Arguing About Social Concerns

In a nation as polarized as the United States of America it is difficult to discuss social concerns in a rational way. This undermines democracy, and causes us to forget that as a nation of diverse peoples, we hold many essential things in common.

This article is not for ideologues and political fanatics. It is for people who genuinely want to discuss social concerns to become better informed. If you are driven to promote your political party, favorite candidate, single issue, or ideology, stop reading now.

To those who think ethically about social engagements, read on!

During the recent election, I sat with my family to watch the returns and projections on Fox News, CNN, and Bloomburg. My family members were fairly evenly divided. Some voted for Trump and some voted for Biden. That night we had an beneficial conversation about politics and our hopes for the future of the nation. The first rule of our family conversation is to respect disagreement. The second rule is to ask questions in a non-confrontational manner. Why do you believe that? What do you think is at stake for you? Questions like these help us to gain a better understanding of the concerns of the other person.

These days, social conversations are like cutting through thick brush to reach a sunlit clearing with open sky overhead. We have to navigate through gaslighting, misinformation, and heated rhetoric. We face shifting lines as news sources that have been considered reliable in the past are increasingly politicized. In other words, getting at the facts is hard work. Read and consider all sources with equal skepticism. Don't rely on official fact-checking. Check the facts for yourself.

Poorly informed people who cannot address the substance of an argument often resort to in-explicit language and obscurantism. If you are unable to understand what someone is saying, this may be the reason. Asking the person non-confrontational questions can help them to consider the topic on a deeper level.

In politics, obsurantism or the refusal to address issues of concern to the general public may be due to a hidden agenda. In this case, attempts to draw out pertinent information by asking questions usually does not work. A better approach is to research the political figure's past voting record.

In social media, the humble poorly informed tend to remain silent, and the arrogant tend to resort to ad hominem. Discern the difference. Engage the humble and ignore the arrogant. Respect traditional wisdom and community knowledge, but remember that the unconventional thinker may offer something of value. 

Social media platforms are mainly used to interact with family and friends. Many do not regard social media as a serious venue for social conversation, but it can be. This medium has great potential for sharing informed positions in a non-confrontational way. Consider social media a tool that should be used ethically.

Always consider your motivation when engaging others on social issues. Self-awareness is important for measuring your sensitivity to how issues are presented and discussed. Avoid presenting opinions as fact, and be respectful of all opinions. However, do not hesitate to present facts with reliable links. Social engagement should be viewed as an opportunity to learn and to share learning.

Related reading: Thoughts on Democracy; On Trusting the Elites; What Makes a Good Society?; Questioning Aristotle on Democracy; Justin Brierly on "Why it's important to engage in conversation with those of opposing views"

The Small Guy Can Play that Game too!

Political agendas advance through propaganda, social media, lobbyists, and political infiltration. Bots and trolls work to infiltrate social media platforms and influence public opinion and elections.

Political infiltration is sometimes called entryism. The strategy involves encouraging members or supporters of an organization or a state to join a larger organisation in an attempt to influence ideas and/or subvert the programs and objectives of the larger group.

The threat of political infiltration is not a new one. The Founding Fathers feared foreign interference and took steps to prevent it, as former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter noted in a 2017 speech.

"The founders took steps to guard against such [interference] by including in our Constitution guardrails like the requirement that the president be a 'natural born citizen."

Another measure to protect the new nation from foreign influence was the Emoluments Clause, prohibiting any government official from accepting a title or a gift from a foreign government.

Likewise, journalists who accept money from the large media corporations are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. They will promote the acceptable narrative.

A Marxist view of the struggle between political parties and between the elites and the common man would have us focus on who controls the means of production. These are impersonal entities that influence policies through their seemingly inexhaustible purchasing power. They own the mainstream media outlets. They own the lobbies, and they influence through political infiltration and gaslighting.

In some ways the availability of social media balances the influence of powerful corporations. A discerning and articulate individual can offset the manipulation by naming it. This must be done without violating community standards of discourse. It requires self-promotion with humility.

