Both Parties Spurn Male Voters
Republicans Cut "legitimate interest" Anchor

December 17, 2003

It's no secret that the old media has strong ties to the Democrat Party. The huge contrast between "analysis" of events during Democrat and Republican administrations has proven that over and over again. From about the 1970s through to the last presidential election, Democrats and their media outlets made sure the public knew how proud they were to have fewer male ... ah ... more female votes than Republicans – the so-called "gender gap."

It didn't matter that the extra share of the pro-Democrat females were being persuaded by feminist extremists and that the feminist agenda was actually put together by a coalition of organized crime, anti-West leftist extremists, and homosexuals interested in destroying the American family. It had become an agenda that benefited the Democrat Party, and that was good enough for the old media. Let loose the dogs of chaos.

It's a funny thing about voter statistics. There's a lesson here that will also benefit anyone looking at any statistics related to policy arguments. Responses to statistics (whether true or not) are not always what you expect. Courting the women's vote might seem to mean increasing the number of women who vote for the party. But there are actually two ways to achieve parity. The other is to rid yourself of a significant share of that annoying support the party gets from men. Better still, if you can quickly gather some female votes before too many men realize what happened.

After some trial and error, it was discovered that "child support" was the best spearhead issue. The left provided propaganda that simultaneously attacked a wide range of targets (it takes some analytical effort to make solid some of the connections I suggest – but surely you must have suspected); men (individual rights), patriarchy (heterosexual relationships and family), and a vast male conspiracy against women (separation of powers, states and individual rights, the Constitution generally). By introducing the words "responsible" and "welfare reform" the propaganda was made ideologically acceptable to conservatives and moderates.

How many of you actually paid close attention to welfare reform rhetoric and welfare reform? Both parties support the idea that welfare reform should incorporate what they refer to as "traditional American values." (Get your dictionary out and look up "values" if you need to, but all I'm telling you is this is what they said.) "Traditional American values include work, family, and responsibility." The way they've pursued the agenda has been to expand welfare to encompass all people regardless of income, and transform everything from the private sphere into public welfare issues; work, family, and responsibility. Nothing is left in the private sphere. The only remaining purpose for "individual rights" is to assure that everyone lives equally under the yoke of public policy. We have become a socialist country. Freedom is off the agenda for both parties.

People who were paying attention watched the rapid erosion take place. Marriage was redefined and family law transported from the private sphere to that of government functions; no longer protected from intrusion and arbitrary manipulation.

The old media spent years pushing the propaganda. During the early 1990s it was clear they were selling the idea that child support reform was one of the most important issues in the world. There was a long period when "deadbeat dad" hysteria filled the airways nightly, and if you missed it there you could get it through almost every newspaper and weekly magazine in the country.

The propaganda died down when it was proven, beyond any doubt whatsoever that it was all untrue; fathers did not typically abandon their families and they were good at providing financial support even after divorce so long as they were able. Poverty has several causes, but wealthy fathers who refused to support their children was not among them except in rare cases (and those were often questionable). After years of pushing it as one of the most important policy issues of all time, suddenly it wasn't important at all. No headlines blared; "Deadbeat Dad Propaganda False," or "Massive Multi-Billion Dollar Family Policy Fraud Exposed." Politics has nothing to do with reality. In America, it has only to do with what's good for the party. It was already true that neither party would benefit from the truth.

But the news has slowly leaked out and had some effect on political rhetoric and policy. The federal child support enforcement program has not reduced poverty or welfare dependency, never had any chance, but has expanded welfare policy to encompass all families regardless of income and transformed marriage and families into government functions.

Unfortunately, commitment to the multi-billion dollar spending on child support enforcement and the corruption that goes with it has been too strong for leaks to turn the tide. According to partisan sources, it's all working as advertised. Instead of backing off, the agenda is still set to intrude further and further into family life. There is no political party or organization that opposes this momentum that the old media will pay much attention to.

Politicians have continued to steer family policy according to the same agenda, but many have tried to be careful to imply rather than repeat the lies upon which the agenda was formulated. When problems are exposed, they are quick to avoid responsibility, mostly by blaming fathers and the courts. (Blaming the courts most recently for same-sex marriage, which is hard to avoid now that marriage and family are government functions.) The rhetoric has become fragmented, inconsistent, and a bit schizophrenic at times; "helping fathers" by threatening them, throwing them in jail, and taking so much of their income that they are no longer able to support themselves; and inviting religious institutions into the program to create an illusion of moral justification.

Marriage and family policy is not, according to the Constitution, a federal issue. (Although the Constitution is painfully aware of its own intent to protect marriage and family as a private issue.) The federal government can only become involved in issues not assigned to it when there is a nexus between an issue and existing legitimate federal interests. You surely remember what that connection was. The federal government set out to save money on welfare by tracking down "deadbeat dads" and making them pay (even though redistribution of individual wealth is not a Constitutionally defined legitimate federal interest). Non-welfare related child support, which was what was actually effected by the federal reforms, was in fact a purely private issue (subject to court order through civil action between the parties involved).

Republicans are set to cut the "legitimate interest" anchor altogether, at least bringing reality a bit closer to politics. The RNC web site presents President Bush's position on welfare. Here's an item to think about:

So the idea that the federal government is involved in child support for the purpose of recovering welfare payments isn't all that important. Now that the federal government is involved, it no longer matters why they are involved. The point of the policy agenda is to take more from men and give more to women; and it doesn't matter whether the policy is legitimate.

Republicans are still obviously quite worried about that "gender gap." It's obvious that they still feel the need to pick up more female votes and shed themselves of more of those irritating male votes – else the old media might pick on them again. All I can suggest to loyal Republican males is to help them by not voting for them.

Roger F. Gay

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM