Yes, "We" Can Still Handle Marriage, As We Always Have

A friend asked me to comment on this article, in which the author, Anthony D'Ambrosio, claims that "marriage doesn't work today" and that "we" (young people) can't handle it.

I don't think this young man understands marriage very well.  

He thinks sex is the most important aspect. He imagines that couples in the past did not struggle with financial problems together. After his divorce, he is hoping for "true love" which somehow counteracts all the problems that he mentions.  

And he does not even consider the core task of marriage from time immemorial: raising children.  

I don't think the problem is his generation, or today's technological distractions, or even student debt. Plenty of young people make excellent marriages in the customary way. They work out a way to deal with these challenges together. 

Marriage is a way for two people to mature together - which makes everything else possible.

Manspreading in Public, Womanspreading in Private

"Manspreading" is the tendency of some men to spread out and take extra space in public - on a subway bench, for example.  This is a real phenomenon, and the public-awareness campaign to encourage men to be more restrained is sensible.

Less noted is what I think should be called "Womanspreading" - the tendency of some women to take extra space when sharing a bed.  A humorous representation of the phenomenon is here:

I think there is a parallel phenomenon of "mansplaining" in a public setting, and "womansplaining" in a private one.

Spreading Democracy vs. Spreading Capitalism

There is a great divide in American foreign policy since World War II.

Some want to spread democracy.  Some want to spread capitalism.

Realizing this clarifies to me much of what has been muddy in why some of our interventions have been for good, and others for ill.

Correct Your Regrettable Habits

Take note of your moments of regret.  Literally write them down in a notebook.

Resist the natural temptation to repress them and move on.

Regrets are your best clue to which habits you need to analyze, and correct.

Most Republicans Support Establishing Christianity as the National Religion

Public Policy Policy has found that most Republicans support establishing Christianity as the national religion, by a margin of 57% to 30%, with 13% unsure.

The proportion rises to 68% among those who would like to see former Gov. Mike Huckabee become president.

The survey does not ask any further questions about the respondents' understanding of the Constitution or of Christianity.  My guess is that this position does not rest on a deep analysis of either.

Instead, this is the characteristic conservative loyalty to what they imagine to be "traditional" as being sacred.

The irony, of course, is that what is actually traditional in the United States is that we definitely do not allow an established religion.

Moreover, I am sure that that majority agreement among Republicans on establishing "Christianity" would disintegrate as soon as they got down to any specifics of which practices of Christianity they have in mind.

Marriage Opportunity: A Centrist Approach

I am happy to be among the original signatories of a new manifesto, "Marriage Opportunity: The Moment for National Action." 

The manifesto calls for the same pro-marriage position that I have been arguing in this blog for a decade.

What is new is that this statement supports same-sex marriage as good for the marriage movement.

I believe this is a centrist position.

The signatories, fellow members of the Marriage Opportunity Council, are from the left, right, and center on a number of issues.  The group includes people who previously opposed same-sex marriage, and those who have previously thought marriage an objectionable institution on the grounds that it was heterosexist or patriarchal or simply outmoded.  We come together on this statement now.

I hope, and expect, that this position will soon be the norm in the middle of political discussion.

David Brooks is Right That Religious Extremists Seek Glory, But Mostly Wrong That Nationalism Is the Best Cure

David Brooks has a sensible column about religious extremists.  What they want, he says, is not the mundane bourgeois solutions of the settled ruling classes - better education and more jobs.  Brooks is right that they have the "thymotic urge" for a glorious, heroic life.  This is an anti-Enlightenment urge that we still see in all cultures, especially among gangs of young men.

Brooks writes "You can't counter a heroic impulse with a mundane bourgeois response.  You can only counter it with a more compelling heroic vision."  This is correct.

However, Brooks goes on to say that the best available heroic vision is nationalism.  Here I think he errs.

Nationalism is the religion of the modern masses.  It is better than nothing.  But nationalism has the great drawback of producing nation-state wars, which are even worse than terrorism.  The Islamic State is trying to create a Sunni Arab nation-state precisely to mobilize that nationalist impulse.  In that they are trying to go Al Qaedi and its imitators one better, to create a more enduring, modern structure.