The secret to having a positive effect as a public critic using social media is to be honest, to back up your claims with substantial sources, and to produce a large body of work. This must be done as an independent writer, and without accepting money from anyone. That is the only way to cut the puppet strings.

Every person exercises influence on someone; a friend, a room mate, or a younger sibling. You may chose how you will you influence those around you. With internet access, a critical thinker can expose a great deal of corruption and manipulation. If you speak the truth grounded in reality, you will gain a following. The small guy can play the influence game too.


Related reading: Public Debate and Search Engine Politics; Do You Know What Your Algorithms Are Up To?; The Facebook Algorithm Explained; Social Media Bots and Political Propaganda;
The Media Stokes Anger and Radicalization; Trapped in a Web of Punditry

Social Media Bots and Political Propaganda

Wars are launched, waged, and often won by the use of political propaganda. The same can be said for political campaigns. Today the propaganda spreads through social media.

Social media platforms circulate political ideas and hope to sway public opinion through manipulative disinformation campaigns. Some of these campaigns are carried out by individuals and their campaigners, but most are waged by software bots, programmed to perform simple, repetitive, robotic tasks. Individuals can coordinate campaigns made up of bots, fake accounts, and often present themselves as a group of people, to give the illusion of large-scale consensus. The social media platforms usually catch up with these people and neutralize their efforts.

Some social media bots collect and distribute legitimate information. Less benign bots communicate with and harass people, manipulate trending algorithms, and inundate systems with spam. Political regimes use bots to silence opponents and to push the regime's message. These attempt to sway the vote during elections, and to defame political opponents, critics, human rights defenders, and journalists.

A person to follow for information on social media as propaganda is Samantha Bradshaw, a researcher at the Computational Propaganda Project and a doctoral candidate at the Oxford Internet Institute. She’s been tracking the phenomenon of political manipulation through disinformation on social media.

Samantha’s work examines government use of social media for coordinated digital disinformation campaigns. Her research has been featured by numerous media outlets, including the Washington Post, Bloomberg, and the Financial Times. She holds an MA in global governance from the Balsillie School of International Affairs, and a joint honors BA in political science and legal studies from the University of Waterloo. You can find Samantha on Twitter at @sbradshaww.

A timely book on this topic is Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media (Editors: Philip N. Howard and Samuel C. Woolley, Nov. 2018).

The book gives details on how automation and platform manipulation amount to a new political communications mechanism. Howard and Woolley call it “computational propaganda.”

Computational propaganda differs from older styles of propaganda in that it uses algorithms, automation, and human curation to purposefully distribute disinformation over social media networks. At the same time, it learns from and mimics real people so as to manipulate public opinion across a diverse range of platforms and device networks.

Related reading: The Media Stokes Anger and Radicalization; Trapped in a Web of Punditry; Political Debate and Search Engine Politics

Trapped in a Web of Punditry

Alice C. Linsley

The citizens of the United States of America are facing what promises to be another contentious presidential election in 2020. We can expect heated rhetoric and further polarization. The election campaigns will be flashy and pander to fears on all sides. Opponents will be presented in the most unflattering way, with suggestions and accusations of deceit, corruption, and bigotry. The discourse will reach a moral and intellectual low, and the usual gaslighting will occur.

The term "gaslighting" is taken from the movie, Gaslight, in which Charles Boyer manipulates and confuses the mind of Ingrid Bergman. This type of manipulation is found inside both political parties and doubtless it will occur more frequently in the months ahead.

Gaslighting aims at causing confusion in the minds of the public. Confusion makes it difficult for people to make informed decisions. The gaslighter seeks to impose his narrative to prevent people from perceiving the reality. Dr. Bryant Welch writes about this in his book The State of Confusion (2008). He argues that various forms of political manipulation undermine the nation's ability to confront real problems.

