In short, men have stopped performing as men because the world gives them the false impression that their talents and their manliness are no longer called for.  Quite the reverse, I would suggest that most of our problems these days--the welfare state being the chief one--can be attributed to the failure of traditional manhood--or what I call the unmanning of America.

Elizabeth Dunn and Karen appear to me to have the most direct and accurate comments on this post thus far.  I have been studying the manhood problem for at least a decade.  It is certainly complex.  But the most fundamental causes of the problem appear to be a combination of a failure of the institutions that traditionally made men (the family, the church, the schools and colleges foremost among them) and the failure of young women to insist that the men they pay attention to, date, and marry live up to any standard approximating either gentle-manliness or aggressive, competitive manhood.  Most of human civilization has been the attempt to discipline men's spiritedness (thumos, in the Greek) without smothering them.  We have gone the direction of smothering and stifling their drive.  I do not know as much about corporate America, but I suspect that all the emphasis on "collaboration" over competition and emotional intelligence over taking risks follows a path similar to the unmanning of schools, churches, and families.  Where men thrive is still in the services where they can be men.  Finally, I think the most successful women want even more successful and ambitions husbands.

. . . because of a lack of military preparedness in the state.  His own policy as president was to curtail military spending substantially.  Madison, following this Democratic-Republican platform, paid dearly for such unpreparedness in the War of 1812.  His failure to get rid of his slaves, even on his death (unlike Washington), was not the result of hypocrisy.  All his private letters and many public statements show an abhorrence for the institution whose undermining of liberty the author of the Declaration was keenly aware of.  Yet he was a pretty unsuccessful plantation owner.  Washington years before had begun converting Mount Vernon to other staple crops besides tobacco, that would in part free him of his reliance on slave labor.  Flexner's biography makes a big point of this and shows how Washington re-thinking the productiveness of his lands and freeing himself from the topsy-turvy tobacco market constituted the first move in America (certainly in the South) towards economic independence from Britain.  Jefferson's greatest flaw, however, has to be his authorship of the Kentucky Resolutions, which were the precursor to nullification.  Later on, Calhoun could quite legitimately claim to be following in the footsteps of Jefferson.

I am sorry to join this conversation late, as it is a great one to have, that is, to evaluate the Founders for their individual contributions and faults while realizing that as a group they were operating at the level of "demi-gods."  I confess to being in the John Yoo camp of arch-Hamiltonians and (relatively speaking) anti-Jeffersonians.  Jefferson's greatest achievements are clearly the ones he had put on his tombstone: author of the Declaration, author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, founder of the University of Virginia.  The importance of religious freedom--whose chief advocates were Madison and Jefferson--is something we tend to forget in America.  Through the control of religion, characteristic of almost all regimes in the past, the state held the individual's conscience in its power.  Jefferson was also the president who signed (as provided for in the Constitution) the end of the slave trade.

That said, he was duplicitous in the Washington cabinet (using the hack poet Freneau and others to blast Washington while playing the part of the loyal supporter).  He was a terrible governor of Virginia during the Revolution and had to head for the hills . . . 

This is a great question to pursue.  Several angles strike me right away.  First, I am astonished by the amount of time college students spend talking to their parents on their cellphones, sometimes right after class.  "Mom, you won't believe what grade Dr. Smith just gave me . . ."  That didn't happen when I was in college.  Parents were lucky to get a rushed call over the weekend.  Second, my colleagues and I see a real distinction between men and women on the whole, with the latter being more ambitious.  Many have written on this subject, the latest book worth reading being Kay Hymowitz's Manning Up.  The term basement boy or man-child is accurate.  Third, there is a problem with the work ethic and expectations of many (though not all) young college graduates.  They realize they will have to work hard to get a house and all the amenities they had growing up, so home appears more inviting.  Finally, the parents are largely to blame.  I have lived in several nice suburban neighborhoods.  I see fathers mowing lawns and shoveling snow and the children driving nice cars without responsibility.  When my oldest son turns 11, I stop mowing.

For those still following this post, I shall clarify.  When the government defines poverty in the way it does; and when social programs continue to be thrown at the "poor" (not all but most of whom are getting substantial assistance from the government); and when the poor make poor choices about how they spend their money (not having to choose between, say, an X-box and shots for their children because the shots are covered); then the taxpayers end up indirectly buying luxury items for those living in poverty--luxury items beyond what many taxpayers have.  But if social programs did not take capital out of circulation, there would be more money for investing that would lead to "the poor" having more and better jobs.  On top of that, taxpaying America would have more money to give to charity--which "the rich" and middle class always do.  The difference is that that charity would have real charity behind it (from Latin caritas, love) and would be better administered.  What we need is better administered welfare?  How can anyone believe that after the last half century of failed social experiments?  Finally, where is the warrant for federal welfare in the Constitution?

Five years ago I never thought I would see a serious discussion about federalism in my lifetime.  It is now being discussed.  Two years ago I thought I was being radical and daring by urging a complete restructuring or even abandoning of the current social security system while addressing a Tea Party.  That is now the central issue among the Republican candidates.  The day after Obama won I told a student that the Right never organizes to show popular resistance.  We are seeing things today that were really not possible or even dreamed of during the Reagan years when it was hard enough to sell the idea of tax cuts.  Now is the moment to reread our Constitution and do what is right, not what we think will sell.  As far as Econ 101, if you do not have time to read all of Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, then pick up a copy of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in Once Lesson.  It is eye-opening.

That's a tough call, and your response was great.  How about either of these?

"I see there is a legal expert in the audience tonight.  You know, I've always had difficulty explaining the commerce clause.  Could you give us a quick run-down?"