But nationalism is not a great religion.  It falls far short of the beatific vision.  It is a very limited god.  It may be a help in countering gang-level visions of the heroic impulse, but it is itself a dangerous prescription.

Martin Luther Toy is a Hot Seller

This story would be amusing just for the fact that a Martin Luther Playmobil toy exists at all.

That it is selling out is even more amazing.  

As we approach more Reformation semi-millennium anniversaries, I hope for a whole Diet of Reformers.  Can't wait for John Calvin.

Why Courage Is Necessary for Happiness

I have written before that fear is the solvent of the happy society.

It came to me today that courage is a necessary virtue for happiness, because every kind of fear makes us unhappy.

What "The Nightly Show" Should Do

I had high hopes for "The Nightly Show," Comedy Central's replacement for "The Colbert Report" after "The Daily Show". Larry Wilmore was an excellent "Senior Black Correspondent" for Jon Stewart, and could make an excellent follow-on show, if his show has a different focus. Parts of the "Nightly" are good, but the bulk of it is a panel discussion among people who do not reliably have anything interesting - or even harder, funny - to say.

"The Daily Show" and "the Colbert Report" worked because they were scripted. The best part of The Nightly Show is the scripted bit at the beginning.  

Comedy Central should just pay the money and hire real comedy writers to produce a new thing: a black- (or non-white-) focused Daily Show.  

The one thing I didn't like about Colbert following Stewart was that they often wrote about the same events, and made the same jokes. Yet there is so much that is happening in the world that is not about white people - Wilmore would never run out of material.

The Race Gap in Income Would Have Closed If the Race Gap in Family Structure Had Not Widened

A new study confirms what I have argued before:  most of the race gap today is really a family gap.

Black wages have grown, and the black middle class proportion has grown.  If that was all that had happened, the racial income gap would have been cut substantially - at least in half - in the past half century.

Instead, the gap has remained the same over all.

This is largely because the proportion of black children growing up in single parent families has grown from about 25% in 1965 to more than 70% today.  These families are poorer than their two-parent counterparts, and the children who grow up in them are handicapped in gaining economic security as they grow up and make families themselves.

I thank Claude Fischer's fine blog for bringing a new study by Deirdre Bloom on this point to our attention.

Some Thoughts on "American Sniper"

Clint Eastwood has created a very well-made movie.  I think the main moral point is muddled, because Eastwood's own moral vision stops at the individual level.  It is not wrong, but incomplete.

The issue is laid out in an early scene, when Chris Kyle, the title character, is still a boy. Chris had defended his younger brother from a bully.  Later, their father offered this worldview:  there are three kids of people in the world - sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.  The father says he is not raising any sheep, nor any wolves.  His sons are to be sheepdogs, protectors of the sheep.

As the father lays it out, he is arguing with those who think there are no wolves in the world.  This also sounds like a theme in many Eastwood movies, both as director and actor.  But this is really a straw man.

It is a false argument in the first instance because there are very few people who argue that there are no bad guys at all.  Even I, who often point out that most people are happy and that the world is getting better, do not say that.

It is a false argument for a deeper reason, too. It assumes that people simply are good or bad, weak or strong.  There is no nuance as to why some people might take up arms against another, why, for example, people who were grateful that invaders removed their brutal dictator might still resent the invader, especially if the invaders settled in.

Which brings me to the other character missing from Kyle, Sr.'s metaphor: the shepherd.  The reasoning person who thinks about the structures for protecting the sheep, the just ways of controlling wolves, and the good of the entire ecology that includes both.

Chris Kyle was a very good sheepdog, as portrayed in "American Sniper".  He was not a shepherd.

The world most needs good shepherds.

Is the Jewish God a Cosmic Life Force?

The General Social Survey, the workhorse survey of American sociology, in 2010 asked a representative sample of American adults how they envisioned God.

The two most popular options were "God is a personal being involved in the lives of people today" and "God is not personal, but something like a cosmic life force."

For Christians, the more strongly religious they reported themselves to be, the more they chose the first option.  Thus, 93% of "strong Protestants" and 86% of "strong Catholics" think God is a personal being, compared to 70% of "not very strong" Protestants and 62% of "not very strong" Catholics. 

