible source. I read their article and it doesn’t make much sense prima facia.
As I said, I think the discussion at Fathers & Families is far more interesting on this topic. They are going to some effort to figure out how to deal with this properly. At this point, I’m not interested. All I see is a partisan attack. Newsweek isn’t “evidence” – and once again – hope I don’t have to repeat it – I don’t see the alleged “scandal” as being politically important. So I wouldn’t even care much if someone came up with proof that she’d personally yelled profanities at her ex-brother-in-law. That’s family business, not national politics.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Roger, please, you’re insulting the intelligence of every read of this thread. The only facts we have on the court record are those cited by Newsweek. To say you “don’t believe Newsweek” when you have no other facts to cite says you’re at war with reality. That’s not productive.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I suggest treating Sarah Palin like other candidates; particularly looking for an opportunity in a town hall style open forum of any kind where a question can be asked. John McCain and Mitt Romney for example, both received questions from fathers’ rights advocates. Try to think of a way to ask a question such that it doesn’t fall into the “states should do that” trap. In other words, the question would need to refer to federal law and its problems without being so long that you’d get cut off. There is apparently no definitive information available, except that she tried to exempt child support debtors from having energy rebate checks intercepted – which does not seem anti-father to me.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Richard,
As I said before, I don’t believe Newsweek and since there is no evidence that Sarah Palin is politically anti-father, I’m not going to pretend that there is. Also, as I have already said, looking into the alleged scandal surrounding her sister’s divorce does not provide any relevant information. It is a fool’s errand. I’m not supporting Palin’s opposition, so I’m not going to go to work for them.
I suggest continuation of the discussion at Fathers & Families, where it appears there may be a balanced and purposeful investigation going on.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Mr. Gay, I’m very disappointed in you. The facts in the divorce case in question very strongly show that Sarah Palin is no friend of fathers. Newsweek offers a direct quote from the court record in which the judge admonishes Palin for her alienating behavior. To respond to that direct quote (something that’s easily verified, and will be verified) that you simply “don’t believe it” is the height of self-delusion. You may very well dislike Newsweek as an institution and its columnists and editors, but this is a direct quote, and they don’t make that stuff up.
The facts are not on your side, so you’re trying to impeach the facts.
Usher points out, quite correctly, that Sarah Palin is no friend of fathers. Just imagine what someone with her history would do if the Congress passed a bill punishing PAS’ers. I believe she’d counsel the president to veto it, and if she were president herself (God forbid), she’d veto it.
Fathers’ Rights advocates need to get over this delusion that the religious right is their friend. We’ve seen over and over that the RR has less respect for fatherhood than any other group in American society except for the far-left lesbian activist fringe. And there are nearly as many of them as there are Rapture-awaiting Christians.
We need political leaders who respect the rule of law and the principles of fairness that underly the 14th Amendment. The fringes of the political spectrum are populated with people who consistently place themselves above the law, and Palin is clearly one of them. She’s the kind of person who believes that Motherhood is special, and that sense she surely doesn’t want any such thing as a Joint Custody law. She could obviously care less about marriage as well.
No clear-thinking fathers’ rights advocate can support this Republican ticket.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:35 am
David,
I don’t believe Newsweek and cannot conclude on the basis of the well-known fact that the divorce / custody battle was messy that Sarah Palin hates all men everywhere and will abuse her power whenever possible to advance the far-left fascist feminist agenda. I can’t think of anything sillier than reading Newsweek on court-records of her sister’s divorce as a way of accurately characterizing what Sarah Palin’s political power represents. It’s not hard evidence, and as an analyst, I don’t see it as useful.
I don’t want to spend a lot of time playing the he-said, she-said game on this. There are Democrats and perhaps some Ron Paul supporters who want this to be a meaningful scandal for political purposes. That does not mean that everyone else who doesn’t play along is either dishonest or incompetent.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
This article and certainly the comment discussion have focused some on Palin and her issues.
Whatever Palin may or may not have done pales in comparison to what Biden has done. HE has had a big hand in creating the reality that has allowed millions and millions of women (mostly) and men to do what Palin may have done. AND he’s proud of what he’s done.
McCain and Obama have demonstrated their ignorance of or unwillingness to address these important issues also.
Perhaps these connections will be made somewhere in the major media outlets and it will become clear that our current system of a closed two-party politics is corrupt to the core.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Hi Roger,
Who’s friends with who is immaterial. It cuts both ways — the left is exaggerating and the right is ignoring.
The only thing that matters is what’s in the divorce court records. Unless Newsweek is lying about whats in the court record, which is unlikely, they have confirmed what I saw in the event history.
I’m not in Alaska. Do we have somebody that lives there who can pull the case file and see what it in it?
