Steven Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, about which I blogged recently, argues that the civilizing process of the modern era is one of the main reasons for the massive decrease in violence in the world.
Pinker does not treat the change in marriage norms specifically in his consideration of the civilizing process. I have long thought, though, that one of the great social benefits of monogamy is that it should reduce the violence by groups of unmarried men that is a predictable by-product of polygamy. This, I think, is why monogamy is nearly universal in developed nations, despite the wide variety of religious and cultural traditions that these different nations developed from.
A new study by Joseph Henrich and others at the University of British Columbia found "significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygymous cultures found in Asia and Africa." By contrast, monogamy leads to more paternal investment, long-term planning, economic productivity, savings, and child investments.
These social advantages explain why even those who benefit the most from polygamy - rich, high-status men - are willing to switch to a monogamous social norm. The civilizing process leads to monogamy because of its greater peace and social investment for society as a whole.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Low IQ Correlates with Racism Through Social Conservatism
A fascinating study by Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Canada, found that people with low intelligence in childhood were more likely to be racist adults. This was expected, given earlier research on education and racism.
The new finding tried to answer how, exactly, the two became connected. Hodson's conclusion:
The researchers speculate that conservative ideologies offer a more black-and-white worldview, which would be more appealing to people who finding it hard to take the position of the Other.
These findings correspond with Hetherington and Weiler's studies of authoritarianism and polarization which I blogged about before. Hodson's psychological study does not really look at the political mechanism by which low-IQ people find out about socially conservative ideologies. Political scientists Hetherington and Weiler, on the other hand, point to the fact that conservative organizations and parties have, over the past generation, actively sought out fearful people.
It seems a reasonable step to me to suppose that low-IQ people are more fearful than others. That would be an excellent subject for the next study.
The new finding tried to answer how, exactly, the two became connected. Hodson's conclusion:
The factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.
The researchers speculate that conservative ideologies offer a more black-and-white worldview, which would be more appealing to people who finding it hard to take the position of the Other.
These findings correspond with Hetherington and Weiler's studies of authoritarianism and polarization which I blogged about before. Hodson's psychological study does not really look at the political mechanism by which low-IQ people find out about socially conservative ideologies. Political scientists Hetherington and Weiler, on the other hand, point to the fact that conservative organizations and parties have, over the past generation, actively sought out fearful people.
It seems a reasonable step to me to suppose that low-IQ people are more fearful than others. That would be an excellent subject for the next study.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Sovereignty vs. Majesty
I am participating in the Christian Life and Witness conference at Georgetown College on the subject of "From the Academy to the Church." Nicholas Wolterstorff, a distinguished Reformed philosopher from Yale, was drawing a distinction between the Reformed approach to higher education and a conservative Baptist approach (Georgetown is a Baptist college). In the course of presenting an ideal type of the Reformed approach, he was asked about what is often considered the key Reformed doctrine, the sovereignty of God.
Wolterstorff surprised me by saying that Calvin does not seem to speak of the sovereignty of God. Instead, Calvin promotes the idea of the majesty of God.
Wolterstorff thought this difference presented Calvinism in a more hopeful light, because he reads the idea of God's sovereignty as the foundation of the most notorious Reformed doctrine, double predestination.
I, however, have always favored the idea of the sovereignty of God. I do not, though, connect it with predestination. Instead, I see it as a claim by the Reformed that all of Creation has one order, which we can investigate by reason.
We agreed that "sovereignty" and "majesty" are clearly similar ideas. It may be that they are simply different translations of the same word.
My question to you is this: Which term you find resonates better with your understanding? It seems to me that sovereignty is a concept better adapted to a democratic culture, whereas majesty is a more monarchical concept.
Still wrestling. Very fruitful conference, though.
Wolterstorff surprised me by saying that Calvin does not seem to speak of the sovereignty of God. Instead, Calvin promotes the idea of the majesty of God.
Wolterstorff thought this difference presented Calvinism in a more hopeful light, because he reads the idea of God's sovereignty as the foundation of the most notorious Reformed doctrine, double predestination.
I, however, have always favored the idea of the sovereignty of God. I do not, though, connect it with predestination. Instead, I see it as a claim by the Reformed that all of Creation has one order, which we can investigate by reason.
We agreed that "sovereignty" and "majesty" are clearly similar ideas. It may be that they are simply different translations of the same word.
My question to you is this: Which term you find resonates better with your understanding? It seems to me that sovereignty is a concept better adapted to a democratic culture, whereas majesty is a more monarchical concept.
Still wrestling. Very fruitful conference, though.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Children as a Happy-Making Gift.
I have been synthesizing two lines of happiness research.
People who give more are more likely to report that they are very happy.
People who have children are more likely to report that they are very happy, even though children typically diminish their marital happiness.
I think it is very fruitful to think of raising children as a gift, a gift to society.
Giving the gift of raising children should make it more likely that you will be very happy.
People who give more are more likely to report that they are very happy.
People who have children are more likely to report that they are very happy, even though children typically diminish their marital happiness.
I think it is very fruitful to think of raising children as a gift, a gift to society.
Giving the gift of raising children should make it more likely that you will be very happy.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Facebook is Not an Echo Chamber
Some people fear that social media creates an echo chamber in which we only hear opinions from like-minded friends which confirm our own.
Eytan Bakshy, a researcher at Facebook, conducted a fine, huge experiment. Facebook normally shows you links that your friends have posted. Using a modest sample of 253 million users, Bakshy suppressed some of that sharing, to create an experimental and a control group. He wanted to see how much people shared links, whether they shared links that were kept from them but that they found some other way, and whether they shared more from their strong-tie or weak-tie friends.
If Facebook were an echo chamber, we would mostly be sharing links from friends and from strong ties more than weak.
What Bakshy found is that we do share links from our close friends. And we do share links that we would have gotten from our close friends - Bakshy hid them, but we found them anyway. So far, so echo-y. But we also share links from our weak ties, ones we would not have seen otherwise. And the number of links we get and share from weak ties overwhelm the number we get from close ties. Weak ties bring us novel information.
My experience confirms this finding. I share opinions with close friends every day on Facebook. But I also get contrary information all the time. Some comes from a few close friends who do not agree with me. But most comes from weak ties - acquaintances who are "friends" but not really close friends. Even more often, people I do not know contribute comments to a friends' post disagreeing with that friend. Almost daily I find myself reading and checking a contrasting idea that someone I sort-of know put on Facebook.
This keeps me honest. Good for busting the echo chamber.
Eytan Bakshy, a researcher at Facebook, conducted a fine, huge experiment. Facebook normally shows you links that your friends have posted. Using a modest sample of 253 million users, Bakshy suppressed some of that sharing, to create an experimental and a control group. He wanted to see how much people shared links, whether they shared links that were kept from them but that they found some other way, and whether they shared more from their strong-tie or weak-tie friends.
If Facebook were an echo chamber, we would mostly be sharing links from friends and from strong ties more than weak.
What Bakshy found is that we do share links from our close friends. And we do share links that we would have gotten from our close friends - Bakshy hid them, but we found them anyway. So far, so echo-y. But we also share links from our weak ties, ones we would not have seen otherwise. And the number of links we get and share from weak ties overwhelm the number we get from close ties. Weak ties bring us novel information.
My experience confirms this finding. I share opinions with close friends every day on Facebook. But I also get contrary information all the time. Some comes from a few close friends who do not agree with me. But most comes from weak ties - acquaintances who are "friends" but not really close friends. Even more often, people I do not know contribute comments to a friends' post disagreeing with that friend. Almost daily I find myself reading and checking a contrasting idea that someone I sort-of know put on Facebook.
This keeps me honest. Good for busting the echo chamber.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Big-Time Sports Did Not Eat Division III College Life
"How Big-Time Sports Ate College Life," by Laura Pappano in the New York Times, is an excellent and sad story. Two interesting statistics that she reports:
The good news is that this is only a problem at Division I schools. Division III schools, like Centre College, do athletics right. And not all Division III schools are small, like Centre. The University of Chicago, for example, or Washington University, are full-scale research universities. But they keep sports in proportion.
Physical activity is a fine part of a well-rounded education. Athletics is a good addition to academic education. For those who don't want their academic priorities totally distorted by semi-professional sports teams operating near their academic institution, Division III does academic/athletic balance right.