By contrast, only 3 and 5%, respectively, of strong Protestants and Catholics see God as a cosmic force. For not very strong Protestants and Catholics, the proportion embracing the cosmic force view rises to 17%.

For Jews, though, the trend goes in the opposite direction. Among strong Jews, only 33% see God as personal, whereas 40% see God as a cosmic force.  Interestingly, it is the not very strong Jews who show a more gentile distribution: 53% say "personal being," vs. 12% who say "cosmic force."

My best guess of what this means:  Jews who are not very involved in the Jewish community do not really know the distinctive features of Jewish theology, and therefore assimilate to the Christian view that pervades American culture.

Improved U.S. - India Ties are Good for Democracy

President Obama and Indian President Modi unblocked a stalled agreement to improve joint trade and development relations on nuclear power and drones.

President Obama turned toward India at the beginning of his administration, with Modi's predecessor.  Now he has made a second visit to India, to deal with the new administration, and move forward.

It has always made sense to me that the U.S. and India, giant English-tradition democracies, should be allies.  The Cold War made us enemies.  The silver lining of that era was our relatively close ties with Pakistan.  Still, India is a more natural ally.  With the end of the Cold War, and the rise of the mutual competitor, China, it is very hopeful that US/India relations are improving.

This is an achievement of the Obama administration that will pay dividends not only for the U.S., but for the advancement of democracy.

Recovering the Republican Center: Moderates Force Compromise on Abortion Bill

Today's hopeful sign:  moderates within the Republican coalition in the House of Representative pushed back against the far right on their standard abortion bill.  As a result, the Republican leadership was forced - or, as I hope, allowed - to drop one of the most controversial and punishing requirements.

The bill would forbid abortions after 20 weeks, which is now the Republican unifying position.  It would have allowed an exception in cases of rape, which is a standard American position.  The contentious point was whether women would have to report the rape to police to qualify.  The far right said yes.  The moderates, especially more moderate women, said no.  The moderates won.

Presbyterians Are Optimistic Trusters

I am analyzing new data from the Presbyterian Panel, a survey of Presbyterian Church (USA) members and leaders.

One comparison I am interested in is with an important baseline table from the 1972 American National Election Survey.  That survey's table crossed the "are you an optimist or a pessimist?" question with the "do you think most people can be trusted?" question.

I am interested in this issue, because I think trusters, especially optimistic trusters, are the people most likely to undertake Tocquevillian projects of community improvement.

The result:

Proportions of Americans (from the American National Election Survey 1972):

Optimistic Trusters: 35%

Pessimistic Trusters: 13

Optimistic Mistrusters: 30

Pessimistic Mistrusters: 23

Proportion of Presbyterian members (from the Presbyterian Panel 2014):

Optimistic Trusters: 65%

Pessimistic Trusters: <1

Optimistic Mistrusters: 26

Pessimistic Mistrusters: 9

Today's Good News: The Attorney General Curbs Local Police From Taking Civil Assets

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the widespread practice of police seizing money and assets, such as vehicles, from people they stop without a warrant and without proving a crime will no longer be shielded by federal law.  His move drew bipartisan support from Congress.

Until now, police could seize assets they thought were suspicious and keep them, if they shared a portion with the federal government, and be protected by federal law.  By greatly restricting the circumstances of such seizures, Holder eliminates the incentive that some departments had succumbed to to get a significant part of their annual budget from asset seizures.

The Washington Post reported that "the Institute for Justice and other libertarian-leaning groups teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union and left-leaning groups to press for changes in the wake of the Post's investigation."

Two Kinds of Universal Identity

How do you think about the largest human identity group?

Christians say we are all children of God.

The biggest secular option is to be a cosmopolitan citizen of the world.

The latter has the advantage of seeming like an adult and modern identity.  But it has the disadvantage of depending on a universal state that one could be a citizen of, which clearly does not exist.

The best modern Christian universal identity I can think of is something like co-worker with God.  This works for Jews and Muslims, too.

(This is a half-formed idea).

State-Backed Modernization of Islam in Egypt Will Help

The president of Egypt has come out forcefully for modernizing Islam on religious, rather than nationalist, grounds.

