Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenfield: Americans Alone
Sultan Knish blog ^ | Tuesday, September 16, 2014 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 09/16/2014 1:06:22 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Americans Alone

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

For 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.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: greenfield; sultanknish
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List notification of new articles.

FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Sultan Knish ping list. I highly recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.

We are uniquely privileged to be able to enjoy DG from our perch at FR.
Lou

1 posted on 09/16/2014 1:06:22 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa; AdvisorB; wizardoz; free-in-nyc; Vendome; Georgia Girl 2; blaveda; ...

Family is to key to civilization. The failure to commit to family is the failure to accept responsibility for oneself and one's community. Tough love teaches the vital importance of insisting upon marriage and parenthood. There is no honor in remaining single and isolated for a lifetime.

2 posted on 09/16/2014 1:11:29 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
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.

I've often that, if each woman hires another woman to care for her children, nobody really gains except the tax collector.

3 posted on 09/16/2014 1:31:56 PM PDT by Tax-chick (No power in the 'verse can stop me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

Bump.


4 posted on 09/16/2014 1:37:25 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte (Psalm 14:1 ~ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
A nation of single people will inevitably become a welfare state and a police state.

From Rudyard Kipling, a century ago:

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

5 posted on 09/16/2014 1:56:22 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

“There is no honor in remaining single and isolated for a lifetime.”

Not everyone is the marrying kind, so I wouldn’t generalize on that one.


6 posted on 09/16/2014 1:57:26 PM PDT by ScottinVA (If it doesn't include border security, it isn't "reform." It's called "amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

There is no marrying kind.


7 posted on 09/16/2014 2:07:29 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

There is no marrying kind.


8 posted on 09/16/2014 2:09:50 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
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.

 

Well, it seems obvious which option the GOP chose.

9 posted on 09/16/2014 2:17:44 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

+1


10 posted on 09/16/2014 3:06:14 PM PDT by Bigg Red (31 May 2014: Obamugabe officially declares the USA a vanquished subject of the Global Caliphate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

“There is no marrying kind”

Everyone is different. Some are not cut out for long-term relationships.


11 posted on 09/16/2014 4:45:30 PM PDT by ScottinVA (If it doesn't include border security, it isn't "reform." It's called "amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
There is a correlation between the assent of the government and the reduction in the size of families.

Maybe it is a causation. Why would people want to bring children into this world as it careens toward chaos?

12 posted on 09/16/2014 5:08:55 PM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Cut them in. Everyone is made for long term relationships.


13 posted on 09/16/2014 7:48:53 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
The chief thing a family does t the State doesn't is create a system that helps ‘ deserving’ family members more.

Standards are set - love is given - but there's a point where the ‘brother-in-law who won't look for work - or the out of control adult daughter - are told to straighten up or leave. Families socialize each other, forgive each other, don't forgive, try again, and HAVE STANDARDS.

Liberal elites hate it, but it works. We need to mimic a healthy family.,

Liberals don't want to think of the ‘deserving poor - or the 'undeserving poor’... but that separation's a bedrock of a healthy civilization. Liberals have created a system of ‘it's all good’ or ‘you're in jail’... There has to be gradations.

Helping a widow who has followed the rules her whole life - has to be treated differently than assistance given to drug addicted gang bangers. Different offices - different staff - different help. If Republicans set that up - with all positive incentives - it would assist keeping families together. It also allows the innocent single person to maintain their conservative position in the world....

14 posted on 09/16/2014 7:59:14 PM PDT by GOPJ ("If America was a house, the Left would root for the termites." - Greg Gutfeld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

Actually.. No. I’ve known many decent people in my life who, for varied reasons, choose to be single. They’re just as giving of themselves as anyone. Painting all long-term single people with a broad brushstroke is wrong.


15 posted on 09/17/2014 3:42:03 AM PDT by ScottinVA (If it doesn't include border security, it isn't "reform." It's called "amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

Liberals want it both ways and that won’t fly.

They want to tear down the family and the system of ethics, which goes along with it and includes a respect for and perpetuation of the WORK ETHIC.

How can Liberals consider replacing the family with the state if the family is no longer there to assure that individuals comprehend and accept the concept of work and personal responsibility?

At some point, there will no longer be anyone who gives a squat about working and paying taxes.

Liberals have a schizophrenic plan here.


16 posted on 09/17/2014 3:54:38 AM PDT by SMARTY ("When you blame others, you give up your power to change." Robert Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

I do not agree, anecdotal experience notwithstanding. Marriage is a contract with the community and the culture. It is much more than a relationship between a man and aa woman.


17 posted on 09/17/2014 5:50:31 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
It is much more than a relationship between a man and aa woman.

But it starts with a relationship between a man and a woman, no matter what the overall implications. And I disagree with your contention that those who are long-term single are so because of selfishness. Every situation is different.

18 posted on 09/17/2014 6:30:44 AM PDT by ScottinVA (If it doesn't include border security, it isn't "reform." It's called "amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

I never used the word selfishness nor have I insinuated it. My position is simple and clear. Man is meant for woman and woman for man. They are inextricably linked. The nature of relationships is virtually infinite but the foundation for relationships is born in the nature of humanity. There is no natural state of permanent onogamy. There is not even an adequate word for such a condition.


19 posted on 09/17/2014 9:41:14 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

By what authority are you impugning those who won’t commit to family as failing to accept responsibility for oneself and one’s community? I find it rather high-handed you imply that a single person is somehow not a full member of a functioning society.


20 posted on 09/17/2014 9:58:21 AM PDT by ScottinVA (If it doesn't include border security, it isn't "reform." It's called "amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson