Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Steelfish

I generally agree with his summation, especially with regard to the fact that it appears more and more people perceive themselves as vulnerable in the modern world. Give the opportunity, those people are going to vote for someone who at least promises to reduce their vulnerability.

Conservatives can recognize that fact and try to develop ideas for addressing their concerns. Or we can continue to focus on the “leave-me-alone” coalition as it (probably) continues to shrink in size and influence.

For instance, 40 years ago single women, especially with children, were a small part of the electorate. This year, they probably elected a president. Is a single woman with children vulnerable, especially at the lower end of the economic scale? You bet she is, and she will vote for those she thinks will help her.

Addressing these people’s legitimate concerns, BTW, does not necessarily mean increasing the size and power of government.


5 posted on 11/16/2012 11:19:36 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

You make a very compelling point. Unlike blacks and Hispanics, the single female demographic will be deciding the election of future presidents. Like it or not, this is the hard reality.


7 posted on 11/16/2012 11:23:13 AM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
For instance, 40 years ago single women, especially with children, were a small part of the electorate. This year, they probably elected a president. Is a single woman with children vulnerable, especially at the lower end of the economic scale? You bet she is, and she will vote for those she thinks will help her.

Addressing these people’s legitimate concerns, BTW, does not necessarily mean increasing the size and power of government.

But why are there more single women raising children now than 50 years ago? This is mostly due to the social engineering of the liberals, especially by rewarding fatherless families. They create the problem, then "solve" it in ways that keep them in power.

And really, an interesting question for society (and Republicans) is why, when we are wealthier than we have ever been in terms of technology, and the possibilities it creates, are we falling into such poverty and insecurity?

13 posted on 11/16/2012 12:48:54 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
For instance, 40 years ago single women, especially with children, were a small part of the electorate. This year, they probably elected a president. Is a single woman with children vulnerable, especially at the lower end of the economic scale? You bet she is, and she will vote for those she thinks will help her.

Addressing these people’s legitimate concerns, BTW, does not necessarily mean increasing the size and power of government.

Yes in fact, it necessarily DOES.

The reason there is single mothers with children is directly due to liberalism - The advent of no-fault divorce and the acceptance of bastard children as an inevitability and thereby reasonable to allow for in society... These things, the very backbone of the liberal feminist movement, are the primary cause of the overweening welfare system... and the secondary cause is the progeny of said broken homes.

Shame on all of us who allow such things, which were not even considered just one generation ago. My father grew up in a generation where broken homes were a minute exception. Now it is getting to where there are more broken than not. Believe me. Our system only works for a good and moral people.

One cannot have both - there is not a single instance of a government powerful enough to 'help' and yet keep itself small, affordable, and merely with adequate power... A government big enough to 'care' is big enough to take away your liberty. AND IT WILL. It is the nature of the beast.

Liberty requires responsibility - every time the government relieves you of a responsibility, they are also removing your liberty in that same aspect. The two are tied inextricably together. Lose one, and you lose the other... until the government grows sufficiently, and then you lose all.

There was a time when Conservatives knew inherently that one who says, "I am from the government and I am here to help," was lying through his teeth.

Government is the problem... ALWAYS. It is not the solution.

14 posted on 11/16/2012 1:16:06 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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