"As much as I like reverting back to the state of nature to make a Hobbesian point, I think it's time to reestablish the rule of law.  Guards!"

Rick Perry won on the question of execution.  He could have been pithier, though, by saying the people who have committed these crimes have declared war on humanity.  

Mr. Cain won--in my mind--on social security and taxes--far beyond Perry's inability to explain his controversial "Ponzi scheme" statement.  I like Cain for Commerce Secretary.

Santorum was actually good on foreign policy.

Perry stumbled on the 20-1 wealth gap issue.  He should have said that the rate has gone up remarkably under Obama, which shows that redistributionist Democrat policies are actually worse for the poor.

I did not come away thinking we were looking at one of these folks being the next president, but the campaign is still early.

Great question.  Here is the prolific Victorian novelist Anthony Trollope (who had a full-time day job in the British postal service) on writing:

"I have prided myself in completing it [a book] within the proposed time,--and I have always done so.  There has ever been a record before me, and a week passed with an insufficient number of pages has been a blister to my eye, and a month so disgraced would have been a sorrow to my heart.

     "I have been told that such appliances are beneath the notice of a man of genius.  I have never fancied myself to be a man of genius, but had I been so I think I might well have subjected myself to these trammels.  Nothing surely is so potent as a law that may not be disobeyed.  It has the force of the waterdrop that hollows the stone.  A small daily task, if it be really daily, will beat the labours of a spasmodic Hercules." 

Those statistics at William & Mary are in fact not terribly alarming.  At Hillsdale, I have had only one instance of plagiarism in three years--and there is a solid honor code in place.  I am sure the Sage of Monticello would be happy to know that his "quaint" ideas of honor are still at least tenuously in place.  

     Mr. Ames, you and your brother are right to be put off by the false motivation engendered (pardon the pun) on behalf of girls' accomplishments.  The irony is that your school is about two decades behind the times.  Beating the tom-toms for girl power and wringing one's hands about the disadvantage of being a girl in a patriarchal culture were features of the late eighties and early nineties.  Countless seminars were held and papers were written about how girls were lagging behind in math and would not have equal chances on the job front.  Then around 2000 people started looking at the statistics.  Girls and young women were graduating with higher G.P.A.'s, getting into college in much higher numbers, and even going over 50% in law and medical schools. 

     The question is, why?  This is a complex problem.  One thing you and your brother might want to consider is how "boy friendly" is your high school?  My guess is that students who write down everything the teacher says and give it back almost verbatim are being rewarded.  What about debate, competition, and risk-taking--even arguing with the teacher?  Boys are bored in school.

 To be sure, looking at Amazon is not necessarily most reliable way of figuring how much Locke is being read.  College book stores order the texts to allow students to get their books all in one place.  That said, I know a lot of students who use Amazon because they can get the books much more cheaply than in the bookstores.  The larger point is whether colleges make Locke required reading.  I doubt that to be the case.  Even in the once robust core at the University of Chicago I was never required to read Locke.  Most college core programs require a smattering of "social sciences" rather than a straight document-based history class.  And virtually no college requires a Constitution class (Hillsdale and the service academies are the only ones I know of).  Thus, I hold to my original premise: not a lot of Locke is getting read.  Patrick Henry, of course, bucks the trend because it is a college designed for former homeschoolers and is pretty conservative from what I can tell.  If not Locke, what is getting read in freshman "soc"?  I'm guessing Marx makes an appearance.  Thanks for the responses.

 Unbelievable.  Aside from all the other horrible unintended consequences (if we are being charitable) of this insane bill, it also discourages perhaps the greatest benefit of girls and young women from 12 to 22 babysitting regularly: practicing for motherhood.  Consequently, when these young women who have been kicked out of the babysitting industry because of overregulation begin to have their own children, they will be more inclined to turn their children over to the EXPERTS.  By that time there will likely be a babysitting union if the loonies in California have their way. 

 I sympathize with your feeling out of place.  The hope is that these great institutions will return to their original purposes of teaching the liberal arts and tranforming young people into responsible citizens.  That will only happen if there is a demand for such instruction.  Such demand will only come from the bottom up.  The professoriate will not all of a sudden return to first principles.  Therefore there is a great calling in being a conservative student on college campuses these days.  I think part of that calling consists in worrying about the current state of the nation.  But the one thing you can do that the rest of us can't do on the outside is keep reminding these professors what they are supposed to be doing--and using the founding documents and history of the universities to do so.  What I mean is a new kind of Tea Party activism on the part of students on the right demanding that professors explain how the work they are doing is in line with the original purposes of those institutions.  There are great things in those university archives that ought to appear in the campus papers regularly. 

 You raise an interesting question.  Tocqueville was impressed by how America (unlike France) was run mostly by local, self-governing associations, most of them not a function of government.  Today these associations are mostly governmental, and they are looking for handouts from the federal government.  I can comment on school boards.  On the face of it, every school district in the country is run by an independent board of elected officials.  In reality, school boards are made up of retired teachers, former union activists, spouses of career teachers, and liberal politicians.  And these boards are highly deferential to the superintendents, who are simply mouth-pieces for the system.  Whenever a rare conservative reformer does get on a school board, he (or she) is either outvoted or coopted under the false guise of decorum and "working together."  Thus, every district in the country is following the same bad ideas.  To run a campaign against such a system is to invite the teachers' unions to march against you and to face the prospect of being labelled "anti-teacher."  Most local politicians do not want to be hated in their own communities.  The bottom line is, liberals play for keeps.