Between 1985 and 2010, average salaries at public universities rose 32 percent for full professors, 90 percent for presidents and 650 percent for football coaches.
A study of University of Oregon students found that for every three games won by the football team, the grade-point average for men dropped 0.02, widening the G.P.A. gender gap by 9 percent.
The good news is that this is only a problem at Division I schools. Division III schools, like Centre College, do athletics right. And not all Division III schools are small, like Centre. The University of Chicago, for example, or Washington University, are full-scale research universities. But they keep sports in proportion.
Physical activity is a fine part of a well-rounded education. Athletics is a good addition to academic education. For those who don't want their academic priorities totally distorted by semi-professional sports teams operating near their academic institution, Division III does academic/athletic balance right.
Friday, January 20, 2012
World Population Pyramid Shows Some Big Declines Coming
This world population pyramid is fantastic.
Want to see something scary? Look at the population of Japan, Russia, and Italy now, vs. 2030.
I think world population is likely to stabilize. But some countries are looking at a demographic shrinkage so large that their societies will be fundamentally changed.
Want to see something scary? Look at the population of Japan, Russia, and Italy now, vs. 2030.
I think world population is likely to stabilize. But some countries are looking at a demographic shrinkage so large that their societies will be fundamentally changed.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Have the Republicans Run Out of Protestants?
With Rick Perry's withdrawal from the presidential nomination race, the Republican Party is down to Romney the Mormon, Santorum the traditional Catholic, Gingrich the newcomer Catholic, and Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians are mostly unreligious, and a strong segment, like Jesse Ventura, regard religion as a crutch for the weak.
But Ron Paul also attends a Baptist church, is pro-life, and has been on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
I think Paul has not fully worked out the relationship between his religious views and his political views. He is clearly against the federal government being involved in moral and religious matters, as a strict libertarian would be. But whether he would support or oppose the Christian Right position at the state level is not clear.
In any case, the Republican Party, which has made evangelical Protestants the foundation of its base for a generation, has now run out of any clear socially conservative evangelical candidates for president.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians are mostly unreligious, and a strong segment, like Jesse Ventura, regard religion as a crutch for the weak.
But Ron Paul also attends a Baptist church, is pro-life, and has been on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
I think Paul has not fully worked out the relationship between his religious views and his political views. He is clearly against the federal government being involved in moral and religious matters, as a strict libertarian would be. But whether he would support or oppose the Christian Right position at the state level is not clear.
In any case, the Republican Party, which has made evangelical Protestants the foundation of its base for a generation, has now run out of any clear socially conservative evangelical candidates for president.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
We Should Err on the Side of Internet Freedom
Today many internet sites, my daily tools and haunts, are protesting proposed legislation. The intent of the legislation - to prevent stealing intellectual property - is noble. The proposed method of control, though, seems so burdensome on internet content transmitters that it could really cripple this wonderful tool.
I am not expert enough on the details of the legislation to say more than that about this law or that. And I am confident that our legislative process will work out to a compromise that is not as bad as the proposed law. The political forces are divided and the economic forces are divided. This is the circumstance that makes for compromise.
The internet needs regulation. Every human institution needs rules and regulation. The question is whether our presumption is to err on the side of freedom or on the side of tight control. To take two extreme examples: we need very little regulation of how the rules of children's games work; we need strict regulation of how nuclear power plants operate.
The flow of content on the internet is, I submit, more like the rules of kids' games than it is like nuclear power. Light regulation is appropriate.
I am not expert enough on the details of the legislation to say more than that about this law or that. And I am confident that our legislative process will work out to a compromise that is not as bad as the proposed law. The political forces are divided and the economic forces are divided. This is the circumstance that makes for compromise.
The internet needs regulation. Every human institution needs rules and regulation. The question is whether our presumption is to err on the side of freedom or on the side of tight control. To take two extreme examples: we need very little regulation of how the rules of children's games work; we need strict regulation of how nuclear power plants operate.
The flow of content on the internet is, I submit, more like the rules of kids' games than it is like nuclear power. Light regulation is appropriate.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
School Your Passion Toward a Real Problem, and Thus Find Happiness
Oliver Segovia has a fine piece on the Harvard Business Review blog with the unfortunate headline "To Find Happiness, Forget Passion."
His main point is that if you want a meaningful life, find a big problem to work on. Since it is a big problem, you will probably find a way to make a living at trying to solve it. And working on something worthwhile is likely to make you happy.
Segovia frames this point with a story of a woman who "followed her passion" into something liberal artsy (subject not specified), who ended up unemployed and depressed. This story, no doubt, is what led the headline writer to say "forget passion."
I think Segovia's point, though, is that working on a big problem that you have an initial interest in tends to engage your passion. Thus, his real message is not "forget passion," but try to school your passion toward something the world can use.
That way does lead to happiness, fulfillment, and probably enough income to live on.
His main point is that if you want a meaningful life, find a big problem to work on. Since it is a big problem, you will probably find a way to make a living at trying to solve it. And working on something worthwhile is likely to make you happy.
Segovia frames this point with a story of a woman who "followed her passion" into something liberal artsy (subject not specified), who ended up unemployed and depressed. This story, no doubt, is what led the headline writer to say "forget passion."
I think Segovia's point, though, is that working on a big problem that you have an initial interest in tends to engage your passion. Thus, his real message is not "forget passion," but try to school your passion toward something the world can use.
That way does lead to happiness, fulfillment, and probably enough income to live on.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
The Vocation to Discern Vocations
In Sunday School we have been talking about the Presbyterian calling to teach. Everyone in the class is or has been a teacher of some sort. I think this is pretty typical for a Presbyterian Sunday School. I think I would not find the same thing in a random sample of adult Sunday School classes in most denominations.
Being called to teach has also meant that Presbyterians are disproportionately involved in creating schools. The stewardship of society means that these schools are meant to serve everyone, not just Presbyterians.
One point that came out in the class that I had not fully appreciated before comes from putting the call to teach with the call to create schools. Having a vocation to teach in institutions that serve everyone means that we also have a vocation to help everyone find his or her vocation - whether that includes teaching or not.
The vocation to help discern vocations vastly multiplies the social effect of the Presbyterian call to teach.
Being called to teach has also meant that Presbyterians are disproportionately involved in creating schools. The stewardship of society means that these schools are meant to serve everyone, not just Presbyterians.
One point that came out in the class that I had not fully appreciated before comes from putting the call to teach with the call to create schools. Having a vocation to teach in institutions that serve everyone means that we also have a vocation to help everyone find his or her vocation - whether that includes teaching or not.
The vocation to help discern vocations vastly multiplies the social effect of the Presbyterian call to teach.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Christian Right Leaders Give Obama a Gift
Leaders of the Christian Right, a once-important bloc within the Republican Party, have endorsed Rick Santorum.
I believe this action will have two consequences.
First, evangelical Christians will not follow these once-powerful leaders, but will split their votes among many candidates, including Mitt Romney.
Second, the split within the Republican Party between the establishment wing, which backs Romney, and the evangelical wing, which does not, will widen.
The Republican Party has been effective in blocking a few of President Obama's policies, but seems to be unable to unite around any effective positive idea for governing, nor do they support an effective candidate to bear such an idea. By further splitting the party, the Christian Right leaders have handed President Obama another gift.
I believe this action will have two consequences.
First, evangelical Christians will not follow these once-powerful leaders, but will split their votes among many candidates, including Mitt Romney.
Second, the split within the Republican Party between the establishment wing, which backs Romney, and the evangelical wing, which does not, will widen.
The Republican Party has been effective in blocking a few of President Obama's policies, but seems to be unable to unite around any effective positive idea for governing, nor do they support an effective candidate to bear such an idea. By further splitting the party, the Christian Right leaders have handed President Obama another gift.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Twins Up Nearly 100% in a Generation Due to Old Mothers
The birth rate for twins has nearly doubled in the past generation in the U.S.
One third of this growth in twinning is due to more older mothers, who tend to have twins at a higher rate naturally than younger mothers do.
Most of the increase in twins - and triplets, quadruplets, etc. on to Octomom - is due to more women waiting so long to have children that they need fertility drugs.
One third of this growth in twinning is due to more older mothers, who tend to have twins at a higher rate naturally than younger mothers do.
