Can Republicans Win in a Post-Family America?

families-1For the first time in American statistical history, the majority of American adults are single. 124 million or 50.2% of Americans are single. Some will get married, but increasing numbers never will.

Demographically a population of single adults means the death of the Republican Party. It eliminates the possibility of libertarian and fiscally conservative policies. It leads inevitably to the welfare state.

Single people are less likely to have a support system that keeps them from becoming a public charge. Children born to single parents perform poorly in school and are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. A nation of single people will inevitably become a welfare state and a police state.

The statistics have always been known and the conclusions to be drawn from them are inescapable.

A lot of attention is being paid to the political consequences of the nation’s changing racial demographics, but it’s not a coincidence that the racial group that Republicans perform worst with is also the least likely to be married. While there are other factors in the mix, Republicans do better with married than unmarried black people.

The same is true of most other racial groups.

The latest Reuters poll shows that 36% of married Hispanics are planning to vote for a Democratic candidate in the upcoming midterm election and 28% are planning to vote for a Republican candidate. Among unmarried Hispanics, those numbers change to 42% Democratic and %15 Republican.

If Republicans want to start getting serious about the Hispanic vote, they might want to spend less time muttering about amnesty and more time thinking about where their strength with married voters lies.

Married white voters lean toward a Republican candidate by 43% to 24%. Among single white voters, Democrats lead 34% to 26%.

There are other factors that affect these numbers such as age, race, sexual orientation and religious affiliation. Growing minority demographics have certainly helped make single Americans a statistical majority, but it’s dangerous to ignore the bigger picture of the post-family demographic trend.

If Republicans insist on running against the nanny state, they will have to replace it with something. That something was traditionally the family. Take away the family and something else has to fill its place.

In the West, government has become the new family. The state is father and occasionally mother. The nanny state is literally a nanny. It may be hated, but it is also needed.

That is why married whites oppose ObamaCare 65% to 34% while single whites also oppose it, but by a narrower margin of 53% to 47%.

ObamaCare’s support base among whites is highest among single white men and women. (Despite Julia and Sandra Fluke, the latest poll numbers show that young single white women oppose ObamaCare by a higher margin than young single white men. Pajama Boy with his hot cocoa is more likely to be a fervent proponent of ObamaCare than Julia. But the margins for both sexes remain narrow.)

It’s unrealistic to expect people to vote against their short term interests. Without family, the individual is vulnerable. A single bad day can leave him homeless and hungry. While the system of social welfare actually intensifies the overall economic conditions that are likely lead to such a state of vulnerability, those who are caught in that cycle will choose to protect themselves from the consequences in the short term without considering the long term causation cost to themselves and everyone else.

That was the logic behind ObamaCare. It’s the logic behind the entire spending spree of the nanny state.

If Republicans are going to start winning based on something other than the public’s frustration with Obama, they will have to address this reality. Republicans have treated family as a reference point, like the United States or the dollar, a verity that would always be there, a word that they could reference to show their singular virtue without having to meaningfully assess and address what was wrong with it.

The American vision of limited government depended on a stable society that could fend for itself. The progressives originally gained power from the collapse of large economic institutions which they used to prove that their intervention was needed. They have gained even more power from the collapse of social institutions.

Without an underlying network of families maintaining a working society, the nanny state grows. And it doesn’t limit its attentions to those who seek it out. Small scale solutions are made possible by the integrity of small institutions. Without the order created by the small institution of the family, the order that teaches children right from wrong, that cares for its elderly parents and supports members of the family, the only alternative becomes the large scale solution of the totalitarian state and its bureaucracy.

Republicans cannot campaign on policies that assume that the family is the dominant institution once it no longer is. If they do not place a fiscally conservative agenda within the larger context of restoring the family, they will become the advocates of policies that hardly anyone except their donor base supports.

Three choices lie ahead.

The Republican Party can fight for the family. It can abandon fiscal conservatism and social conservatism in both word and deed to pursue its real program of trying to make big government work. Or it can look for alternative institutions that can replace both family and government.

Faith-based programs attempted to bypass the social disaster of the lost family without ceding the social territory to big government, but there is only so much that any entity outside the family can do. No amount of programs can fill the gap for a child or an adult. The family is an organic wraparound entity. Replacing it led to a Great Society in which a horde of social workers, teachers, psychologists, parole officers and sociologists struggled to fill the role of a mother and a father.

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child except in a failed state and no village can afford to hire an entire other village to raise its children. That, among other things, is what is bringing California to its knees.

Replacing the family, with or without government, is expensive and difficult. Republicans can and should champion private sector alternatives to government takeovers, faith-based or otherwise, but such an approach will only delay the inevitable. There really is no institutional replacement for the family.

The demographic shift taking place is critical because it will determine whether we have a big government or a small government.

Republicans can either adapt to a post-family America by becoming the party of the welfare state or they can work toward an America that is once again centered around the institution of the family.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • I_Am_Me

    The downward momentum can only be slowed down or delayed. Get the forks ready.

  • truebearing

    Like a prophet of old, you have clearly laid out America’s demographic driven future and the consequences of our moral failure. One of your very best, Daniel. This is essential truth.

    If the family falls, so does freedom and hope. The Left has known this for decades and has done everything in it’s devious power to destroy the family. First they went after blacks and killed their families with false kindness. Then they used “women’s rights” to divide men and women, but especially whites.

    The splitting of the atomic family unit is like nuclear fission. The atomic family is reduced to individual parts while the statist government benefits from the diffused energy. With every atomic family unit that splits, the Left supplants parents and gains more power. Individuals are relegated to becoming lonely neutrons bouncing off the walls of big government reactors. The more family atoms that are split, the more energy there is to perpetuate the political fission, and the less resistance. Eventually, the Left will burn up its fuel source, once again fail, and destitution is all that will remain. That is of little comfort.

    Family units are microcosms of government, and efficient by any comparison with government. Flawed though many may be, they are still bound by the life-giving nature of love. Without that love children cannot develop properly, and no village, or village idiot that believes in villages, can replace that singular requirement for human growth and fulfillment.

    It is no wonder the Left has worked to destroy the family and break the bonds of love. They live by envy and hate. We had better not wait for the Republican leadership to avoid this impending fate.

    • The March Hare

      From the Communist Manifesto:
      “Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

      On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

      The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

      • truebearing

        An essential tenet of the evil of Marxism. The pain of dysfunction, isolation, fear, and a loveless environment that is inflicted by this pointless nihilism is incalculable. That Marx thought this would usher in utopia is testimony to his own pathologically deluded malignant narcissism. That his followers are willing to inflict this immeasurable pain, time after failed time, is testimony to their utter depravity.

        Marx had no understanding of the positive aspects or motivations of human nature, only the negative. His execrable political religion is misanthropic to the core. It, along with Islam, are the twin pillars the death culture gripping this world. Nihilism is their method and death is the result.

        • I_Am_Me

          Are you able to remain positive while having this knowledge?

          I also believe the same as you wrote. I can see right into the evil heart at the core of their philosophy. Murder for fairness. And above all, control and destruction of the free mind.

