Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The War on Married Women — The King Prawn
The Democrats Have A Marriage Problem, so says Investor’s Business Daily. Results from their recent poll demonstrate a significant marriage gap for the Dems. They know this, and “[a]ccording to the Washington Post, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is building a huge computer database that will let it predict women’s marital status.”
That married women are generally more conservative than single women is a fact we’ve known for a long time. The problem, however, is that, while the Democrats recognize the difference and use it to their advantage, Republicans can’t seem to do anything with the data other than don sack cloth and sit in ashes. I see an opening where the party sees only a door nailed shut.
According to these statistics (best I could find quickly), women are still marrying at a pretty good clip. Those who aren’t have other demographic negatives for Republicans, which also must be dealt with (minority, low-education level, etc.) The point is that tranforming the democrat meme “war on women” into a republican meme “war on married women” should garner some electoral advantages for conservatism.
The IBD polling questions show that married women align with conservative values. They want a strong, free economy. They want Obamacare gone. They want the country put back on a path of liberty, where they can nurture their families free from government interference. Transforming ourselves into the “democrat lite” party will not inspire their confidence; rather, it will drain their hope and give them an excuse to stay away from the polls. The solution is to present a fiscally conservative (libertarian) message right along side a morally conservative (SoCon) message describing a nation in which we want to raise our children.
Democrats grow their base by keeping women unmarried and dependent on government. We can grow ours by highlighting the left’s war on married women and inciting both soccer moms and momma grizzlies to vote.
To quote the great Peter Robinson, what think?
Published in General
Staying married is the trick. Anyone seen data on women’s voting patterns when single again after divorce? Genuinely curious.
Has anyone investigated whether there is a sociopath gap? Or a narcissist gap? The questions just struck me as I read the post.
Good idea!
The item on the chart that is the most disturbing is Free Market is Good. That so many people view the free market with suspicion shows that we have an awful long way to go. Apparently the majority of single women think we’d be better off with government dictating prices and production levels.
Agreed. It would be nice if we actually had some experience with a much more free market than we have today. Crony capitalism and crony socialism has really skewed people’s views of markets.
That free market is terrible. Perhaps the President could appoint a blue-ribbon panel so that good choices for mates are distributed fairly. After all, poor, lazy men should be able to get some hot, hardworking babes to support them. Why should all the good ones go to rich, handsome guys? We need socialization of matrimonial partners. We could call it Obamabride.
That’s some good stuff, Arahant. We need EJ Hill to make up a poster advertising the ObamaBride project.
How do we link EJ in this new system? Especially with PM not up and running yet?
Single men, go fix this problem for us.
Please promise never to accept a position involving the formulation or institutionalization of public policy. No particular reason, just a thought.
I promise to never do so for the Left. If Conservatives or Libertarians called upon me, I could not refuse.
TKP,
Oh boy does this suggest an AD for the coming election. Married women with job & raising children tells off unemployed over educated single Julia. Wakes her up to what life’s really about.
Regards,
Jim
Please throw in a Fluke clone.
S,
Exactly what I had in mind.
Regards,
Jim
I remember some statistic that older divorced women vote overwhelmingly Democrat, at even higher percentages than young never married women.
Scary.
Being married doesn’t fix this problem. There’s two things that are probably going on here:
1) Unmarried women tend to be younger, and younger people tend to be more liberal to begin with.
2) There’s self-selection going on. I.e., single women are single for a reason. Getting married probably won’t change that underlying reason which makes them both “single” and “liberal”. (to put in less polite, and certainly extreme ways, no one wants to marry a crazed liberal feminist who will drive you crazy talking about social issues. I’m sure we all know people like that, both female and male).
This is an issue that “conservatives” need to keep in mind when they talk about marriage, the way Charles Murray or Dennis Prager and those types do (very wrongfully, imho). Marriage in itself doesn’t make the difference. Marriage is a…reflective…variable. Meaning that in itself it is not what leads to those ‘desirable” characteristics we talk about, but those who have those characteristics reflect it in their married life. What we want to know is what are the…formative…variables that lead to those characteristics.
It makes an unfortunate kind of sense; those who’ve tried tradition and failed are less likely to trust traditionalism. Sad, but understandable.