Most of the increase in twins - and triplets, quadruplets, etc. on to Octomom - is due to more women waiting so long to have children that they need fertility drugs.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
"The King of Bain" is a Very Bad Film
"When Mitt Romney Came to Town," also known as "The King of Bain," the long-form attack ad that Newt Gingrich's supporters are running, is a very bad documentary. It is the kind of sensationalist fear mongering that the right wing hates when Michael Moore does it.
The film, which was originally made by Romney employees, was sold to a pro-Gingrich political action committee.
The film shows Romney and his firm, Bain Capital, buying up several companies, firing most of the workforce, making huge profits by getting other people to loan the companies money, and then shutting them down completely. In one case they started a technology firm, got favorable ratings from Lehman Brothers, made a huge pile from the initial public offering, then sold off all their stock just before the company went bankrupt.
In each case - and the film says there are many more - Bain acts like the vultures that Rick Perry says they are.
What the film does not do is investigate whether the companies could have been run profitably at all. The film-makers did not even ask whether anyone could have saved these firms.
I do not know the answer to that question. So far, no commentators on the film have tried to answer it. It may be that Bain Capital, and Mitt Romney, are indeed "vulture capitalists" or "mafia capitalists," buying profitable companies, suckering investors into giving Bain lots of money in exchange for worthless debt, then destroying the firms. It may also be that Bain Capital bought failing companies, performed necessary creative destruction, and saved the fragment that would otherwise have failed.
I would really like to know which kind of businessman Mitt Romney is. But "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" is a very bad way to try to answer the question.
The film, which was originally made by Romney employees, was sold to a pro-Gingrich political action committee.
The film shows Romney and his firm, Bain Capital, buying up several companies, firing most of the workforce, making huge profits by getting other people to loan the companies money, and then shutting them down completely. In one case they started a technology firm, got favorable ratings from Lehman Brothers, made a huge pile from the initial public offering, then sold off all their stock just before the company went bankrupt.
In each case - and the film says there are many more - Bain acts like the vultures that Rick Perry says they are.
What the film does not do is investigate whether the companies could have been run profitably at all. The film-makers did not even ask whether anyone could have saved these firms.
I do not know the answer to that question. So far, no commentators on the film have tried to answer it. It may be that Bain Capital, and Mitt Romney, are indeed "vulture capitalists" or "mafia capitalists," buying profitable companies, suckering investors into giving Bain lots of money in exchange for worthless debt, then destroying the firms. It may also be that Bain Capital bought failing companies, performed necessary creative destruction, and saved the fragment that would otherwise have failed.
I would really like to know which kind of businessman Mitt Romney is. But "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" is a very bad way to try to answer the question.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
What You Get If You Ask the Web If It's Cool to Be a Virgin
The website "First World Problems" had this intriguing item:
I am in little danger of being fired or divorced for pursuing such a question, so I did.
The first answer that Google yields is, surprisingly, a Yahoo! Answers Q & A from 2006 (!). The lead answer given then was "it's up to you."
A query from last year is a little scarier: "Is it OK to be 16 and a virgin?" This, I am happy to report, brought several sensible and well-reasoned "yes" answers.
A similar query brought this response from TheSite.org, a British advice site for young adults:
My daughter wants to know if it's cool to be a virgin. I'm not sure, but I know that if I Google the answer, it'll result in firing or divorce.
I am in little danger of being fired or divorced for pursuing such a question, so I did.
The first answer that Google yields is, surprisingly, a Yahoo! Answers Q & A from 2006 (!). The lead answer given then was "it's up to you."
A query from last year is a little scarier: "Is it OK to be 16 and a virgin?" This, I am happy to report, brought several sensible and well-reasoned "yes" answers.
A similar query brought this response from TheSite.org, a British advice site for young adults:
I'm 78, still a virgin and so cool, I piss ice cubes.
You're doing the right thing.
You're doing the right thing.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Pay It Forward Coffee House
I like good news, coffee houses, and Good magazine. This story has all three.
At the Corner Perk, a coffee house in Bluffton, SC, one anonymous customer started leaving money to pay for other people's drinks and food. This custom caught on, and now many people do it.
As psychologist Jonathan Haidt has so interestingly demonstrated, seeing other people do good things fills most people with a desire to do good things, too.
At the Corner Perk, a coffee house in Bluffton, SC, one anonymous customer started leaving money to pay for other people's drinks and food. This custom caught on, and now many people do it.
As psychologist Jonathan Haidt has so interestingly demonstrated, seeing other people do good things fills most people with a desire to do good things, too.
Monday, January 09, 2012
Utopian "Third Party" Movements are the Bane of Centrism
I am grateful to Solomon Kleinsmith to participate in his blog collective, The Rise of the Center.
Recently I got to voice a pet peeve about something that has bedeviled every centrist forum I have been part of: the desire to create a third party between the Democratic and Republican Parties.
I think that in this country third parties are always utopian, sectarian, and do more harm than good. In particular, they hurt the party that they are more in sympathy with by splitting the vote in an election. Not all third parties are centrist, by any means. But the effect is the same: third parties are a gift your enemies.
Moreover, like all utopian endeavors, they take up too many evenings with too little to show for it.
The Republicans and the Democrats have nearly all the governmental action. If you want to actually affect government policy, as I do, then you have to work within the big tent of one or the other major party.
There are many other ways to build up the world besides government policy, of course. Those other sectors allow for many fruitful centrist paths. But American politics does not.
Most of the other participants in the Rise of the Center discussion, including Kleinsmith, disagree with me on this.
I would be interested in the thoughts of Gruntled Center readers on this topic.
Recently I got to voice a pet peeve about something that has bedeviled every centrist forum I have been part of: the desire to create a third party between the Democratic and Republican Parties.
I think that in this country third parties are always utopian, sectarian, and do more harm than good. In particular, they hurt the party that they are more in sympathy with by splitting the vote in an election. Not all third parties are centrist, by any means. But the effect is the same: third parties are a gift your enemies.
Moreover, like all utopian endeavors, they take up too many evenings with too little to show for it.
The Republicans and the Democrats have nearly all the governmental action. If you want to actually affect government policy, as I do, then you have to work within the big tent of one or the other major party.
There are many other ways to build up the world besides government policy, of course. Those other sectors allow for many fruitful centrist paths. But American politics does not.
Most of the other participants in the Rise of the Center discussion, including Kleinsmith, disagree with me on this.
I would be interested in the thoughts of Gruntled Center readers on this topic.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Why President Obama Will Be Re-Elected
This first week of the year is devoted to posts on the big political picture.
The main reasons that I think President Obama will be re-elected is that:
a) he is the incumbent, so the sizable majority that voted for him last time will want to vote for him again;
b) the economy is improving; and
c) the Republicans will be unable to unite around an exciting and unifying candidate.
President Obama has been a very good president.
Conditions in the country and in the world are improving.
Obama is playing the long game of politics very well. When he was first elected, he knew he had about 18 months to pass the main pieces of his positive agenda. He did, most importantly by passing universal health care. He has also been relentlessly bi-partisan, working with any Republicans who were willing to help, compromising the way any competent politician must, and keeping his eye on the ball. He has had even greater successes in foreign policy. And he has waited until the turn into his re-election year to push back harder against the Republican leadership's intransigence.
The Republicans have played into Obama's hands. They have positioned themselves as against health care for millions, against saving the auto industry, against regulating the investment "banks" that nearly destroyed the world economy, against regulating the payday lenders that batten on the poor and working class, against supporting democratic movements in the Arab world, against reducing payroll taxes for people who live on their earnings, against raising taxes on the hugely rich. Most importantly, they have positioned themselves against compromising and working together in the way that government absolutely requires.
To take a signal example, I think universal health care will be a pillar of what most Americans appreciate about government, as they do Medicare and Social Security. Republicans also opposed Medicare and Social Security, but at least some of them voted for it. Not universal health care, though - the Republican leadership made sure their party was unanimously against it. And they call it "Obamacare." This short-sighted intransigence will come back to bite them for years to come.
The Republican Party is also suffering a three-way civil war among its establishment, social conservative, and libertarian wings. The Tea Party, in particular, is almost as much anti-Republican as it is anti-Democratic. I believe the Tea Party has shot its bolt and will be irrelevant after this election. But in the mean time, they will exacerbate the intransigence that is undermining the Republican Party as an actual instrument of government.