          • truebearing

            No, I’m not able to remain positive. It is a daily struggle. The Left infuriates me, and so do Muslims.

    • cree

      What is especially of value in Daniel’s articles is that he is a very talented insightful realist. Of value in that truth is revealed. It seems though, that more often than not the truth is hard to bear rather than the opposite.

      Truebearing, your insight that “Their inevitable failure is of little comfort.” will also be eventually for them (utopians) as well as us (Constitutional Americans). Lenin’s/Stalin’s (and all other utopians) revolution progression produced ever greater catastrophic failure over time.

      I would add that the degradation of the family unit and the decline of the Judeo-Christian component within and without the family is not coincidence as from America’s roots to its present day. If this truth be excepted, therein lies the course correction needed. Whether enough will make the exception against the opposing forces to a return is much in question. Whichever the outcome, will it be truth that utopia again fails? I think most of us who seek enlightenment know the answer.

      • truebearing

        Truth is hard to bear because it is a revelation of our folly and the burden we were already carrying but didn’t realize. Without truth, that burden would crush us. Truth sets us free from the foolishness of our thinking and allows us to see the path to a better way, but it demands action, and action requires courage. Truth always shows us the cost of our moral failures, which is why we all at some time, try to ignore the truth.

        The reason the Left compulsively lies is that they don’t want us to see the mounting burden they willingly heap on individuals so that the collective can acquire total power. Of course, the “collective” always turns out to be the masses, ie victims, and the collective’s “enlightened” leaders are the only beneficiaries.

        • cree

          If I may in other words: their mounting burden heaped on individuals amounts to all unintended consequences of their untruth folly and their power lust lies in their need to be the answer in perpetuity to their folly (compulsive, pathological lying). Progressivism then becomes society’s need for control–freaks. Karl Marx the genius for all of mankind!

          Agreed: truth’s path to a better way demands courageous action.

    • Hammerstrike
  • mollysdad

    The elephant in the room is the stagnation of wages since the 1970s. The days when an employee’s wage could, in the generality of cases, support a family and give a man hope for the future, are long gone and they’re not coming back.

    The elephant’s kid sister is that human reproduction is continuing outside the marital family. This is asking for trouble. When wages stagnate and fall, that is a signal that the supply of labour is high relative to demand – that the nation needs fewer people to run the economy.

    The way forward is, surely, to change the terms on which welfare is paid. If you’re on welfare, don’t become a father.

    • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

      We would have to do something about the standard of living.

    • Hammerstrike

      In other words it only truly worked as an economic unit in times of exceptional prosperity and stability that have not existed for much of human history.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_clan

      So how did people survive historically ordinary times?

      • mollysdad

        Very often, they didn’t.

        • Hammerstrike

          Those who did had the clan as the economic unit, not the nuclear family.

          When Roosevelt and Wilson where elected, the family was intact but that didn’t stop them, now did it?
          Have it changed since the 1930s? No, progressivism have just been spreading since then, it spread fastest in the 1960s, a time when the family was generally stronger than today.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    F the communists. I’m not going down that easily.

    • TL2014

      What can we do to stem the tide?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Right now focus on midterms, but there are also many more things to do. I guess I should help start a blog, “What to do about the freaking communists in this country!”

        I’m joking about it but it’s actually a very good idea. Basically we need to manage everything that our government does with more scrutiny, from education to environmental scams.

        • truebearing

          We need to encourage every citizen to fully exercise their role as a citizen, from educating themselves, to educating others, to voting, to donating money, to being activists against evil. In short, living up to the requirements of self governance.

          From each citizen according to his ability, to each Marxist according to his just deserts, all freedom loving citizens need to provide the means for crushing the Left — and Islam.

          The idea that our police, DOJ, and military will do all of the heavy lifting while we sit back and indulge ourselves has to be thoroughly refuted. Eric Holder is all the evidence we need to prove the fallacy of reliance on government to protect us.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yeah, we need people to get involved but they also need a kind of roadmap to help evaluate where to go and how effective any given approach is.

            Too often we talk past people that might be open to reconsidering what they think they know.

            Marxism is about creating a comprehensive worldview that accounts for everything anyone might see or hear. It doesn’t leave people looking for other explanations. It’s anti-science as it provides a framework for abusing science. It’s like saying, we must construct this filter to understand history, and realize anything outside the filter is a distraction from an enlightened understanding of it.

            Really? How can that be?

            But this is also why the elites must teach dogmatically. Because allowing or encouraging students to think beyond the accepted filters can lead to “false consciousness” or worse; they’ll learn about “exploiting private capital” and turn in to oppressors!

            So the question is how to approach any given person or argument and to take it on without signaling their “rejection rules.” You can’t approach the topics the way that they expect, because this is why they close their minds. They’re conditioned to reject anti-communist arguments as ignorance, “false consciousness” or defense of “oppression.”

            And the elites themselves might have a hard time truly defending all of this, but they spend a lot of time at in academia convinced that they are in the kind of environment where “the truth” is mostly likely to prevail. Whatever gains dominance in academia must be the closest thing to the truth. That’s their logic. They too (the elites) are robotic thinkers, but their dogmatic thinking is far more sophisticated than the idiotic ideas they spoon feed to kids in K-12 and then again at our colleges. It still boils down to circular logic. Most of them would fail if they ever tried to follow their own advise in the real world. But then again that is seen as “proof” of the need for socialism. Because the failure is always the fault of the oppressors vis-a-vis private capital that is allowed to “corrupt society” without sufficient oversight of the “altruistic” elites.

          • I_Am_Me

            I’m an an honest, objective nihilist and I can tell you the two core principles that I will be developing into my ideological attack against those who are trying to destroy the world.

            1. There is no basis for claiming knowledge of why the universe exists. This means that an honest nihilist has no right to question any creation myth since they can neither be proven nor falsified. There is no possible explanation as to why the big bang happened so the nihilist is left with no counter argument against any other creation myth.

            2. Fairness = murder.

            #1 is the most critical. #2 is easy to prove even to the most mendacious and dishonest narcissistic nihilist.

            Once these points are established, then all weapons of argument are available to go after their attempts to close the minds of everyone.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “1. There is no basis for claiming knowledge of why the universe exists. This means that an honest nihilist has no right to question any creation myth since they can neither be proven nor falsified. There is no possible explanation as to why the big bang happened so the nihilist is left with no counter argument against any other creation myth.”

            That’s not the only reason someone that cares about the future would look at the past. If you want to understand civilization, you want to examine why people do the things that they do, and why they believe the things that they believe. You won’t get complete answers, but it will help you understand predict their behaviors better than without looking at their beliefs.

            Beliefs about the past are some of the “forces” that shape how people react and plan. You don’t have to accept all or any of those beliefs to understand them and use them in your analysis.