Thinking people will be able to cut through the confusion, but few will be able to communicate the reality to others in a clear and concise way. In part, this is because we fall into the traps. We use the language of political slogans instead of simple English. We are caught in a web of punditry.

Punditry involves opinions more than data and resembles entertainment more than reporting. It dominates the mass media, and the examples are often ludicrous. As Dorothy Sayers pointed out in her famous speech "The Lost Tools of Learning" (1949) modernity has produced a climate favorable to bishops airing "their opinions about economics; biologists, about metaphysics; inorganic chemists, about theology; the most irrelevant people are appointed to highly technical ministries; and plain, blunt men write to the papers to say that Epstein and Picasso do not know how to draw."

To further complicate matters, there is a deficit of articulate communicators who hold telling the truth as their first priority. I am reminded of the sage advice Wendell Barry gave to my writing students. He wrote:

The first obligation of a writer is to tell the truth--or to come as near to telling it as is humanly possible. To do that, it is necessary to learn to write well. And to learn to write well, it is necessary to learn to read well. Reading will make you a better writer, provided you will read ever more attentively and critically. You will probably read a lot of contemporary writing in your textbooks, in magazines and newspapers, in popular novels, etc. The contemporary is inescapable. You may more easily escape the writing that is most necessary to you. I mean the books we know as "classics," books that have been read for generations or for centuries and so have proved their excellence.

The first obligation of a communicator should be to tell the truth, and in order to do that, the communicator must read, think, analyze, pay attention to details, and make distinctions. Unfortunately, less than truthful narratives dominate the public domain, and obfuscation has become an art in the political arena.

If there is an antidote to the poison, it must involve turning off the pundits, reading to learn, telling the truth, and taking responsibility for oneself.


Related reading: Wendell Barry: Telling the Truth; The Media Stokes Anger and Radicalization;
Public Debate and Search Engine Politics; Binary is a Bad Word These Days; G.K. Chesterton Explains U.S. Political Insanity

Public Debate and Search Engine Politics

As G.K. Chesterton noted in his book Heretics, the more people debate in a public forum the more firmly entrenched beliefs become. He wrote, "Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape." (Read the full quotation here.)

Algorithms add to the dynamic shaping of political bias in society. Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter stated that within the Twitter organization, “We have folks that are at various points in the political spectrum and they don’t feel comfortable today bringing up certain issues or their viewpoints on certain issues. And I don’t believe that is acceptable.”

Despite his efforts to create an inclusive environment at Twitter’s headquarters, Twitter’s behavior on the internet appears to favor Democrats and liberals. Dorsey admitted that there is a “left-leaning bias” among Twitter employees, but he maintains that this liberal bias does not translate to the algorithm Twitter uses to return search queries.

A recent Harvard University study showed that Google’s search results do have a bias towards Democrats. (Read more here.)

There are growing concerns about the fairness of computer programs in shaping public opinion and political bias. A 2018 survey of the Pew Research Center found that age and ethnicity were factors in how people view the fairness of social media.

The survey also found that people believe that "humans are complex, and these systems are incapable of capturing nuance. This is a relatively consistent theme, mentioned across several of these concepts as something about which people worry when they consider these scenarios. This concern is especially prominent among those who find the use of criminal risk scores unacceptable. Roughly half of these respondents mention concerns related to the fact that all individuals are different, or that a system such as this leaves no room for personal growth or development."

Automated decision making uses automated reasoning to aid or replace human decision-making, and this has been discussed at conferences and policy meetings around the globe. These conversations have revealed that there are "no ethical or legal frameworks comprehensively describing personal responsibility for the tools’ application, safety of their implementation or the rights and obligations of the states and citizens in this regard."

This report states that "none of the researched countries established a coordinating body responsible for monitoring automated decision making implementation, including the creation of tools and their performance."

The report is followed by Policy Recommendations that governments should implement.