The main reasons that I think President Obama will be re-elected is that:
a) he is the incumbent, so the sizable majority that voted for him last time will want to vote for him again;
b) the economy is improving; and
c) the Republicans will be unable to unite around an exciting and unifying candidate.
President Obama has been a very good president.
Conditions in the country and in the world are improving.
Obama is playing the long game of politics very well. When he was first elected, he knew he had about 18 months to pass the main pieces of his positive agenda. He did, most importantly by passing universal health care. He has also been relentlessly bi-partisan, working with any Republicans who were willing to help, compromising the way any competent politician must, and keeping his eye on the ball. He has had even greater successes in foreign policy. And he has waited until the turn into his re-election year to push back harder against the Republican leadership's intransigence.
The Republicans have played into Obama's hands. They have positioned themselves as against health care for millions, against saving the auto industry, against regulating the investment "banks" that nearly destroyed the world economy, against regulating the payday lenders that batten on the poor and working class, against supporting democratic movements in the Arab world, against reducing payroll taxes for people who live on their earnings, against raising taxes on the hugely rich. Most importantly, they have positioned themselves against compromising and working together in the way that government absolutely requires.
To take a signal example, I think universal health care will be a pillar of what most Americans appreciate about government, as they do Medicare and Social Security. Republicans also opposed Medicare and Social Security, but at least some of them voted for it. Not universal health care, though - the Republican leadership made sure their party was unanimously against it. And they call it "Obamacare." This short-sighted intransigence will come back to bite them for years to come.
The Republican Party is also suffering a three-way civil war among its establishment, social conservative, and libertarian wings. The Tea Party, in particular, is almost as much anti-Republican as it is anti-Democratic. I believe the Tea Party has shot its bolt and will be irrelevant after this election. But in the mean time, they will exacerbate the intransigence that is undermining the Republican Party as an actual instrument of government.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Obama Is Mostly Doing an Excellent Job
This first week of the year is devoted to posts on the big political picture.
Yesterday I wrote about my main criticism of President Obama. Today I want to say that, on the whole, I think he has done a masterful job under very difficult circumstances.
President Obama first had to clean up the gigantic mess left by the previous administration. He prevented a major depression, ended a misbegotten war, is winding down a more justified war, killed bin Laden, ended torture, restored America's stature in the world, saved the auto industry, resumed regulating the finance industry, and started protecting the environment again.
Obama also came in to office with a positive agenda. His main achievement was to create universal health care, an objective of Democratic administrations since Truman. He started investing more in alternative energy, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, working with our allies, and shifting our military focus toward Asia.
He also made the most of some unexpected opportunities, most importantly the Arab Spring. President Obama supported indigenous revolutions against Arab dictators, without sending American troops, spending a trillion dollars, alienating our allies, or creating loathing for America among the "liberated" people. The contrast with the Iraq war is striking in this regard. And the chances of successful democracy are greater than in Iraq, though still iffy in both cases.
One great achievement of the Obama administration is something it did not do: it did not make our enemies do worse things by threatening them. The President did not invent an "axis of evil," pushing them to invest in nuclear weapons against an American threat.
And President Obama achieved all of this in the face of a determined foe whose sole objective was to deny the president any achievements: the leadership of the Republican Party. As Senator McConnell said at the outset of the current administration, the main goal of Republicans is to deny President Obama a second term.
Obama has been a very good president. I hope in the coming year he will prove to be an excellent one.
Yesterday I wrote about my main criticism of President Obama. Today I want to say that, on the whole, I think he has done a masterful job under very difficult circumstances.
President Obama first had to clean up the gigantic mess left by the previous administration. He prevented a major depression, ended a misbegotten war, is winding down a more justified war, killed bin Laden, ended torture, restored America's stature in the world, saved the auto industry, resumed regulating the finance industry, and started protecting the environment again.
Obama also came in to office with a positive agenda. His main achievement was to create universal health care, an objective of Democratic administrations since Truman. He started investing more in alternative energy, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, working with our allies, and shifting our military focus toward Asia.
He also made the most of some unexpected opportunities, most importantly the Arab Spring. President Obama supported indigenous revolutions against Arab dictators, without sending American troops, spending a trillion dollars, alienating our allies, or creating loathing for America among the "liberated" people. The contrast with the Iraq war is striking in this regard. And the chances of successful democracy are greater than in Iraq, though still iffy in both cases.
One great achievement of the Obama administration is something it did not do: it did not make our enemies do worse things by threatening them. The President did not invent an "axis of evil," pushing them to invest in nuclear weapons against an American threat.
And President Obama achieved all of this in the face of a determined foe whose sole objective was to deny the president any achievements: the leadership of the Republican Party. As Senator McConnell said at the outset of the current administration, the main goal of Republicans is to deny President Obama a second term.
Obama has been a very good president. I hope in the coming year he will prove to be an excellent one.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Obama Is Doing Something Wrong in Fighting Terrorists
This first week of the year is devoted to posts on the big political picture.
On his first day in office, President Obama promised to close the Guantanamo prison within a year. He did not.
Last year he ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, Anwar Awlaki, by a drone attack in Yemen.
Last week he signed the defense bill which allows the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists.
Each of these acts is wrong in itself and dangerous as a precedent.
I normally support President Obama, so I have tried hard to understand why he did these things, and what principle or theory might lie behind them. I have not come up with a good account. National security, especially when dealing with terrorists, necessarily includes facts that can't be revealed to the public. Perhaps there are good reasons for these acts that are now hidden.
Here are my best guesses.
Some of the Guantanamo prisoners were so badly tortured under the previous administration that they cannot effectively be put on trial or released. Since their testimony was acquired by torture, it is worthless. The Obama administration ended the torture, but cannot undue what was done before.
A very small number of American citizens, such as Awlaki, have indeed become enemy combatants. Awlaki himself openly proclaimed this. Since he was in hiding in enemy territory, it was not practical to capture and try him as a citizen has a right to receive. The drone attack was the only practical way to fight that enemy, as we have with many other non-citizen enemy individuals.
When signing the National Defense Authorization Act, the president issued a statement that he objected to the provisions of the act that allowed for indefinite military detention and would not allow them on his watch. His opponents put this poison pill in the law precisely to embarrass the president. Since he had to sign the law in order to pay the troops, he accepted this compromise, while still rejecting this provision of the law.
I think these guesses on my part are the best case for understanding how President Obama could be party to these bad acts. Still, they only mitigate the evil; they do not justify it, nor end it.
I understand that we are fighting terrorists - enemy individuals and loose organizations that really do threaten us. The normal tools that states can use in fighting the armies of other states are not available. We have had to develop new tools to fight these enemies effectively.
I believe the Obama administration has made some effort to make the war against terrorists more legal than it was, and to make it still more legal and ethical as we go forward.
But I believe that President Obama has not done enough to fight these enemy individuals and organizations in a way that is in accord with American constitutional principles. This is my biggest disappointment with the Obama administration.
On his first day in office, President Obama promised to close the Guantanamo prison within a year. He did not.
Last year he ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, Anwar Awlaki, by a drone attack in Yemen.
Last week he signed the defense bill which allows the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists.
Each of these acts is wrong in itself and dangerous as a precedent.
I normally support President Obama, so I have tried hard to understand why he did these things, and what principle or theory might lie behind them. I have not come up with a good account. National security, especially when dealing with terrorists, necessarily includes facts that can't be revealed to the public. Perhaps there are good reasons for these acts that are now hidden.
Here are my best guesses.
Some of the Guantanamo prisoners were so badly tortured under the previous administration that they cannot effectively be put on trial or released. Since their testimony was acquired by torture, it is worthless. The Obama administration ended the torture, but cannot undue what was done before.
A very small number of American citizens, such as Awlaki, have indeed become enemy combatants. Awlaki himself openly proclaimed this. Since he was in hiding in enemy territory, it was not practical to capture and try him as a citizen has a right to receive. The drone attack was the only practical way to fight that enemy, as we have with many other non-citizen enemy individuals.
When signing the National Defense Authorization Act, the president issued a statement that he objected to the provisions of the act that allowed for indefinite military detention and would not allow them on his watch. His opponents put this poison pill in the law precisely to embarrass the president. Since he had to sign the law in order to pay the troops, he accepted this compromise, while still rejecting this provision of the law.