            WRT creation myth, you’re skipping to the end and missing potentially useful things. You’re saying that we don’t need to know anything about rainbows because we know that the “pot of gold” is just a myth. Well what about that rainbow? What’s up with that? There’s lots we can learn about them AND we can also understand human behavior better if we understand what some of the other humans believe about rainbows, unicorns and so forth. Why are people chasing that pot of gold in a metaphorical sense? One answer is that we spend a lot of time attacking the “creation myth” and not that much time attacking economic myths. People are looking for those unclaimed pots of gold in new places. Why?

            Therefore even you can gain valuable insight from investigating the rational case for accepting the Bible as having some value greater than “just myth.”

            “2. State enforced fairness = murder.”

            You know I’m with you 100% on that.

            “Once these points are established, then all weapons of argument are available to go after their attempts to close the minds of everyone.”

            Good point. But because these socialists often use and abuse history for their arguments in favor of “social justice” it’s very useful to know what all of the claims are. That’s what drove my investigations. IOW, you can argue that social justice vis-a-vis correcting historical wrongs is “bad” but until you can challenge their justifications in comprehensively, you can’t unwind their emotional (and almost always mendacious) versions of history.

            Correcting (real and alleged) historical wrongs committed by “the church” is one of the underlying motives that is not always voiced. Understanding precisely what happened can help to remove the mendacious angles of attack. Life is messy. If only one side get’s to present their narrative, they’ll win the hearts of most listeners. You have to have competence in unwinding their mendacious narratives if you want to have maximum effect.

            Knowing that “Christians” persecuted Jews is one thing, knowing that “Christians” were the first “humanists” is something else. People do not understand for example that the Bible does call for rational understanding and reasoning. It also points out that humans will never be able to understand everything. But it does not teach to stop asking. And these texts are easy to abuse by tyrants if the people are not reading it directly on their own.

            I’m not saying you or anyone else has any obligation to go down those roads. But I find it useful almost every day.

          • I_Am_Me

            Your tactics are dead in the water with the true enemy, the arrogant, narcissistic nihilists trying to destroy the free mind. Your tactics will work with a subset of people who have not already been lost.

            The fight has to go straight to the true enemy. I was a bit vague about #1. By creation myths, I am not referring to religious creation myths. I’m referring to answers to the question: Why does the universe exist? Once the arrogant nihilist gets humiliated in public and his evil arrogance is exposed, then everything else they stand for is subject to attack, and some of your points definitely become useful as a continuation strategy.

            Islam is going to have to be fought with physical violence and containment by strength. And that is only going to happen with the free men. If the nihilists win, you’ll see a short lived truce, and then an Islam invasion leading to a global caliphate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I see what you mean now.

            My strategy was more or less to build consensus among people likely to listen and then once we identify the enemy, we deal with them in a more unified fashion than what we’re doing now.

          • I_Am_Me

            I know the enemy. It is people like me. And thank god or whoever that they are just men and can be defeated. I posted on TR that I’m gonna head out to the battlefield (Dyed Tyranny thread).

            We are on the precipice of losing the West. I can’t be hanging around here on the message boards anymore. I’ve got to do something more important like do a blog or write a book.

            Take care friend. And this is not Molon Labe. That is a defensive posture. This is war. Political, philosophical and ideological war against the enslavers of the mind.

            Death to the Hive Builders

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The idea that our police, DOJ, and military will do all of the heavy lifting while we sit back and indulge ourselves has to be thoroughly refuted. Eric Holder is all the evidence we need to prove the fallacy of reliance on government to protect us.”

            Those are the short battles to take away power. We need to destroy the fallacious ideas that allow the communists to win power in the first place.

          • lyndaaquarius

            social justice,compassion,fairness,level playing field. Attack these devils and deconstruct them for all they’re worth.Re-introduce the power of romance as it has always been.Mock how men have been feminized. Emphasize how little,if any benefit Obama has brought to the middle-class.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Right. But you have to be careful not to be “against” compassion, “against” justice and so forth.

            We need better tactics. The strategy itself is obvious.

            “Emphasize how little,if any benefit Obama has brought to the middle-class.”

            But we have to explain why. The socialist’s answer to failed socialism is more and better socialism. Because as long as any private property rights exist they have bogey men to attack. So you have to help people understand the fallacies.

            Why did he fail? It’s not because he’s an inadequate socialist. It’s because his socialist ideas are more than inadequate. They’re mendacious and dangerous.

            This president failed because he followed the socialist agenda, not because he was unable to work out just how to reach any ideal socialist solutions.

            You have to understand origins of these ideas. The ideas come from alleged logic of the state being more efficient and more “democratic” is it increases it’s sovereignty over human behavior and capital. If you don’t clearly debunk those ideas, people will always assume (if they accept the ideas of socialism) that at some point someone smart enough will come along to “do it correctly.”

            Centralization CAN lead to greater efficiency, but it’s not a cardinal rule. It just depends. Democratizing capital is more democratic if you don’t mind destroying productivity and living in “radical equality” squalor.

            What else? Oh yeah…historical injustices that funneled money to the elites who then make wage slaves out of us, forever condemning us. Wait…the existence of the middle class has already completely destroyed this fallacy of the “wage slave” and on top of that we already have a welfare state. How can anyone imagine that hardworking people can’t get ahead in the West?

            You can debate these things in greater detail but I guarantee you that socialism always fails in larger nations like ours. It may not be as obvious in smaller European nations, but eventually those will fail too because the schemes to prop them up as model socialist nations will eventually fail.

            Socialism might work in places like Saudi Arabia or other oil rich sovereigns that don’t actually have cultures that encourage competitiveness, self-improvement and so forth. As long as they are clear-eyed about the choices. But when has that ever happened in socialism? Never. So socializing oil and mineral wealth might in theory be OK for some sovereigns. It depends on how it’s done. But socializing capital in a nation such as ours is pure insanity. And this idea of assigning “rights” to people to collect “entitlements” is nothing short of establishing sovereign control over capital.

            If you want a safety net, fine. Don’t tell people that they have rights to collect unless they’ve paid in, and Ponzi schemes don’t count.

          • lyndaaquarius

            the Left has made a great success of mocking “Family values”.It’s now always used with derision. Let’s do the same to “social justice”. They must be ridiculed.

  • Damaris Tighe

    What you describe has happened in Britain. I’d like to quote from a book about the changing East End of London, written by a sociologist:

    “The local extended family was replaced by the welfare-state friendly nuclear family … & then by the progressive unravelling of household structures into a complex skein of single-person households, consensual unions, gay partnerships, step-families & a thousand & one other varieties … Living patterns, like consumer durables, could be acquired & traded at will.”

    The nuclear family was more welfare-state friendly because it was detached from the support given by the extended family – the state stepped in where the extended family had once been. Then, when the nuclear family breaks up the nanny state has a field day. It’s now dealing with isolated individuals with social workers providing the bridge between the individual & the state.

    Totalitarian regimes such as the USSR rightly saw the family as a buffer between the state & the individual. That’s why they tried to destroy family life.

    • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

      Break down and destroy every connection between people and you have the perfect totalitarian state.