Related reading: Do You Know What Your Algorithms Are Up To?; The Facebook Algorithm Explained; Algorithm Exposes Readers to Opposite Viewpoints

Chesterton Explains US Political Insanity

G.K. Chesterton wrote:

"Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.” (Heretics)

Ethics and Partisan Politics

Recently, accusations of racism, pandering to fears, and questions about ethics have taken center stage in American politics. The polarization of Americans seems more pronounced than usual. What roll does ethics play in this drama?

"In a Pew Research Center survey conducted last summer, 91% of Americans said it is essential for someone in high political office to be honest and ethical – the top attribute out of nine asked about in the survey. There were no partisan differences in this assessment: Nearly identical shares of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (90%) and Republicans and Republican leaners (91%) said this."

The survey showed disagreement on Trump and his administration, as there has been for other elected officials. Similar disagreement surrounded the Clinton administration.

The Pew survey found that "People generally view presidents from their own party as trustworthy – and presidents from the other party as not trustworthy."

Read the January 2019 report here. 

Big Mouth Candidates and Free Speech

Having the freedom to express one's views in public does not mean that we should always do so, and certainly not in a manner that incites people to act in ways that may cause injury to others. Such behavior, regardless of who is doing it, should disqualify a person from holding the highest office in the land.

“Intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.”--Alexander Solzhenitsyn


“Cruz, Rubio and Kasich criticize Trump for creating ‘environment’ for Chicago protest,” by David Weigel, Washington Post, March 11, 2016:

…Rubio, who is camped out in his home state in advance of the March 15 primary, told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that Trump was finding out that his “words have real consequences.” But roughly half of Rubio’s analysis was a criticism of the political left. After stating his appreciation for Chicago’s police, Rubio said that the protests needed to be put in contest.

“This is Chicago, protesters are an industry,” he said. “It is clear, just from watching some of these images, that this was an organized effort, an orchestrated effort, from groups that wanted to disrupt this event, and Chicago is a hub for that sort of activity. I would also say that people have a right, whether you disagree with someone or what he’s about to say – and I certainly disagree with Donald Trump on many things, it’s why I’m running against him for president – you don’t have a right to take away the First Amendment right of people to speak freely. I think you’ve seen some of this on college campuses recently. There was an article, not long ago I think, that [conservative commentator] Ben Shapiro tried to speak on a campus, and they basically shut him down. So I think this is crossing over into the broader society, and it’s problematic.”

About our free speech event in Garland, Texas last May, which was intended to be a stand for free speech against violent intimidation, Donald Trump said:

“I watched Pam earlier, and it really looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing drawing Muhammad? I mean it’s disgusting. Isn’t there something else they could be doing? Drawing Muhammad?…They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas doing something on Muhammad and insulting everybody? What is she doing? Why is she doing it? It’s probably very risky for her — I don’t know, maybe she likes risk? But what the hell is she doing?”

And now, after Leftist fascist thugs forcibly shut down one of Trump's events in Chicago, Trump’s Republican opponents, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, are effectively saying, Well, he had it coming, he brought it on himself, just as Trump did of Pamela Geller after Garland.

Is there no candidate who understands the importance of the freedom of speech? Rubio comes closest to articulating it below, but then shows he doesn’t understand it himself. He says: “Whether you disagree with someone or what he’s about to say…you don’t have a right to take away the First Amendment right of people to speak freely.” But then he says, “I think he bears some responsibility for the general tone.”

So the thugs shut down the Trump rally, and it is at least partially Trump’s fault, because he told people (obviously facetiously) to beat up people who were trying to disrupt his events.

Read it all here.


Related reading: Why Many People are Resorting to Anger in Debates

 

Ron Radosh on IRS Scandal

"One must remember that many liberals and leftists see their actions as non-partisan. After all, they are only serving the public interest by stopping conservatives from organizing and expressing their views."--Ron Radosh


The story of the IRS’s policy of targeting right-leaning groups, which played out over several years in Cincinnati, Washington, and dozens of other cities and towns, was one of a bureaucracy caught in a morass of uncertainty and outside pressure. The actions also confirmed the suspicions of many conservatives after they had complained for years of harassment by the tax agency.