So half of those who marry end up even more democratic then before. Awesome.
I would have to disagree with this characterization. Marriage is transformative, as are the fruits, children. The compact bears many fruits, many of which are life changing, so while it may be accurate to state that there are some that may be more likely to marry then others, the above statement does not reflect reality.
I’m down with the idea, but I don’t think it will work unless we can demonstrate/persuade married women that democrats have it out for them in the same way they convinced single women that republicans had it out for them.
The polling data suggests they already have the facts. Our job is to reinforce what they already know. We need to fire them up against the left using truths they already acknowledge.
So what are the specific issues that constitute the War on Married Women.
Scurrilous and dishonest as it was, the WoW had a coherent message: that republicans want to deny single women sexual agency by taking away their contraceptives and forcing them to bear children conceived though rape. Again, scurrilous and dishonest, but specific and powerful.
What would the narrative be for the WoMW? I’m not asking out of snark.
That’s a much more succinct way of phrasing the question I was attempting to ask in this post. I think the polling data gives us fodder, but no well formulated statements.
I’m not saying that marriage doesn’t change people. The question is if it changes people along this political dimension. I’d say it’s not marriage itself that has any effect on a person’s political beliefs. It is possible that the effect we see is due to the person’s age, employment experience, or maybe that they married a really conservative guy, and he rubbed off.
Either way, we need a “theory” of what mechanisms are at work, and how. Simply talking about “marriage” as if its the end all and be all, is even less “realistic” than you may think I’m saying. Yet when I hear certain conservative commentators, like Dennis Prager, you’d think that all one needs to become Thomas Jefferson is to get married, ASAP, to the first person that walks down the street. Pretty sure there’s more going on here.
Imho, going down this road of categorizing people in this fashion is the same thing as what the Left does: identity politics. I don’t want to see conservatives going down this road.
Point well taken. The problem we face, however, is that the left plays by a different set of rules, and they win a lot by doing so. I don’t know how compromised we would have to be to win. Perhaps any step down that path is too far. I struggle to find a way to move forward electorally without though. I hope we can find a noble victory rather than just a noble death.
Z in MT: #15 “I remember some statistic that older divorced women vote overwhelmingly Democrat, at even higher percentages than young never married women.”
I can well imagine this being so. The woman no longer has a husband bringing home money which supports the household she lives in. She probably does not have a pension, or even much in the way of social security, and she is afraid. She looks for someone to take care of her and finds Uncle Sam. And Uncle Sam won’t try to get into her knickers either so she won’t have to fend him off. He is a single woman’s dream, as long as the dream doesn’t unfold too quickly.
The Left has always operated in this fashion, however. This isn’t a recent phenomenon: the Left is inherently populist and appeals to emotions. If “we” adopt this tactic, who will be left to treat people as individuals?
I think more then ever what this country needs is ideology that focuses on the individual. I see no benefit in grouping people into categories, and pretending that group identity over-rides individual identity and individual self-interest.
We have to tread carefully here. The Left has already brainwashed large parts of the “youth” of today to think only in terms of emotions and group identity. Reinforcing this will not be to “our” benefit, and certainly not to America’s benefit. This is a battle of rhetoric, and using populist rhetoric to combat populism, just isn’t going to work.
Personally I think this is more important than winning elections in the “short run”. “Right” parties win elections in Europe too, but the only way they do that is by moving the definition of what is “right” to the left of what is “Left” here in the US. And they have to do this, because Europe is too far gone into populism and identity politics.
I think conservatives would be well-served finding some relatable women faces to front some campaigns. Women like to see people they connect with talking about issues that matter to them. They also “like” labels. They like the fact they are moms. They like the fact they are working moms or stay-at-home moms. Moms that can do 50 jobs. Older moms. Younger moms. Moms that still have sex. Moms that read sappy romance. Moms that read John Grishom. Moms that blog. And on and on…
More than anything, I think married women with kids want to feel normal and they like to relate. Mobilizing them to care about politics enough to stop bitching and go vote is going to take making politics real to them and putting it in terms of screwing over their house or their kids or whatever is currently worrying them about the future.
Not sure if I’m making much sense, but I did just get back from a mom gathering. I speak from observation :-)