      • lyndaaquarius

        totally evil to destroy human connections and trust.But, that’s always where the Left leads. Run of the mill democrats heading down that bitter road and they don’t even know it.

      • Zundfolge

        If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

    • Hammerstrike

      Funny that the “liberal” trotsky wanted to abolish the family entirely, have children raised by the state but unlike some other countries, this failed to gather the necessary support.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    You have thoroughly depressed me, Daniel, with the depressing truth. Perhaps America could be saved by a latter day Frank Capra who makes a new film titled “Family” which shows plain folks the glory of having a family and finds all the young running to churches or city halls to get hitched. But that is dream stuff. You’ve got an old atheist thinking about how religion with all its other negatives imposed morals and created families which was all to the good.

    • liz

      “All to the good”? The imposing of morals fosters a lack of independent thinking and behavior. It causes regression into a state of arrested intellectual development in which an individual feels no need to reason out the consequences of their actions, since this has already been done for them by their religious nannies.
      The socialist Nanny state is simply the secular replacement for the religious nanny state.

      • TL2014

        Most people can’t “reason”, Liz, and therefore need the external constraints imposed by an outside communal value system. Please realize that humanity is structured into a Bell curve.

      • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

        What a sad, pinched view of faith. The “religious nanny state” to which you refer was the foundation of civilization itself. Faith challenges individuals to take responsibility for themselves, to learn and create. And to love.

        This athiest liberatarian babble leads inevitably down the path to daydreams and accusations, nothing more. Arrested development lies in your bailiwick.

        • liz

          It lies in the “bailiwick” of any totalitarian state.
          In countries that have broken the former power of religion with the separation of church and state, most Christans have availed themselves of the freedom of thought that this made possible, and have managed to shed religion’s mental straightjacket to a large degree.
          If you want to credit your faith with “challenging” you to learn, etc, you’re free to do that.
          Many Christians, however, still use their faith as an excuse to ignore any historic or scientific fact that challenges what they’ve already made up their minds to believe is true based on religious dogma.

        • Hammerstrike

          Collapsed western civilization and stagnated the eastern one until the Ottomans took it down in 1453, actually.

          Right now, the old religion isn´t stopping the spread of the new one any more than libertarian atheism does, now does it? Except in the middle-east. You need faith to even begin to take responsability for your own actions, learn and create? Then you are simply weak.

    • Hammerstrike

      Family values where intact in 1913 and 1933 but that didn’t stop progressivism, now did it?

      It hasn´t changed, progressivism have been spreading since then and it spread fastest in the 1960s, when family values where stronger than today, the economic and social conditions where also more favorable.

      So no, they aren´t the solution to fighting against the system. But the fighting cetainly can be done.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    It’s not that clear. The family was quite intact in the 1930s when the welfare state took a giant leap forward. In southern Europe the family (often the extended family) is everything and they have a strong state. Spain has 25% unemployment and 50% unemployment for those under 25. This would cause a revolution in most other nations. However, a closer look shows that unemployment is only 12% for the major wage-earner in the family (and there is a black market.)

    Laws in Spain and southern Europe protect the job and wages of current employees at the expense of those looking for a job. This makes investment and hiring difficult and locks out many from the labor force. The emphasis on the family and security of the major wage earner (usually the man) makes it hard for southern Europeans to give up the welfare/regulatory state.

    Nordic countries are quite different. During the 00s their unions held wage increases to a minimum to keep unemployment down to the 3% level (in Germany for example). They generally have less emphasis on the family and more on the individual. Yet they avoid unemployment. Yes, they have large governments but Sweden, the poster child for socialism, restructured its economy in the early 90s and is now not much more socialist than the UK or USA.

    There is some truth to what you say when applied to our country, here and now. However, the general cultural change of reviving self-reliance doesn’t hinge on the family structure. It is most likely the other way around. Self-reliance leads to hard work, strong families, and resentment of government control. Deregulate the economy, encourage investment, then start to cut welfare … repeat until complete. It will take several iterations but judicious deregulation with careful welfare cuts can create a virtuous cycle. Some cognizance of the dynamic you note may be worth taking into account to enhance the effectiveness of the cycle.

    • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

      The family was intact, but the larger institutions of society weren’t. That was the first phase.

      Out of wedlock births appear to be quite high in Spain

      http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/22147/forty-per-cent-of-children-born-to-single-or-unmarried-mothers

      they’re a majority in France

      http://www.nysun.com/foreign/in-a-first-out-of-wedlock-births-are-majority/69627/

      Minorities in the US have large extended families and high rates of out of wedlock births.

      Promoting self-reliance is indeed one way of reviving the family.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Interesting read on Spain (and thanks for bring that to our attention.) It says the 40% out of wedlock number was only 11% two decades ago and back then the couple was likely unmarried but living together.

        This suggests the economic situation caused the social change. Unable to start a career, young people are living with their parents and grandparents, who in many cases are supporting and often raising the children as the mother works at a temporary (black market?) job. I’ve read that many highly educated youths are starting their career in Latin America.

        The article also mentions “sociologists are calling for the government to provide greater protection for single mothers and for their children, given that one-parent families are becoming much more of a social reality.” This might mean that the trend comes before the institutional support.

        Of course, it’s a vicious circle. Setup unmarried women with homes, and you’ll get more of the same. State support, less need for work, unemployment becomes structural, and this gets worse each generation. We’ve seen that here.

        The key is replacing a vicious cycle with a virtuous cycle. Most likely changes must occur on several fronts in increments.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Another factor to consider is the low birth rate (below replacement rate). This decreases the financial burden and with an inheritance that isn’t shared, one has more resources to support a single child. This is a different dynamic from the welfare mother who churns out the maximum number of children to get the most benefits.

        Over all, your point that unwed mothers will increase the demand for government services is still a valid one.

        • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

          Raise the estate tax and redistribute the wealth to “invest in our children” and the nanny state can run everything while discouraging wealth creation and parenthood.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I was thinking of that after I posted. Glad you brought it up.

  • AbsolutelyRight

    Leftism and feminism have now almost succeeded in destroying the family…thanks you no-good A-hole progressives

  • http://batman-news.com Kuffar

    When the SHTF (coming soon) the family will survive and thrive especially those who are prepared… The lone wolves will be eliminated. Gangs eventually eat themselves or will also be eliminated. A self correcting problem.

  • Zundfolge

    The fallacy is that a “post family America” (or any nation for that matter) can survive.

    The simple truth is that either conservatives Republicans win and win big or America will collapse into a pile of crap and a lot of these “post family” Americans will die in the conflagration that follows. Ironically, conservatives that are still in families (and armed) will likely survive.

    • TL2014

      How will we survive?

      • Zundfolge

        [insert "A Country Boy Can Survive" by Hank Williams Jr here]

    • William

      Conservatives will be the first to obey orders and march themselves into the camps.

      • nomoretraitors

        Put down the MSNBC koolaid, Will. It’s frying your brain (such as it is)

        • Zundfolge

          I suspect its too late for dear William … once you start trolling conservative news sites (hopefully he’s getting paid by Soros … be a shame if he put in all this work for free) you’re pretty much a lost cause.