I think these guesses on my part are the best case for understanding how President Obama could be party to these bad acts. Still, they only mitigate the evil; they do not justify it, nor end it.
I understand that we are fighting terrorists - enemy individuals and loose organizations that really do threaten us. The normal tools that states can use in fighting the armies of other states are not available. We have had to develop new tools to fight these enemies effectively.
I believe the Obama administration has made some effort to make the war against terrorists more legal than it was, and to make it still more legal and ethical as we go forward.
But I believe that President Obama has not done enough to fight these enemy individuals and organizations in a way that is in accord with American constitutional principles. This is my biggest disappointment with the Obama administration.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
The Three-Way Fight Among Republicans
I am starting the year with a week of Big Picture posts.
Republicans normally nominate the person whose turn it is to run for president. They typically pick a candidate who did respectably in their previous primary. By that logic, it is Mitt Romney's turn.
Some newcomers also run in order to get in line for a future race, or at least to position themselves for a post in the next Republican administration. I believe Jon Huntsman, my favorite of the Republican candidates this year, ran for this reason.
When I look at the rest of this year's Republican field, I see two things.
First, I think all the other establishment politicians in the party believe that Barack Obama will be re-elected. Therefore, they decided to sit this one out.
Second, the Tea Party is a wild card. This movement is as much against the Republican establishment as it is against the Democrats. None of those who are running are exactly Tea Partiers. Tea Partiers are mostly very conservative white Christians, drawn heavily from the petite bourgeoisie, who are the bedrock of any Republican coalition. I think Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann come closest. They are drawn to libertarianism, so they think well of Ron Paul. But mostly they are not really against government, as true libertarians are. Rather, Tea Partiers are against government spending money on people they regard as undeserving. All the Not-Romney candidates have been trying to mobilize the Tea Party, but none have a lock.
Herman Cain got into the race, I believe, to raise his speaking fees. That is his main source of income. Ironically, if he had not become the front-runner, this strategy might have worked. Too much exposure, though, destroyed his credibility (if not his marriage).
Newt Gingrich, I think, never expected to be the nominee. He does, though, wish he still mattered politically, so he ran to raise his profile. He may even get his wish. I think, though, he has also raised his negatives, reminding a new generation of Republicans why the previous generation of Republican leaders pushed him out of leadership.
Rick Santorum is, I believe, actually the strongest social conservative in the race - which is saying quite a bit. He is a very traditional Catholic - not an evangelical Protestant. One consequence of this fact, not usually appreciated by secular political commentators, is that traditional Catholics are not beholden to free-market capitalism, large corporations, or big banks. This is also why Santorum is not the candidate of the Republican establishment.
As I write this, the Iowa caucuses are unfolding. Romney, Santorum, and Paul are leading. I think the Republican race will continue with these three, or people representing the three Republican camps.
The Tea Party and the social conservatives will try to fend off the gravitational pull of the establishment candidate.
I expect that Romney, the establishment candidate, the my-turn candidate, will be the eventual nominee.
Republicans normally nominate the person whose turn it is to run for president. They typically pick a candidate who did respectably in their previous primary. By that logic, it is Mitt Romney's turn.
Some newcomers also run in order to get in line for a future race, or at least to position themselves for a post in the next Republican administration. I believe Jon Huntsman, my favorite of the Republican candidates this year, ran for this reason.
When I look at the rest of this year's Republican field, I see two things.
First, I think all the other establishment politicians in the party believe that Barack Obama will be re-elected. Therefore, they decided to sit this one out.
Second, the Tea Party is a wild card. This movement is as much against the Republican establishment as it is against the Democrats. None of those who are running are exactly Tea Partiers. Tea Partiers are mostly very conservative white Christians, drawn heavily from the petite bourgeoisie, who are the bedrock of any Republican coalition. I think Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann come closest. They are drawn to libertarianism, so they think well of Ron Paul. But mostly they are not really against government, as true libertarians are. Rather, Tea Partiers are against government spending money on people they regard as undeserving. All the Not-Romney candidates have been trying to mobilize the Tea Party, but none have a lock.
Herman Cain got into the race, I believe, to raise his speaking fees. That is his main source of income. Ironically, if he had not become the front-runner, this strategy might have worked. Too much exposure, though, destroyed his credibility (if not his marriage).
Newt Gingrich, I think, never expected to be the nominee. He does, though, wish he still mattered politically, so he ran to raise his profile. He may even get his wish. I think, though, he has also raised his negatives, reminding a new generation of Republicans why the previous generation of Republican leaders pushed him out of leadership.
Rick Santorum is, I believe, actually the strongest social conservative in the race - which is saying quite a bit. He is a very traditional Catholic - not an evangelical Protestant. One consequence of this fact, not usually appreciated by secular political commentators, is that traditional Catholics are not beholden to free-market capitalism, large corporations, or big banks. This is also why Santorum is not the candidate of the Republican establishment.
As I write this, the Iowa caucuses are unfolding. Romney, Santorum, and Paul are leading. I think the Republican race will continue with these three, or people representing the three Republican camps.
The Tea Party and the social conservatives will try to fend off the gravitational pull of the establishment candidate.
I expect that Romney, the establishment candidate, the my-turn candidate, will be the eventual nominee.
Monday, January 02, 2012
The World Is Better Off Than It Was a Year Ago
I like to start each year with a week of reflections on the big picture.
The worst dictator in the world died.
The worst terrorist in the world was killed.
Three Arab dictatorships were overthrown, which is good; by their own people; which is better; with Western help, but not Western domination, which is best of all.
Three other Arab dictatorships may be overthrown the same way. As well as the military dictatorship of Burma.
The world economy is slowly improving. Europe has been able to avert economic collapse, and is slowly dealing with their currency and debt crisis.
China is cooperating more with the West in trade and in stabilizing Western debt. China has also been helpful in containing North Korea.
Conditions are improving for women's education, careers, public lives, and general freedom throughout nearly all nations of the world.
Conditions are improving for sexual minorities in most nations of the world.
Religious freedom is improving in most nations of the world.
World population seems to be stabilizing.
Let us not take for granted stable democracies in almost every corner of the Western hemisphere, the Northern hemisphere, and most of the Pacific island nations.
The generation-long trend of declining violence continues in nearly all nations.
All the great powers are working together to reduce the threat of war, both among great powers, and among little states.
To be sure, there are a few very bad actors in the world, some of them controlling states. And there are always uncertainties to worry about. The world economy is recovering, but not recovered. The global warming trend may be getting worse. And bad things happen to individuals every day.
Still, the world as a whole is better off than it was a year ago.
There is a great deal to be thankful for, and hopeful about, in the world today.
The worst dictator in the world died.
The worst terrorist in the world was killed.
Three Arab dictatorships were overthrown, which is good; by their own people; which is better; with Western help, but not Western domination, which is best of all.
Three other Arab dictatorships may be overthrown the same way. As well as the military dictatorship of Burma.
The world economy is slowly improving. Europe has been able to avert economic collapse, and is slowly dealing with their currency and debt crisis.
China is cooperating more with the West in trade and in stabilizing Western debt. China has also been helpful in containing North Korea.
Conditions are improving for women's education, careers, public lives, and general freedom throughout nearly all nations of the world.
Conditions are improving for sexual minorities in most nations of the world.
Religious freedom is improving in most nations of the world.
World population seems to be stabilizing.
Let us not take for granted stable democracies in almost every corner of the Western hemisphere, the Northern hemisphere, and most of the Pacific island nations.
The generation-long trend of declining violence continues in nearly all nations.
All the great powers are working together to reduce the threat of war, both among great powers, and among little states.
To be sure, there are a few very bad actors in the world, some of them controlling states. And there are always uncertainties to worry about. The world economy is recovering, but not recovered. The global warming trend may be getting worse. And bad things happen to individuals every day.
Still, the world as a whole is better off than it was a year ago.
There is a great deal to be thankful for, and hopeful about, in the world today.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Merry Christmas to One and All
The Gruntled Center will take a vacation until the New Year.
I am looking forward to an excellent 2012, and I hope you have the same.
I am looking forward to an excellent 2012, and I hope you have the same.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
A Dylan Thomas Trip to Shakertown
We had a delightful bit of providential timing last night.
Near Danville is Pleasant Hill, a restored Shaker community now known as Shakertown. It is, in my opinion, the most beautiful human-made place in Kentucky. I took the family there for Christmas Eve-eve dinner.