He has already enlisted al-Azhar University, the great seat of Sunni learning and, in effect, an arm of the Egyptian state to make small steps.  For example, "texts on slavery and on refusing to greet Christians and Jews, for example, have been removed" from Egyptian textbooks. 

I don't think a religious reform initiated by the state can work by itself.  I don't think President el-Sissi can be the Muslim Martin Luther.  But he could be the Muslim Frederick the Wise, who sheltered the reformer from political attack.  

Feeling Mainline Leads to a Sense of Entitlement

I am working on a paper that I have tentatively titled "Feeling Mainline."  This comes from a dataset that grouped people into big categories based on their denomination, including dividing Protestant denominations into Evangelical, Black, and Mainline.  This is a fairly standard move in sociological studies.

Later in the survey, though, they also asked each respondent how well different words described their religious identity, such as "religious liberal" or "fundamentalist."  Among the words they asked about were "evangelical" and "mainline."

The most interesting finding:  about a quarter of members of mainline denominations think of themselves as "evangelical", and about a quarter of members of evangelical denominations think of themselves as "mainline." In fact, about a third of black Protestants see themselves as mainline, and even 15% of Catholics say "mainline" describes them very well.

Clearly, people are not using the term the same way sociologists do.

I think embracing the identity "mainline" means that you feel entitled to participate in decisions affecting your community.  This is more than just "mainstream" (as opposed to weird, deviant, extreme, eccentric, etc.)  I think "mainline" carries a sense of responsibility for the world.

I use this odd phrase - entitled to participate in decisions affecting - because this is how Annette Lareau describes the sense of entitlement that middle and upper-middle-class children learn from being raised according to what she calls "concerted cultivation."  Where poor and working-class kids are taught to be obedient and do their work - what Lareau calls the "natural growth" method of childrearing - middle class parents work to develop all of the talents of each of their children through all the methods of pushing, coaching, and enrichment they can muster.  And one aim of concerted cultivation is to teach children to be independent and curious, to actively promote their own growth.

Middle class kids, thus, grow up with a sense of entitlement. But this entitlement is not to get whatever they want, but to participate in decisions that affect their lives.

Which, I believe, is how people who feel mainline in their religion have a sense of entitlement to participate in decisions that affect their communities.

Re-Republicanization in Arizona: McCain Fights Back Against the Tea Party

Senator John McCain is making a concerted effort to oust Tea Party operatives from the local precinct apparatus of the Arizona Republican Party, and replace them with Republicans.  This is good news for those who wish to see the two parties return to working together in order to govern.

McCain was censured by his own party by the anti-government activists who had taken over Republican precinct offices, and he faced a serious challenge in the Republican primary when he ran for re-election.  The senator was determined not to have that happen if (when) he seeks re-election in two years.

One particularly promising aspect of the re-Republicanization campaign: McCain has mobilized the Vietnamese-American community in Arizona, who are threatened by the anti-immigrant Tea Party.

Good News: Charles Koch and George Soros Working Together For Criminal Justice Reform

Koch and Soros working together on anything is likely to be good news.  Working together on such an important issue is particularly heart-warming.

The [Wichita] Eagle reports that Koch has unofficially teamed up with progressive mega-donor George Soros and the American Civil Liberties Union to address prison reform. Koch has also earned praise from outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who told The Marshall Project that Koch's donation to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which funds training for attorneys who represent those in need, was a positive force. 

Normalizing Relations With Cuba is a Great Step Forward

The news that at long last the United States will normalize relations with Cuba is one I have hoped for all my life.  I believe that if we had engaged Cuba from the outset, pushed for the same kind of trade relations that we had with many other dictatorships, and kept fussing at them about human rights that we also do, we could have created an opening for more freedom, and maybe even democracy, decades ago.

I hope the Congress follows suit and drops the foolish embargo.

I think the combination of Cuban-Americans, Coca-Cola, and the internet will do more for Cuban freedom that all the Cold War freeze-out could ever have accomplished.

Thank you, President Obama. And a hat tip to the Pope and the Canadians for helping.

No State Tax Incentives for the Ark Park - A Sensible Middle Position

The Answers in Genesis ministry, parent of the Creation Museum, had proposed a few years ago to create an Ark Park theme park, based on Noah's Ark, in central Kentucky.