      • truebearing

        So you admit there will be death camps as an inevitable result of the totalitarian Left succeeding in its evil revolution.

        • Zundfolge

          Not only does he admit it, he likely touches himself while thinking about it.

      • Softly Bob

        Your ignorance of history is truly staggering. So when you say that Conservatives will be the first to obey orders do you mean like Cliveden Bundy who certainly bowed down to government when they came for him.
        Even your knowledge of recent history is pathetic.

        • William

          If Cliven Bundy is what you call a conservative then you guys are in serious trouble.

          • Zundfolge

            Cliven Bundy is likely a kook … but once upon a time your side believed that even kooks deserved to live the way they wanted without interference … its a shame that you and your fellow travelers have abandoned Thoreau
            (“Go confidently in the direction of your dreams, Live the life you’ve always imagined.”) and replaced it with Stalin.

          • Becky

            Now you’re just being mouthy because you have no real facts for your case. Communism never does. If you live long enough, you will discover that for yourself.

      • Janet Williams

        Bill Ayers is a hero to you? Hey, I knew one of the guys that got killed doing his bidding. And here in the Hudson Valley we still remember the armored car guards to were murdered at Bill’s command.

        • Zundfolge

          Bill Ayers … who once said they’d have to exterminate 20% of the US population to bring about their utopian vision … yeah William likely agrees.

          • Janet Williams

            Didn’t he and his monster wife call for young folks to “kill your parents”?

          • Zundfolge

            I believe so.

            Isn’t it ironic that the International Left and Islam are allies? Both believe in “conversion by the sword” and both are essentially fatalistic death cults.

          • Becky

            And both are using each other to take down America believing THEY will be the one left to take world power when America is dead. Ought to be interesting.

          • Janet Williams

            I think david horowitz wrote a book about the apparent devil’s bargain between the Left and the jihadis.

          • Becky

            Yes. Good memory.

      • Zundfolge

        Wow, did that fantasy give you a chubby?

        Like most liberals you have zero idea what conservatives believe, think or are motivated by and when it comes down to it you really don’t want to know either. You want to live with your comfortable straw men so you can feel superior about yourself and justify your hate.

      • Becky

        Man you have been thoroughly Indoctrinated I see.

        • William

          I think of it more as an education..

      • calhou

        Nah…it will be people like you who try to round us up and put us in those camps…..or at least that is what many of your progressive liberal fascist friends have told me many times in the past….

    • Hammerstrike

      “Ironically, conservatives that are still in families (and armed) will likely survive.”

      Ironically, nuclear families only stay that way until drone strikes or HS snipers have their say.
      And how will soldiers rebel when they are told to pull a Tiananmen on those protesting the suspention of the constitution? Their families might become targets or simply starve.

      How did Hamas gets its suicide bombers and how did israeli authorities “convince” the Palestinians not to do that anymore?

  • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

    The nanny state became a creature of the left which saw families as an obstacle to their transformation of society.

  • TL2014

    Brilliant as always!
    So, what can the ordinary citizen do to help restore family strength in the country? How do you explain to the idiots that bray “marriage is about love” while upholding rainbow banners, that this type of stuff destroys civilization? How many people can connect the dots?

    • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

      Show them the end result of the people who lived the way they want to.

  • TL2014

    It can quit acting embarrassed to be associated with people like Sarah Palin, for a start.

    • truebearing

      Perfect.

  • Jack5678

    America and Europe are already extinct due to the deliberately engineered destruction of the family unit. Look at the demographics. Google “KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov” and watch his 1983 interview where he warns that America is the target for a highly sophisticated form of Psychological Warfare called “ideological subversion”. You infiltrate agents of influence to take over the schools and media, Hollywood, etc, to destroy the culture that built and sustains the nation. Destroy the family. Destroy the churches. Create intense conflict and hatred along natural fracture lines: black against white, men against women, gay vs straight. Transfer power from elected representitives to unelected bureaucrats and agencies. Then destroy the economy and create chaos until everything collapses. Then the people, having no idea what was done to them, scream for the final dictatorship to save them. For further confirmation, read Cleon Skousen’s 1958 book, “The Naked Communist” that also exposes this plan. Ben Carson recently recommended this book to find out what’s really been going on. There is lots of information to confirm all this. It’s no coincidence that Obama was raised by Marxists and lied his way into office with the help of the media.

    • William

      If Obama were raised by Marxists he wouldn’t be President. For one thing, Sarah Palin would have brought that up in 2008. And Hillary. In reality he was raised by bankers. His mother was a bank employee and his grandmother was a bank manager. Now he is a puppet of Wall Street.

      • Jack5678

        Marxists gave up on violent revolution decades ago. Bill Ayers is an example of infiltration. Absolutely Obama is a puppet of Wall Street. All the presidents have been puppets for decades now, both republican and democrat. The lines between marxist / big business / big finance are all blurred; they are all “power junkies” addicted in their mutual lust for money and ever more power. The people suffer as a result.

        • William

          Communism had fallen out of fashion in America by 1940, at the end of the Progressive era. There used to be millions of them. My grandfather was one of the last American Marxists.

          • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

            So what were you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            A very confused dupe or a subtle gaslighting troll. Going by his avatar I’m guessing he’s trying to gaslight us but it hasn’t been working out. Maybe the avatar is his grandfather.

          • Janet Williams

            I thought the avatar was an early photo of the stinking Bill Ayers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It is. I’m joking that he’s honoring his “grandpa” with it.

          • truebearing

            Communism never fell out of fashion with communists, and that is what Obama and all Progressives essentially are.

            Your grandfather was as big of a fool as you are.

            Bolshevism may have died down (but not out) but Gramscian Marxists have infiltrated every institution in this country, including the presidency. Obama ran for his first elected office as dual candidate for the Democratic party and the New Party. The New Party was a disguised Communist Party.

          • William

            If you think Obama is a Communist then you have no idea what Communism is. Obama is what a Communist might call a corporate Democrat, or a Conservadem. Or a corporatist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What was Marx’s definition?

          • truebearing

            You are a liar and a fool. Obama subscribes to an incremental strategy on Marxist revolution, but that doesn’t make him any less of a communist. Apparently you are a poorly read leftist and don’t know who Gramsci is.

            You have also assiduously avoided debating Obama’s membership in the New Party. Typical Commie…afraid to debate when facts are involved.

            Maybe if you got your hormones balanced you could think clearer.

          • Becky

            Now you just sound completely brain dead William. Find some REAL History books – made before 1965 – and study up. obaMAO is absolutely a Communist and HE is the one who said so when he made the statement he intended to “share the wealth” to Joe the Plumber. That line is STRICT Communist ideology. Plus his father was Communist. So were his grandparents. He has a long and studied History of being schooled in it.

          • William

            In reality, that ‘share the wealth’ comment was taken out of context. He was talking about giving Joe a tax break for small businesses. You really have no idea what Communism is.

          • Becky

            No, it wasn’t taken “out of context” William. I SAW that conversation with Joe LIVE.