My mother-in-law brought a recording of Dylan Thomas reading "A Child's Christmas in Wales," a favorite family poem that I used to read to the kids when they were small. We started listening as we pulled out of the driveway. "I can never remember whether it snowed for six days and six nights when I was twelve or whether it snowed for twelve days and twelve nights when I was six," and all that follows, carried us through the misty December twilight in the lovely Kentucky countryside.
As we came in sight of the entrance to Shakertown, Dylan Thomas was winding down Christmas day.
So now we know: the distance from Danville to Shakertown can be measured in the scientific unit of one Child's Christmas in Wales.
Near Danville is Pleasant Hill, a restored Shaker community now known as Shakertown. It is, in my opinion, the most beautiful human-made place in Kentucky. I took the family there for Christmas Eve-eve dinner.
My mother-in-law brought a recording of Dylan Thomas reading "A Child's Christmas in Wales," a favorite family poem that I used to read to the kids when they were small. We started listening as we pulled out of the driveway. "I can never remember whether it snowed for six days and six nights when I was twelve or whether it snowed for twelve days and twelve nights when I was six," and all that follows, carried us through the misty December twilight in the lovely Kentucky countryside.
As we came in sight of the entrance to Shakertown, Dylan Thomas was winding down Christmas day.
Looking through my bedroom window, out into the moonlight and the unending smoke-colored snow, I could see the lights in the windows of all the other houses on our hill and hear the music rising from them up the long, steady falling night. I turned the gas down, I got into bed. I said some words to the close and holy darkness, and then I slept.And he spoke the last word as we pulled up to the stop sign opposite the Pleasant Hill gate.
So now we know: the distance from Danville to Shakertown can be measured in the scientific unit of one Child's Christmas in Wales.
Friday, December 23, 2011
China's Surprising Christian Distribution
The Pew Research Center has taken on the difficult task of estimating the numbers of Christians all over the world. Yesterday I reported that the country with the third largest number of Protestants is China - many in underground churches.
I was surprised, though, to see the ratio of Protestant to Catholic Christians in China.
Using the same methods to estimate both groups, Pew came up with these totals for Chinese Christians:
Protestants: 58 million
Catholics: 9 million
I hope that some day, when China is democratic, these churches will be able to operate openly. I expect that, when that day comes, there will be an evangelical boom in China - as is already happening covertly.
And, incidentally, sociologists will be able to get more definite numbers.
I was surprised, though, to see the ratio of Protestant to Catholic Christians in China.
Using the same methods to estimate both groups, Pew came up with these totals for Chinese Christians:
Protestants: 58 million
Catholics: 9 million
I hope that some day, when China is democratic, these churches will be able to operate openly. I expect that, when that day comes, there will be an evangelical boom in China - as is already happening covertly.
And, incidentally, sociologists will be able to get more definite numbers.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Which Countries Have the Most Protestants?
Which country has the most Protestants? The United States - that one was not so hard.
But which countries have the second and third largest Protestant populations? Not the largest percentage, but the largest number - a question that obviously favors the countries with the largest populations?
The answer? China and Nigeria.
A new world Christianity is being built.
But which countries have the second and third largest Protestant populations? Not the largest percentage, but the largest number - a question that obviously favors the countries with the largest populations?
The answer? China and Nigeria.
A new world Christianity is being built.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
"Keeping Her Maiden Name" on the Decline
A young friend, recently engaged, passed on this story of the decline in married women keeping their maiden names.
The interesting statistics on American brides keeping their maiden names:
1980s: 9%
1990s: 23%
2000s: 18%
They also report a large, but probably not scientific, survey by TheKnot.com, which found that only 8% did in 2010.
The article suggests, by anecdote, that more women are using their maiden names as middle names for professional purposes, as Mrs. G. does.
I do remember noticing that among people we know, the trend seemed to peak with the late Baby Boomers of the college class of '77, but had was less common in our early Gen X cohort marrying in the early 1980s, even at a very politically correct college.
The interesting statistics on American brides keeping their maiden names:
1980s: 9%
1990s: 23%
2000s: 18%
They also report a large, but probably not scientific, survey by TheKnot.com, which found that only 8% did in 2010.
The article suggests, by anecdote, that more women are using their maiden names as middle names for professional purposes, as Mrs. G. does.
I do remember noticing that among people we know, the trend seemed to peak with the late Baby Boomers of the college class of '77, but had was less common in our early Gen X cohort marrying in the early 1980s, even at a very politically correct college.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Marry Before Kids: An Answer to Tracy McMillan
Tracy McMillan has written very popular piece at The Huffington Post that is funny, insightful, and deliberately over the top, explaining to aging single women, like herself, "Why You Are Not Married." McMillan's politically incorrect advice has drawn some criticism, including Lisa Wade's piece at Sociological Images that I addressed yesterday.
I did want to take issue with one point that McMillan, a thrice-divorced single mother, makes:
McMillan's advice is not completely wrong, but it is very risky.
On the one hand, it is true many women who have children out of wedlock do eventually marry someone, including most teen welfare moms (see Edin and Kefalas' Promises I Can Keep).
On the other hand, it is much harder to court with children. It is less likely that step-fathers will be as good for kids as would natural fathers married to natural mothers. Most of all, McMillan's strategy discounts the bad effects on the children of their single-parent years. Things may work out OK eventually, but there are usually costs from the tough years. And if things do not work out eventually, all the years are likely to be tough.
I think Tracy McMillan does offer a helpful reality check to single women who do want to marry, though she offers it in an almost brutal way. But I think she errs in her advice about the relationship between marriage and children.
I did want to take issue with one point that McMillan, a thrice-divorced single mother, makes:
if what you really want is a baby, go get you one. Your husband will be along shortly. Motherhood has a way of weeding out the lotharios.
McMillan's advice is not completely wrong, but it is very risky.
On the one hand, it is true many women who have children out of wedlock do eventually marry someone, including most teen welfare moms (see Edin and Kefalas' Promises I Can Keep).
On the other hand, it is much harder to court with children. It is less likely that step-fathers will be as good for kids as would natural fathers married to natural mothers. Most of all, McMillan's strategy discounts the bad effects on the children of their single-parent years. Things may work out OK eventually, but there are usually costs from the tough years. And if things do not work out eventually, all the years are likely to be tough.
I think Tracy McMillan does offer a helpful reality check to single women who do want to marry, though she offers it in an almost brutal way. But I think she errs in her advice about the relationship between marriage and children.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Marriage is so Normal: an Answer to Lisa Wade
The other day I posted about the scary report that only a bare majority of American adults are married. I argued that the alarm over this report is overblown. Marriage is not becoming a minority taste.
Another sociologist has argued that marriage could become a minority taste, but so what? Lisa Wade, at the always-interesting Sociological Images, defended her own unmarried pairing with a general critique of marriage. She distinguishes, rightly, between the idea that marriage is normative - that is, thought to be good and desirable - and the factual question of whether or not marriage is normal - that is, what most people actually do.
Marriage is normative. Most Americans favor marriage, and do marry. They think it is good for society, even if they are not married themselves. They think marriage is good for children, even if they are not married or parents themselves. Wade dances around this fact, but she does not (and cannot) actually deny it.
She does, though, make this claim: "In actual reality, though, the state of being married is not any more normal than the state of being unmarried."
This is not true, for reasons I outlined in my earlier post. The proportion of people who marry for life is closer to two-thirds than to one-half. We are dealing with estimates of what people will do in the future, so it is hard to be more precise than that.
My more important critique of Wade's position, though, is that the conception of marriage she defends is entirely about her relationship.
The greatest value of marriage to society as a whole, and to the members of most families, is that marriage is the best environment for raising children. Once you have kids, your life is not all about you any more. Since the great majority of adults do have children, we all have an interest - first-hand or second-hand - in the social arrangements that are best for children.
Marriage is both normal and normative primarily because it is best for children, and secondarily because, on the whole, most people are happier married than as cohabitors or as single parents.
Another sociologist has argued that marriage could become a minority taste, but so what? Lisa Wade, at the always-interesting Sociological Images, defended her own unmarried pairing with a general critique of marriage. She distinguishes, rightly, between the idea that marriage is normative - that is, thought to be good and desirable - and the factual question of whether or not marriage is normal - that is, what most people actually do.