Gov. Beshear supported the proposal as a good tourism draw for the state.  He caught some flack from the left for that position.  I think he was entirely in the right.

Now, though, the state Tourism Commission has withdrawn the offer of $18 million in tax incentives from the Ark Park.  They say that the sponsors have changed their position.  Originally, Answers in Genesis said they would not have a religious test for hiring at the park.  Recently, though, they have made clear that they would have a religion test for hiring.

The state's position is clear: tax incentives can't be used to advance a particular religion, nor discriminate on the basis of religion.

Answers in Genesis claims that their religious freedom will be violated if they can't both have a religious test in hiring and get state tax incentives.

I believe the state is, once again, correct in its judgment.

I also had my doubts that the Ark Park could ever succeed, but that is beside the principled point here.

Happiness is a Warm Congregation

The new Relationships in America study has a nifty table on the relation of happiness to regular involvement in a religious community.

The core finding:  "frequency of attendance at religious services has a stronger effect on overall happiness than either belonging to an organized religion or self-reported personal religiosity."

The magnitude of the effect is also pretty impressive:  nearly half of those who regularly attend religious services say they are very happy.

Softball vs Golf - A Metaphor for Liberal Happiness vs. Conservative Happiness

A thoughtful student in my "Introduction to Sociology" class was wrestling with Arthur Brooks' report, in Gross National Happiness, that conservatives are generally happier than liberals as individuals, in light of our class' question of what makes for a happy society. 

This student, herself inclined to be an apolitical conservative, drew from several aspects of what we had been studying to consider, and reconsider, her own experience.

Conservatives look at society and see a collection of individuals, so they believe that personal action is the right focus of attention.  Liberals look at society as more of a collective, so the community requires change in order for real progress to happen.  ... Conservatives could feel happier than liberals in this sense because success is based on an individual's own actions instead of basing it on the actions of everyone else.  It is easier to feel then that you have successfully made changes that are important to you.  An example I thought of when I was reading this was about golf.  I used to play softball, a team sport, then I started playing golf in high school.  I found a greater sense of satisfaction when playing golf because all of my success was based on how hard I was willing to work to achieve my goals.  In softball, I often felt let down and less happy because my team did not practice as much as I did, so we would often lose.  These losses left me feeling down because I was working hard, but by being on the team, I was relying on them for our success.  It was nice with golf because I was reliant on myself.

However, she notes, there are costs to a society that builds no more than individual successes.

I find problems with this as well because it is necessary to work together to achieve goals, and it brings up the Myth of the Individual from the middle of the term.  It showed that we needed a network of people to help support us, or we could face becoming isolated and radicalized in our ideas.  From personal experiences, successes with a group are much more profound ... as compared to personal victories because of the shared emotional experience.  It will be interesting to see how this plays into overall happiness.  I would think shared experiences like collective effervescences would help increase happiness overall because it helps to form bonds with others.  

Her last point, that happier societies come not just from happy individuals, but have bonds across larger groups from shared emotional experiences, is well borne out by sociology.

Happiness Grows With Wisdom

Jonathan Rauch has a fine article in the Atlantic on the U-shaped curve of happiness.

Not for everyone, and not in every society, but strong enough to be a helpful pattern, we see life satisfaction bottoming out in the late 40s for many people.  And then it gets better.

There is much in here, including a whole section on brain development.

I found this to be the most helpful idea:

“This finding,” [Princeton researcher Hannes] Schwandt writes, “supports the hypothesis that the age U-shape in life satisfaction is driven by unmet aspirations that are painfully felt during midlife but beneficially abandoned and felt with less regret during old age.”

The curve below was compiled by economist Carol Graham and colleagues, looking at averages in many different countries.  The X-axis measures life satisfaction on a ten-point scale; the Y measures age.

The Politics of Male First Names

Verdant Labs has a fascinating blog post on political trends in first names.

One big finding: "Of male names that are at least fairly common, the most Democratic are Jonah and Malik, and the most Republican are Delbert and Duane."

I think I know what is going on here.

The Democratic end is tipped by distinctively black or Jewish names. In addition to Jonah and Malik, we find Ethan, Willie, Saul, Emmanuel, Isaiah, Tyrone, Omar, Irving, and Israel.