September 11th, 2008 at 6:33 am
David:
I’m surprised that you haven’t identified Newsweek as a biased source yet. They ran another article claiming that the judge in the divorce / custody case warned Palin about disparaging Wooten and ordered her to stop, or it might effect her sister’s custody. It made no sense.
Now in response to the new article you’ve turned up, which you think “confirms” your view, take a look at this:
The picture shows Hollis French and two others who are leading the investigation into Palin’s actions in troopergate. “Dare I say there is a conflict of interest?â€
The charges were created and the investigation is being run by Palin’s political enemies. It’s happening in a legislative body and there’s no recourse except for Palin’s political friends to act.
There is no evidence that Palin is a liar. What you’re calling “evidence” is just accusation from Palin’s political enemies – i.e. Barack Obama’s friends.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:13 am
All,
Newsweek confirms what I published a week ago. Palin and her family grossly disparaged Wooten over an extended time period. The judge in the case noted it several times in his decisions, and even threatened to curb custody to the mother if she or any family member continued illegitimate disparagement of Wooten.
See: Team McCain and the Trooper: Nominee’s ally moves to curb probe of Palin
Anti-family feminism is very much an issue now, and Palin has center stage. Marriage is not an institution of convenience to be aborted under false pretenses. Conservatives who think Palin’s style of feminism is patriotic, strong, independent, and a model for American women are gravely mistaken. Her public persona is a facade. It is one thing to hunt moose, and another thing to hunt husbands and fathers. At least Obama is more honest about what he would do. Palin is a liar.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Insightful as always, David, though I’m a little less moved by anything which goes in the direction of the-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it type thinking, because it too often leads just to the formation of Ain’t It Awful committees.
There are a couple of good things which might conceivably come out of this whole Hurricane Sarah episode:
1) A wider recognition that establishment feminism is not so much about women and getting them a place at the table above the glass ceiling, but is first and foremost about getting their women (and feminist men) into positions of power, in spite of the lip service paid to being for all women. They come out looking like just more hypocritical partisans.
We all knew this already, but the average citizen is somewhat confused by all the feminist attacks and vitriol directed at someone who should logically be a feminist heroine for having so successfully combined family and a career in public service, while being smart, tough, confident, et al. Any cracks in that ceiling can only be a step in the right direction. There’s a sense in which orthodox Feminist Studies feminism is having its own senior moment melt-down, and is self-destructing due to McCain’s pick.
McCain’s Feminist Mistake (Susan Levine – but don’t miss the comments)
Palin’s sudden popularity has feminists in a snit (Bonnie Rogoff)
Why They Hate Her – Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left. (Jeffrey Bell)
A Feminist’s Argument for McCain’s VP (Tammy Bruce)
2) Ok, so it’s obvious both parties are once again trying as hard as they can to attract the woman vote. At some point someone is going to wise up to the fact that there’s only so far one can go in that direction, a point of diminishing returns, that it costs too much to get one more of those because the competition for them is so fierce, that the whole thing there is maxed out.
The obvious place to then go to look for more votes is at who’s being overlooked. Voila, “the Man Vote” suddenly explodes onto the scene, giving us a chance to express why so many of us reject Lesser Evilism (David lays it out very well here) and thus have no or little allegiance to either major party. Maybe I’m dreaming, but it could be like the media discovering the uncharted lands around Wasilla, Alaska. I’ve already seen one piece on Slate talking about how the sort of guy typified by the First Dude (white, high school educated working-class men, presumably decent hard-working Joes married with kids) may be the key to how this election ultimately turns out, and this could be a trend for the future.
I’ve probably posted it before around here, but IMO it’s always worth repeating Warren Farrell’s insight of more than fifteen years ago:
Both conservatives and liberals are protective of women and thus reinforce the traditional male-female sex roles, but they use different rationalizations for that protectiveness. The conservative expects women to receive special protection via social custom. The liberal expects women to receive special protection via governement programs. The conservative assumes most women want the traditional female roles, and the traditional female role requires men to protect women. The liberal assumes men’s old roles were power and privilege designed to serve men rather than be men’s way of protecting women, so the liberal feels women need protection to compensate for the male power structure. Both conservative and liberal therefore conclude that men should protect women, and no one should protect men. . .Special protection with real equality is oxymoronic. . .Men’s concerns do not fall on a continuum between conservatism and liberalism, but in a triangular relationship.
It will then be interesting to see who is smart enough to understand this and move in what we see as the correct direction(s) accordingly. The D’s and liberal/progressives/left are not entirely a lost cause if we emphasize and explain to them how men are victims of what Stephen Baskerville terms “the most massive civil rights abuse of our time.” (Yes, even worse than women not getting equal pay for equal work…) Again, maybe I’m dreaming because of all the feminists over there, but perhaps one more lost election will make them desperate enough to listen for a change.