Marriage is normative. Most Americans favor marriage, and do marry. They think it is good for society, even if they are not married themselves. They think marriage is good for children, even if they are not married or parents themselves. Wade dances around this fact, but she does not (and cannot) actually deny it.
She does, though, make this claim: "In actual reality, though, the state of being married is not any more normal than the state of being unmarried."
This is not true, for reasons I outlined in my earlier post. The proportion of people who marry for life is closer to two-thirds than to one-half. We are dealing with estimates of what people will do in the future, so it is hard to be more precise than that.
My more important critique of Wade's position, though, is that the conception of marriage she defends is entirely about her relationship.
The greatest value of marriage to society as a whole, and to the members of most families, is that marriage is the best environment for raising children. Once you have kids, your life is not all about you any more. Since the great majority of adults do have children, we all have an interest - first-hand or second-hand - in the social arrangements that are best for children.
Marriage is both normal and normative primarily because it is best for children, and secondarily because, on the whole, most people are happier married than as cohabitors or as single parents.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The World's Worst Tyrant Dies
Kim Jong-Il, the brutal dictator of North Korea, has died. It would take someone at a higher paygrade than mine to explain why this is a bad thing.
I hope the North Koreans can escape the whole apparatus of their police state. In fact, I think it is realistic to think that if they can upgrade to even a merely bad government, the long hoped-for reunification of the Koreas might become real.
I hope the North Koreans can escape the whole apparatus of their police state. In fact, I think it is realistic to think that if they can upgrade to even a merely bad government, the long hoped-for reunification of the Koreas might become real.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Honesty is Common. Kudos to Coke for Demonstrating and Rewarding This
Coke planted a wallet with the equivalent of $200 and a much-coveted ticket to a big soccer match on the walkway in the middle of a mall in Portugal. They filmed what happened.
95% of the people who picked up the wallet turned it in to the nearby soccer store.
The crowd of shoppers cheered. The honest citizen was given a Coke (of course). And a ticket to the soccer match, where they were seated with the other wallet-returners. During the match, Coke ran the hidden-camera film of all the wallets being returned on the big screen, then panned to the section of the stadium where these honest citizens were seated. Huge cheers from the crowd.
Most people are honest. Most people like to help others. Most people do ordinary things to build up society.
95% of the people who picked up the wallet turned it in to the nearby soccer store.
The crowd of shoppers cheered. The honest citizen was given a Coke (of course). And a ticket to the soccer match, where they were seated with the other wallet-returners. During the match, Coke ran the hidden-camera film of all the wallets being returned on the big screen, then panned to the section of the stadium where these honest citizens were seated. Huge cheers from the crowd.
Most people are honest. Most people like to help others. Most people do ordinary things to build up society.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wanted: Domestic Men for High-Achieving Women
High-achieving women have a hard time finding even higher-achieving men to marry. There are more high-achieving women than ever - my students and my daughters among them.
I think it is a deep and natural desire in most women to marry up if they can. This is prudent in class and status terms. More importantly, it makes sense as young women prepare, consciously or not, for the great risk of having children, to find the most securely attached and resource-laden spouse they can.
However, human beings are reasoning creatures, who can understand trade-offs, changed social conditions, and priorities. High-achieving women are probably the best people of all to understand and weigh such factors. And every woman and man is not looking to marry an entire sex or the average of an entire sex, but one particular person with a very specific set of qualities.
SO the good news for high-achieving women is that there are more men who want to be part of a family that shares the achievements, the status, and, of course, the work. Just as women have always done when the shoe is on other foot.
So one could lament the hard time high-achieving women have of making a traditional pairing. I prefer, though, this response:
I think it is a deep and natural desire in most women to marry up if they can. This is prudent in class and status terms. More importantly, it makes sense as young women prepare, consciously or not, for the great risk of having children, to find the most securely attached and resource-laden spouse they can.
However, human beings are reasoning creatures, who can understand trade-offs, changed social conditions, and priorities. High-achieving women are probably the best people of all to understand and weigh such factors. And every woman and man is not looking to marry an entire sex or the average of an entire sex, but one particular person with a very specific set of qualities.
SO the good news for high-achieving women is that there are more men who want to be part of a family that shares the achievements, the status, and, of course, the work. Just as women have always done when the shoe is on other foot.
So one could lament the hard time high-achieving women have of making a traditional pairing. I prefer, though, this response:
A feminist leader, Siobhan (Sam) Bennett, president of the nonpartisan Women’s Campaign Fund, does not see conflicts for high-earning women in dating, marriage and domestic life. On the contrary, she told me, “I see great opportunity that these high-value women will ask and gain the flexibility they need to have marriages and families — their lives will probably look different than what we’ve seen — but they will work for them.”
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Marriage is Not About the Become a Minority Lifestyle
A scary Pew Research Center report, based on the latest census, calculates that only 51% of American adults are married. Some have leaped to the conclusion that marriage is declining, and about to tip into a minority taste.
This alarmist talk is overblown.
First, most adults are married, as they always have been in this country.
Second, a significant fraction were married until death did them part. As we live longer, the fraction of the population composed of widows and widowers is growing. They are not evidence that marriage is passé - quite the opposite. They made the ultimate commitment to marriage, and we should never forget it.
Third, as the Pew report notes, the average age of first marriage is the highest it has been in this country - 26 for women, 29 for men. We can be confident from past trends that the most of those unmarried twenty-somethings will marry. We know from current survey research that they want to marry.
The actually scary trend is that the poorest and least educated people - the families that could most benefit from the material side of marriage - are the least likely to marry.
The good news is that the marriage rate among educated and dual-career couples is rising, and constitutes the great majority of the top half of the class and status structure.
This alarmist talk is overblown.
First, most adults are married, as they always have been in this country.
Second, a significant fraction were married until death did them part. As we live longer, the fraction of the population composed of widows and widowers is growing. They are not evidence that marriage is passé - quite the opposite. They made the ultimate commitment to marriage, and we should never forget it.
Third, as the Pew report notes, the average age of first marriage is the highest it has been in this country - 26 for women, 29 for men. We can be confident from past trends that the most of those unmarried twenty-somethings will marry. We know from current survey research that they want to marry.
The actually scary trend is that the poorest and least educated people - the families that could most benefit from the material side of marriage - are the least likely to marry.
The good news is that the marriage rate among educated and dual-career couples is rising, and constitutes the great majority of the top half of the class and status structure.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
They Are Stopping My Gold Dollar
I like the gold dollar coin. I get my coffee with them every day. I started doing that with the Sacagewea dollar, one of my favorite coins ever. Now the Mint is making dollar coins for each president, a new one per month. We are still in the Reign of Beards in the 19th century.
Alas, the Treasury has decided to cut back on making new dollar coins to just the minimum that the numismatists want. They claim that too few people actually spend them. As a result, they already have a ten-year backlog in storage.
So I will do my bit for the dollar coin. Fewer for America, but more for me.
Alas, the Treasury has decided to cut back on making new dollar coins to just the minimum that the numismatists want. They claim that too few people actually spend them. As a result, they already have a ten-year backlog in storage.
So I will do my bit for the dollar coin. Fewer for America, but more for me.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Parenthood is Hard, But Married Parents Are the Least Likely to be Depressed
This is the second post on Marquardt and Wilcox' State of Our Unions 2011.
In the 1970s, Jesse Bernard became famous among feminists for arguing that marriage was good for men, but bad for women. The main empirical foundation of her book was a study that purported to show that married women (but not men) were more prone to depression than single women were.
Bernard's study has long been discredited. What the study she cited actually showed was that women who had recently left careers for motherhood were somewhat more prone to depression than were childless working women.
Marquardt and Wilcox now offer current data, which goes further into parental life. They find that single parents are more prone to depression. Married parents, on the other hand, are not. In fact, married women, with or without children, were the least likely to be depressed. Cohabiting parents were also not likely to be depressed. Single women were more likely to be depressed, and most likely of all were single parents - 37% of single mothers, vs. only 22% of married women. This figure controls for age, education, income, and race/ethnicity.
Marquardt and Wilcox's overall conclusion about the affect of parenthood on depression, and on overall happiness, is
In the 1970s, Jesse Bernard became famous among feminists for arguing that marriage was good for men, but bad for women. The main empirical foundation of her book was a study that purported to show that married women (but not men) were more prone to depression than single women were.