On the Republican side, we find country white names. In addition to Delbert and Duane, there are Rex, Dallas, Brent, Troy, Lyle, Darrell, Billy, Ricky, and Randy.

The Distribution of Generosity

Christian Smith, a sociologist at Notre Dame, has been reporting the results of a large Science of Generosity project.  Sociology is particularly useful for giving us a sense of proportion of how phenomena are distributed in a large population.

Americans as a whole are generous people.  We give away huge amounts of money for good causes.

However, nearly half of Americans - 45% - give nothing.

The high standard of tithing (giving at least 10%) is met by only 3%.

Poorer people give away a higher proportion of their income than richer people do.

Looked at another way, 57% of all the charitable dollars in America are contributed by the 5% of Americans who are most generous.

And I should note that the main point of The Paradox of Generosity, by Christian Smith and Hilary Davidson, is that people who give more away lead happier and healthier lives.

The Tea Party Congress is the Least Productive, Ever.

The Tea Party Congress, the one now ending, is officially the least productive Congress ever.

That is what they said they would do if elected - prevent government.

I take them at their word that that is what they will keep doing.

The Republicans are at a crossroads.  They control the legislative branch of government. They will have to decide whether to stick with the Tea Party and prevent government, or cut the Tea Party loose and govern.

This will be a very tough choice.  So far the Republican leadership has talked tough about governing, but they haven't actually taken any concrete steps to break with their dangerous coalition partner.

World War One Was the Worst War Ever

All wars are bad.  Some are worse than others.  I am imagining a scale based on the foolishness of the causes of a war multiplied by the number of casualties.

On that scale, I believe World War One was the worst war ever.

And that is before we factor in the way the victors made a peace so bad that it produced another, even larger war.

Today's Great Thing: The Silver Anniversary of the Fall of the Wall

And an East German is the head of state of the united Germany.

We may hope for such a happy reunion in Korea soon.

Christian Social Science - How Do I Get at What Students Really Want to Know?

I am giving a talk next week at Hendrix College on "Being a Christian and a Social Scientist".  At the moment it ends this way:

Christianity also makes for a better social science than materialism can, precisely because people do act for reasons.  People act for reasons, they believe they act for reasons, and they believe their existence is meaningful because their reasoned action leads to meaningful ends. I can’t prove that people are right in these beliefs.  But I can prove that most people do have these beliefs (even people who profess materialism).  And I assert that the universal fact that people act as if they act for a meaningful reason is evidence that they are right.  Not proof, but strong evidence.

I think this is true, but doesn't really get to the core of what undergraduates are likely to be concerned about.

I would welcome suggestions for how to bridge this gap.

Fear of Anything as a Vote-Shaping Strategy

Of all the enemies of the happy society, fear is the greatest.  Fear is the acid of trust.

The strategy of Karl Rove and his disciples had been to make their party base fearful, and forget about trying to win over the center.

In recent years they have added strategies to make it harder for everyone to vote, which hurt their opponents more than it did their supporters.

In this last cycle, I believe they gave up on trying to instill fear of things that corporate interests usually oppose, namely taxes and regulations, or that social conservatives oppose, such as abortion and gay marriage.  This cycle they seemed to promote any fear at all as a way of ginning up the base. This worked against compromise and normal politics, and toward a black-and-white view of the world which their candidates would address with force.

This explains, I think, why there has been such political interest in Ebola and ISIS as things to be afraid of in this country.  Notice that the promoters of these fears are not focused on the dangers of Ebola to West Africans, or of ISIS to decent people in the Middle East - where those fears are well grounded.  Instead, they have promoted fear, even hysteria, about the minuscule dangers that either threat poses to Americans at home.  The aim is simply fear, and anything scary will do.

The Obama Administration is Very Good.

President Obama is a very good president, with a commendable record of achievement. The Affordable Care Act is a huge step forward for our nation, both in justice for all and in reducing the costs of medical care. The "war on coal" is being waged by the natural gas companies, not the federal government. The financial firms that wrecked the economy before he took office are under better regulation. The wars launched by his predecessors have been ended or reduced. The auto industry was saved. And, as you can see below, the economy is vastly improved. If he had a Congress that was not committed to obstructing all government, he could do even more good.