          • William

            Do you remember him talking about giving tax breaks to small business? It was a staged photo-op as far as I am concerned. Anyway, you can’t say Obamacare is Communism, even though it’s a massive transfer of wealth from people into the pockets of private corporations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The ACA is modern fascism.

          • Becky

            I enjoy your explanations and those of cree. You guys seem to know very much History. Thanks.

          • Softly Bob

            Now we know where you inherited your stupidity from.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My grandfather was one of the last American Marxists.”

            You mean revolutionary Marxists.

          • Becky

            No it didn’t, William. What we are seeing in power right now are the 1960s Communists. That they use the words “Marxists” or “Socialists” doesn’t change what they really are. Both those words were MADE UP by the Communists of the 1940s and 1950s to disguise what they planned to do to America. Communists were so reviled by all intelligent people world wide that they knew they could not come into the US and say they were “Communists”. So they determined to use those two words. In the 1950s, the Russian Communists told the US they were going to “take us over without firing a shot”. And how did they propose to do that? By long-term planning and infiltration. By the late 60s they were actively becoming teachers. By the mid 70s, anyone in any public school, including universities, was being ‘Indoctrinated’ into Communism, rather than educated. Once the schools were taken over, they began their infiltration of the media and any other aspect of culture that taking over would assist in their goal of implementing Communism here. This is a world-wide goal William, and the United States was and IS the ONLY country in the world that has ever fought to prevent their goal. But now we have 3 generations that have been indoctrinated into Communism that aren’t even AWARE of what they are. And that is precisely why we are in such trouble right now. Three generations that have NO idea how evil and murderous Communism really is. Who have no idea that this happy BS of “Gay Rights”, “multi-culturalism”, and “equal pay” are really MAJOR proponents of the Communist Platform. Nor are they educated enough – and THAT was the goal of all the Communist Indoctrination – to know of these goals and see that they are being put in place right before their unknowing eyes. No one educated after the early 70s has any idea they are full fledged Communists. So they are also probably NOT aware that Communism and Fascism have killed more people than even the evil muslims have done. And worst of all, because the muslims are also Fascists in nature, the World Communists have joined forces with them to take down America. Both believe they will be the one left standing after the death of America – and in control of the world. They have not yet seen the WRATH of the seniors in this country who still remember the worst of Communism, nor the determination that we will NOT allow this to happen.

          • William

            What I am seeing now is red scare paranoia. If you think the US government has become Communist, then you have no clue what Communism is. Politically the USA has been moving rightward since the 1970s. Get with the 21st Century.

          • Becky

            OMG are you so far gone there is no hope left for you? Your response would certainly indicate so. Very doubtful if you located any real History in this time and studied it. You need to go find a ‘stupid Lib’ blog. You’d probably fit better there.

          • William

            I’ve studied American political history. Trust me, Communism is nothing like it was in America in the 1930s. I’ve also heard the stories of people who lived through that generation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            America is far richer, that’s why. The incremental approach was and is relative easy to mask especially since our academies have been more or less take over my Marxists and their dupes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No, it has not “become” communist. It has been infiltrated by communists and our laws have become tainted in come cases. They haven’t won by a long shot. Most of their biggest strides came under FDR.

          • kevinstroup

            Totalitarianism never falls out of fashion with statist. It just gets “rebranded”.

        • It Came from the Desert

          Damn, I just finished reading the piece this guy wrote under the name of Tomas Schuman (love letter to America)about and it’s quite the eye-opener

        • Hammerstrike

          Not marxists, cultural-marxists, the Frankfurt school of thoughts.

          The old marxism started to fall out of fashion after the beginning of WW1 when the workers failed to revolt against the war and the governements waging it.
          They decided that the problem was western culture and ethno-nationalism.

          I suspect the people who died at waco, all those who died because of the progressive militarization of the police forcespolice forces would disagree with the non-violent part.

      • nomoretraitors

        It was brought up, and was roundly ridiculed by all the “progressives” (aka communists)

        • objectivefactsmatter

          McCarthyism!!!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        You are so hilarious.

        You think the truly altruistic Marxist actually exists. It’s cute.

        Do you see my avatar? That little horn embellishment is in honor of folks like you.

    • lyndaaquarius

      Let’s read and promote “The Naked Communist”.

  • William

    Marriage does not equal family. One can have a family and not be married. This is just another phony ‘war-on-whatever’ cooked up by the right wing. The only ay the GOP can survive is to moderate, and be open to minorities, gays and women.

    • nomoretraitors

      Would that be like the phony “war on women” the DNC has concocted?

    • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

      The GOP won white women.

      • William

        Let’s say that’s true, that will change if Hillary runs in 2016.

        • Patriot077

          Nope. I think most women recognize she is every bit as bad as Obama.

          • William

            But she’ll still be seen as the lesser of two evils.

          • Patriot077

            depends on who she’s running against

          • Softly Bob

            So you know whose running against her do you? If you don’t you can’t make that judgement.
            She couldn’t possibly be the lesser of two evils anyway.. Hillary would ruin the country once and for all.

          • William

            No Republican candidate will be able to overcome the perception women have of the war on women. A lot of men think it’s tyrannical too.

          • PPMStudios

            Which Women are those? The ones believing the lies put out by the left no doubt.

            You do know that women in the GOP, TP, and on the Right, aren’t stupid enough to believe the left’s War on Women meme. Don’t you?

          • William

            Women who support the GOP also support the government’s war on their rights and they vote against their own interests.

          • PPMStudios

            Complete nonsense. Pretty much the response I expected from someone who has no idea what a ‘War on Women’ really looks like.

          • hyedenny

            “Men” like yourself?

          • truebearing

            No, she’ll be the evil one of two options.

        • Softly Bob

          The GOP also freed slaves while the Democrats were enforcing segregation right up until the 1960s. Oh, Martin Luther King was a Republican too.
          The GOP is more open to minorities than the Democrats have ever been, so I really don’t know why you are suggesting that they should be more open to them.

          • William

            King was a small ‘d’ democrat, not affiliated with any party.
            If GOP is open to minorities why did the Republican Tea Party leader in Mississippi kill himself? That was all about black people voting for Thaddeus Cochran. If they are open to minorities why did the only Jewish Republican in Congress lose his job to a tea bag Republican?

            In reality, Republicans have alienated every minority in America, A few like John Mccain tried to reach out to minorities and women back in the 2000s, but it accomplished nothing.

        • PPMStudios

          Keep dreaming….

  • Jack5678

    One of the attacks on the family: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA

  • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

    And just as black and white families were deconstructed by policy and politics, this dynamic explains the one-generation shift among new arrivals (albeit with a Marxist bent in the case of Mexican and South American immigrants). Family cohesion, religious adherence, and relatively low crime rates overall rapidly cede to single parenthood, government dependency, and higher substance abuse and crime rates among immigrants brought to the U.S. as children or born here to immigrant parents.

    This is why all the nonsense being spewed by the GOP about identity-based outreach and amnesty being a winning ticket for Republicans is political suicide.