Bernard's study has long been discredited. What the study she cited actually showed was that women who had recently left careers for motherhood were somewhat more prone to depression than were childless working women.
Marquardt and Wilcox now offer current data, which goes further into parental life. They find that single parents are more prone to depression. Married parents, on the other hand, are not. In fact, married women, with or without children, were the least likely to be depressed. Cohabiting parents were also not likely to be depressed. Single women were more likely to be depressed, and most likely of all were single parents - 37% of single mothers, vs. only 22% of married women. This figure controls for age, education, income, and race/ethnicity.
Marquardt and Wilcox's overall conclusion about the affect of parenthood on depression, and on overall happiness, is
the sense of support, solidarity, and meaning afforded by a co-parenting relationship more than makes up for any challenges associated with parenthood when it comes to global happiness and depression.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
New Reformed Body - Polity Statement
Occasionally on a Sunday I write about a painfully specific Presbyterian Church (USA) topic. If this is not your cup of tea, xkcd is always good.
The Fellowship of Presbyterians is proposing a New Reformed Body. At this point they are navigating between the Charybdis of creating a counter-polity within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Scylla of outright schism. This week they released draft documents on polity and theology for comment, prior to next month's national meeting to Take the Next Step, whatever that might turn out to be. Today I will talk about the polity document.
The document looks to me like a very good constitutional framework for a Reformed denomination. They dissolve regional synods, a move that I favor. They strengthen the collegial accountability of the presbytery, which I think is an excellent professional and pastoral idea. They put congregations, rather than presbyteries, in charge of their property. This is a giant step toward congregationalism, but in practice would not be very different from what we are devolving into now.
The document is deliberately lean, leaving to each presbytery and congregation the responsibility for adopting the normal rules recommend in this polity document, and/or developing their own.
My favorite innovation is this:
This sounds like an excellent idea for any congregation. If congregations really did this seriously then the presbytery would, of necessity, develop knowledge and skill in sharing and assessing best practices. That would be a huge benefit to the whole denomination.
What really makes a denomination work are not the official rules, but trust among the members and constituent congregations, and respect for the authority of established leaders. If the New Reformed Body can achieve that kind of trust and respect, it will succeed no matter what its official relationship to the PC (USA).
The Fellowship of Presbyterians is proposing a New Reformed Body. At this point they are navigating between the Charybdis of creating a counter-polity within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Scylla of outright schism. This week they released draft documents on polity and theology for comment, prior to next month's national meeting to Take the Next Step, whatever that might turn out to be. Today I will talk about the polity document.
The document looks to me like a very good constitutional framework for a Reformed denomination. They dissolve regional synods, a move that I favor. They strengthen the collegial accountability of the presbytery, which I think is an excellent professional and pastoral idea. They put congregations, rather than presbyteries, in charge of their property. This is a giant step toward congregationalism, but in practice would not be very different from what we are devolving into now.
The document is deliberately lean, leaving to each presbytery and congregation the responsibility for adopting the normal rules recommend in this polity document, and/or developing their own.
My favorite innovation is this:
The session shall evaluate the congregation’s ministry and mission annually and report to the presbytery for reasons of mutual accountability and the sharing of best practices.
This sounds like an excellent idea for any congregation. If congregations really did this seriously then the presbytery would, of necessity, develop knowledge and skill in sharing and assessing best practices. That would be a huge benefit to the whole denomination.
What really makes a denomination work are not the official rules, but trust among the members and constituent congregations, and respect for the authority of established leaders. If the New Reformed Body can achieve that kind of trust and respect, it will succeed no matter what its official relationship to the PC (USA).
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Mockupy
This is hilarious.
"Law and Order" recreated the Occupy Wall Street site to film a segment of the show.
The real Occupy Wall Street people heard about the fake.
The real Occupy Wall Street occupied the fake Occupy Wall Street on fake Wall Street.
At the behest of the fake cops, the real cops drove out the real OWS so the fake OWS could occupy the fake OWS.
Life is full of wonders.
"Law and Order" recreated the Occupy Wall Street site to film a segment of the show.
The real Occupy Wall Street people heard about the fake.
The real Occupy Wall Street occupied the fake Occupy Wall Street on fake Wall Street.
At the behest of the fake cops, the real cops drove out the real OWS so the fake OWS could occupy the fake OWS.
Life is full of wonders.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Married Parents Are More Likely to Think That Their Lives Have an Important Purpose
The 2011 edition of The State of Our Unions has just been released by the National Marriage Project and the Institute for American Values. This year's report, by Brad Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt, has the wonderful subtitle "And Baby Makes Three: How Parenthood Makes Life Meaningful and How Marriage Makes Parenthood Bearable."
Among their findings, drawn from a new Survey of Marital Generosity, is that married people are more likely to think that their lives are meaningful than are unmarried people. Even more interesting, as this table shows, is that among married people, parents are more likely to think that their "life has an important purpose" than are childless husbands and wives. In fact, a majority of married mothers, and a near majority of married fathers strongly agree that their lives have an important purpose.
Believing that your life has an important purpose is one of the strongest components of a happy life.
Among their findings, drawn from a new Survey of Marital Generosity, is that married people are more likely to think that their lives are meaningful than are unmarried people. Even more interesting, as this table shows, is that among married people, parents are more likely to think that their "life has an important purpose" than are childless husbands and wives. In fact, a majority of married mothers, and a near majority of married fathers strongly agree that their lives have an important purpose.
Believing that your life has an important purpose is one of the strongest components of a happy life.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
The Civil War Was the Heroic Birth of Black America
Ta-Nehisi Coates has an excellent essay in the Atlantic Monthly special issue on the Civil War. His main point is to call on African-Americans to know and own and cherish their role in the Civil War in winning their freedom and making democracy real in America.
More than that, Coates calls on all Americans to see the Civil War as a "good war," in the sense that we see the Second World War as a "good war" - a just struggle that defeated a manifest evil. He argues that to see the Civil War as a tragedy that divided brother against brother is to collude in the exclusion of the "darker brother" from existence in America.
I think Coates is quite right. The collusion of northern and southern whites in the myth of the Lost Cause after the war may have seemed worth it to foster national white reconciliation. But it came at the high cost of racial apartheid, terrorism, and oppression for another hundred years.
Only now, on the 150th anniversary of the start of the war, can we start to appreciate the Civil War as a heroic war for the American ideals of liberty and equality for all Americans. And no matter which side, if any, your ancestors were on (and I have ancestors on both sides), all Americans can come to see the Civil War as the heroic birth of the whole nation.
More than that, Coates calls on all Americans to see the Civil War as a "good war," in the sense that we see the Second World War as a "good war" - a just struggle that defeated a manifest evil. He argues that to see the Civil War as a tragedy that divided brother against brother is to collude in the exclusion of the "darker brother" from existence in America.
I think Coates is quite right. The collusion of northern and southern whites in the myth of the Lost Cause after the war may have seemed worth it to foster national white reconciliation. But it came at the high cost of racial apartheid, terrorism, and oppression for another hundred years.
Only now, on the 150th anniversary of the start of the war, can we start to appreciate the Civil War as a heroic war for the American ideals of liberty and equality for all Americans. And no matter which side, if any, your ancestors were on (and I have ancestors on both sides), all Americans can come to see the Civil War as the heroic birth of the whole nation.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Daily Show vs. Swamp Loggers
Entertainment Weekly commissioned a survey of the favorite television shows of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.
At the top of the liberal Democratic list: "The Daily Show."
At the top of the conservative Republican list: "Swamp Loggers."
Democrats favor snark and literate humor. Republicans favor work and literal reality.
I don't see a deep lesson in this difference. But I do think it reinforces the notion that there is some cultural polarization in America. This is not just a matter of official partisan positions, either. Pop culture shows a party, if not partisan, divide.
So now I have to go find out what "Swamp Loggers" is about. :-)
At the top of the liberal Democratic list: "The Daily Show."
At the top of the conservative Republican list: "Swamp Loggers."
Democrats favor snark and literate humor. Republicans favor work and literal reality.
I don't see a deep lesson in this difference. But I do think it reinforces the notion that there is some cultural polarization in America. This is not just a matter of official partisan positions, either. Pop culture shows a party, if not partisan, divide.
So now I have to go find out what "Swamp Loggers" is about. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