  • ricpic

    What made the massive nanny state possible? A surplus. Only rich societies can afford nanny states. Yes, many are poor in rich societies but many more have enough surplus income (based on productivity) to form the tax base that makes a nanny state possible. What might end the nanny state? Economic implosion. So, the answer to the problem of the nanny state’s assault on the family could be economic catastrophe of a magnitude that wipes out surplus income. Necessity. Necessity will force once rich now poor societies to turn back to the family as the only bulwark. “Home is where when you have to go there they have to take you in.” Well, when there’s nowhere else to go…..

    • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

      That’s optimistic, but as we can see with Venezuela, even with an implosion, the system digs in. Bureaucratic collectivists become truly medieval. Everyone else lives in a feudal state.

      • UCSPanther

        You could say the exact same about the Chinese Politboro too.

        The Chinese are facing a demographics collapse, their economy is artificially inflated and they have a surplus of young men, which brings a whole mess of other problems for their society as well.

        • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

          It’s a ticking time bomb

  • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

    Recommit to the family. Make families financially viable again and trim away the post-family subsidies.

  • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

    The GOP leadership wants to be liberal. They want to win over the people punching them in the face.

  • Jennifer Roback Morse Phd

    I have been saying this since 2001, when I wrote Love and Economics. A free society can simply not survive without the family. The state steps in where the family fails. The state invades the privacy of the family through the family courts. And now we have the specter of children becoming commodities. A child is a problem to dispose of if you don’t want one, and an object to purchase if you do want one. A free society will not be able to survive more than a generation of that type of thinking.
    http://www.theruthstore.org/collections/books-by-ruth/products/love-and-economics-it-takes-a-family-to-raise-a-village

  • truebearing

    I have a strong feeling our narcissistic little friend spends plenty of time in front of mirrors…but he only sees what he wants to see.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    “Demographically a population of single adults means the death of the Republican Party. It eliminates the possibility of libertarian and fiscally conservative policies. It leads inevitably to the welfare state.

    Single people are less likely to have a support system that keeps them from becoming a public charge”

    Daniel, you’re a great writer and I respect what you post. But on this issue, you are simply cold wrong.

    As someone who has never been married nor had children but who has always opposed the welfare state, I say absolutely ‘NO’ to the quote above.

    In my view, the reason why the Republicans don’t do better in this country is because Republican politicians are cowardly and semi-socialist. They literally never oppose Obama and the Democrats on a moral basis.

    Obama has from the first day on which he took office done everything possible to destroy freedom and individual rights and their crucial corollary, strictly limited government.

    When and where did any Republican, whether holding or seeking elective office, stand up in public and identify Obama for what he is, a socialist and a nihilist who is out to destroy this country?

    Although the Democrats do great damage, America is in serious trouble not only because of them but also because of the complete absence of any kind of effective opposition from the generally intellectually cowardly and thoroughly ineffectual Republicans.

    • I_Am_Me

      Great post.

    • liz

      The reason Republicans aren’t standing up to Obama is because they have been sucked into the crony-capitalist/socialist vortex of a government Leviathan. Why spit into a hurricane?

      • Douglas Mayfield

        Yes, I agree that ‘…the crony-capitalist/socialist vortex of a government Leviathan’ exists.

        But it’s not a force of nature. It’s man made.

        And as far as opposing it openly being futilely similar to spitting into a hurricane, how are the Republicans doing now?

        Surely there can be no point in waiting for this hurricane to subside. If unopposed, the Democrats will make absolutely sure that it continues until we’re living under some form of socialist police state (witness Castro’s Cuba or Chavez’s Venezuela, both models for what the Demos have in mind).

        We and the Republicans have one choice, oppose the Democrats and have a chance. Or sit around dumbly, that is without speaking up (pun intended), and wait while the Demos complete their take over.

        We’ll see what the Republicans choose.

        • liz

          You’re right – that’s the Democrat plan exactly.
          But what I’m saying is most of the Republicans are going along with it because they’ve already succumbed to the corruption and “gone to the dark side”.
          The few that actually want to change it are faced with resistance not only from the Democrats but from their own party as well, which is paralyzing.
          And it’s corruption that has been growing and gaining momentum for a couple of centuries – basically ever since the founding. Quite a daunting prospect.

          • Douglas Mayfield

            I see what you’re saying. Many people, including a lot of Republicans, simply don’t question ideas embedded in our culture. And it is tough to change that.

    • http://sultanknish.blogspot.com Daniel Greenfield

      I’m not married myself. And I haven’t said that all single people are welfare case. But a general population of single people is more likely to support the welfare state because they like an organic support system.

      The stats back that up.

      Yes Republicans are far too liberal, but they’re also toeing a demographic line as Bush did when he pushed compassionate conservatism.

      • Douglas Mayfield

        As always, thanks for your comments.

  • http://paulweston101.blogspot.com Paul Weston

    Family breakdown, non-replaceable birth rates, welfare outstripping tax revenue and the importation of peoples who hate us (with high birth rates) dooms the West to extinction or civil war within this century.

    There is no way out of this right now, save revolution. By Any Means Possible.

    • Shazza

      Hi Paul – I thought I would ask you this as lately I find that my comments on the Telegraph/Breitbart London etc. are being deleted. I have also been banned from the Spectator. Maybe my comments are a little too close to the bone as I do seem to attract a fair amount of upticks before they disappear.
      My question is, what about Australia/New Zealand? Do you think they will fall to islam before us? It did not take all that long to enrich our much larger indigenous population and they seem to be on the same path albeit Abbott has stopped the boats but it seems he will lose the next election.
      How soon before the States falls?
      Seems to me that only China and South America seem viable long term safe zones.

  • RMThoughts

    Excellent article and point. The multi generional cultural revolution has succeeded in the fundamental transformation of America.

  • physicsnut

    interesting and depressing.
    but plenty of married people are flaming liberal idiots who are for open borders.

  • watchdogmom

    throw them all out and replace with “Constitutional Representatives”. Not until then,and only then.

  • Becky

    “gained more power from the collapse of the social structure” ??? Heck, the demonrats CAUSED that collapse just so they COULD gain more power.

  • phillies210

    Liberalism is a mental disorder! Vote out every single democRAT possible in November!

  • tickletik

    The quickest way to increase marriage is to decrease the risk and liability of marriage.

    Under the current system, a woman can commit adultery, and suffer no disadvantages when she files for divorce. She still gets the kids, the house, the car, half the business, alimony and CS. What this means is that marriage is all risk for one party and absolutely no penalties on a failure to commit for the other party. This renders the contract not just meaningless but suicidal. Which is why many men are eschewing marriage altogether. It’s simply worse than pointless.

    Currently, there are numerous cases of mothers who are drug addicts, violent, etc who still get full custody. The family courts favors women in all cases and in all circumstances. Again, this is so just another example of the no-win scenario that men find themselves in regarding marriage. A woman simply has no need whatsoever to keep up her end of the marriage, and so she doesn’t.

    To change this, we’d need to overhaul the family court system. Take away the penalties. Take away all alimony, enforce prenups (prenups are currently worthless), enforce equal custody of children, force mothers to live in the same locale as fathers such that they cannot move and receive child support without an agreement of the fathers, annul all benefits in cases of proven adultery, repeal the draconian VAWA laws, and you’ll start seeing marriage become worth something again.

    Until we do that, it’s a fools game.

  • Lastango

    Quite right about the communizing Left’s core objective of deconstructing and destroying the nuclear family. This is a good moment to revisit what Mallory Millett heard in 1969 when she attended a meeting of the Marxists who went on to found the National Organization of Women (NOW):

    “Why are we here today?” she asked.

    “To make revolution,” they answered.

    “What kind of revolution?” she replied.

    “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.

    “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.

    “By destroying the American family!” they answered.

    “How do we destroy the family?” she came back.

    “By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.

    “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

    “By taking away his power!”

    “How do we do that?”

    “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.

    “How can we destroy monogamy?”

    Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

    “By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/#.VAW9lif7mH8.twitter

    • Yourbithes

      Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…………..

      ᵂᵂᵂ.JOBS400.ᶜᴼᴹ

      ================

  • truebearing

    So do I. How anyone could have missed the horror show of past Marxist regimes is more than I can figure out. We have a lot of people these days who are so poorly educated, immoral, drug-addled, indoctrinated, lazy, and cowardly, I wonder if we could meet the challenge of another major war, or avoid a civil war.

  • hiernonymous

    Daniel, what does your wife think of this article?

    • Pete

      What does your wife think of the article?

      BTW where did you find her?

      Arizona?

      • hiernonymous

        “What does your wife think of the article?”

        She doesn’t read FPM.

        “BTW where did you find her?

        Arizona?”

        Why do you ask?

        • Pete

          You asked DG what his wife thinks about the article, so I thought it only fair to bring spouses into the picture to ask you what yours thought.

          Arizona? It is a likely place for you to have met her. although I would say another state is more likely. Since you have told people your career, why not Arizona? (Besides was not Arizona in the news for a Federal Government #FAIL?)

          That is unless your persona management software had a massive fail. But I sincerely doubt you are using that or a fiction, but who knows.

          I did get 2 up votes. Seems like it was a fair question to ask after you got snippy and asked your question.

          Besides, I know better than to threaten people, especially you and it is not my style.

          I did see that incident where a congressional aide said he hoped all of certain type of people would die. He was fired. then there was that FPM troll from Massachusetts that would tear things up. He bragged about having a stolen/hacked email list. He is gone.

          But when you ask snippy questions, expect to get one back.

          • hiernonymous

            “You asked DG what his wife thinks about the article, so I thought it only fair to bring spouses into the picture to ask you what yours thought.”

            I didn’t ask why you asked what my wife thought; I asked why you asked where I met her. I asked Daniel what his wife thought because it’s pertinent to the underlying point of his article, but if you missed that and thought it a personal dig, I understand that.

            “Arizona? It is a likely place for you to have met her. although I would say another state is more likely. Since you have told people your career, why not Arizona?”

            Why ask at all? What’s the chain of logic here?

          • Pete

            “I asked Daniel what his wife thought because it’s pertinent to the underlying point of his article, but if you missed that”
            - hiernonymous

            I must have missed it, Great One. Maybe you should start your own Ashram.

            I do not see where Daniel was arguing from personal experience in this article. But you went there and asked about his wife, so turnabout is fair play.

            I don’t know if he even has a wife. I have not asked. I have not run across mention of it in his blog posts or comments and I have not gone through old posts to find out. I also figure given the nature of the world it is best not to ask (& I have no reason to ask).

            *** You have mentioned your wife in recent posts to make a point. It was hysterical. You put that guy in his place and deservedly so.

            There is a chain of logic. You are a persistent gadfly, pain in the @rse & a dangerous debater (than others). So I want to know what makes you tick (how you think and why). Given the various things you post about, it is very pertinent.

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t know if he even has a wife. I have not asked. I have not run across mention of it in his blog posts or comments…”

            Yes, that’s the point I was making.

          • Pete

            I don’t think he has a wife. I think he just reads, types and goes to Shabbat services.

            I could be wrong. I see him as flawed. I see you, myself and everyone else as flawed also.

            From my limited viewpoint, what I see you are not exactly burning up the track either.

            I do laud you on your academic career. Retired officers should be more spread out than in working in the arms industry. I think more should be FSOs for example. (There has to be a survey somewhere.)

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t think he has a wife. I think he just reads, types and goes to Shabbat services.”

            That’s my impression as well, which is why I found his choice of topic a bit puzzling. He’s concerned that we’ll end up a nation of Greenfields? Of course, I’m speculating, and the cure for speculation is information, so rather than offer that comment immediately, I posed a question that would render my comment moot, if appropriate.

            “I see you, myself and everyone else as flawed also.”

            Sure, I don’t think I’ve every claimed otherwise.

            “From my limited viewpoint, what I see you are not exactly burning up the track either.”

            I might agree, if I were sure I understood what that meant. I’m confident that I’ve been successful in my endeavors, both in and out of the military, but if you’re suggesting that I’ve been imperfectly ambitious, I suppose that might be so.

            I actually discussed FSO with my wife when we were considering the post-retirement world – we both enjoyed our tour at an embassy – but in the end, I’d had enough of working for the government and wanted to try another avenue.

          • Pete

            “but in the end, I’d had enough of working for the government and wanted to try another avenue.”

            Fair enough

  • James_IIa

    Prof, are you familiar with James Taranto? He writes a column at the WSJ, in which he has mentioned from time to time something he calls the Roe Effect (I believe). The idea is that women of the left are more likely than others to practice abortion and therefore they put downward pressure on the percentage of the population on the left. If we have a population divided along these lines the portion having more children grows both absolutely and as a relative share of the general population. If its birth rate is above 2.1, then in time the size of the general population will begin to grow as well. The mathematics become a little complicated because, as they mature, some children might change their views, but on the whole the Roe effect seems to be real.

    Recently, some social scientists have been writing about the phenomenon, but naturally they don’t credit Taranto.

  • Hammerstrike

    Nuclear family, if the man dies struggling against state (likely not very well since it is only a part time job) then you have children and a single mother, situation gets worst for them if the man is the sole provider before that, no more problems as far as the state is concerned.

    The founding fathers and revolutionary fighters personally went against the institution of the family because not only did waging the war againt the monarchy take priority over being providers, taking up arms meant that their families were more likely to be mutilated and killed by the redcoats or by their sympathisers.

    I know what the something else is, look at the example of Iraq.

    Having fought each others for centuries and facing much instability, what they have are clans.
    If the man dies fighting Shias, ISIL or US Soldiers, the clan takes cares of the wive(s) and children, fight is going to continue.
    Also, in an unstable station, what is best? A wife? Or a tight-knit Group of comrades?

  • Hammerstrike

    The Borgs, that is all.

  • David Dodge

    The new family is the new state.