According to the inspector general’s report, as IRS officials in Cincinnati tried to decide what to do about the groups — political advocacy organizations seeking what is known as 501 (c)(4) status — they sent out intrusive questionnaires seeking donor lists, copies of meeting minutes and reams of other documents. Applications sat around for months, sometimes years; some organizations ended up folding while awaiting answers that never came.

Read it all here.

You too may experience IRS harassment

The Internal Revenue Service's watchdog told top Treasury officials around June 2012 he was investigating allegations the tax agency had targeted conservative groups, for the first time indicating that Obama administration officials were aware of the explosive matter in the midst of the president's re-election campaign.

The disclosure to the Treasury general counsel and the deputy secretary was a cursory one, according to J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. He said he didn't reveal conclusions of the probe, which was in its early stages, and his disclosure came as part of a routine update to Treasury leaders. At the time, Republican lawmakers were complaining publicly about alleged IRS targeting of tea-party groups.

Read it all here.

Lots of people seem indifferent to this scandal. I find that a cause of anxiety.  Perhaps we need to hear these wise words from Eli Wiesel:

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”

“Whoever survives a test, whatever it may be, must tell the story. That is his duty.” 

Libya Attacks Reveal Failure of Administration

Three State Department officials on Wednesday provided a riveting, emotional account of last year’s fatal attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya as they accused senior government officials of withholding embarrassing facts and failing to take enough responsibility for security lapses.

The testimony provided new details on the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults on U.S. installations in Benghazi and their aftermath. But the new information failed to break the political logjam the attacks spawned, with Republicans and Democrats offering starkly different interpretations of what happened and who within the U.S. government is to blame.

Read it all here.

Americans lives were lost and the Republicans and Democratic shamelessly argue about who is to blame. Remember when President Obama said that the ultimate responsibility for government mistakes rests with him?

Prop 8 and Wishful Thinking

Rick Moran

Gay-marriage advocates have been laying it on thick these last few days, building what appears to be an unstoppable momentum that will contribute to the inevitable: legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

It’s only unstoppable in their imagination, and if they don’t start taking a longer view of things, they are apt to be royally disappointed. Exactly five polls have come out in the last fortnight that show a majority support for gay marriage — today. Those polls also show a strong minority — more than 40% — still opposed. Such a rapid change in public opinion on an issue that has been controversial for 20 years should be suspect. Other factors could be in play that help explain the shift.

What will those numbers be six months from now? As we’ve seen with the abortion issue and other sensitive social issues, there appears to be a portion of the U.S. population that flits back and forth between the pro and anti positions, depending on which way the political wind is blowing.

One could even argue that the toxicity of the GOP and conservatism in general may be driving some of the increased support for gay marriage. Who wants to take a position on an issue associated with the party of old, bluenose fuddy-duddies?

The bottom line: Anti-gay marriage advocates aren’t giving up and aren’t going anywhere. Those who see opposition to gay marriage as a moral calling or as a cause to save “traditional marriage” may lose a round or two in the courts, but rest assured that they are girding their loins for battle in state legislatures across the country. There are still 41 states that have not approved same-sex marriage, and for the marriage-equality crowd, it’s still going to be a long, uphill climb to achieve their goal.

Jonathan Chait has designated himself obituary writer for the anti-gay marriage movement, claiming that Maggie Gallagher, a prominent figure in the movement, has all but given up:

Now the movement is in a state of total collapse, with every day seeming to bring new converts to the gay-marriage cause and the opposition losing all of its courage. There is no more telling sign of the opposition’s surrender than the public demoralization of Maggie Gallagher, the leading anti-gay-marriage activist and writer.

The unusual thing about the campaign to ban gay marriage is that it was dying from the moment it was born. Even at its peak, at the very outset, the portents of doom were visible on the horizon — polls showed that young voters strongly supported gay marriage. The best case for Gallagher and her allies appeared to be holding on for years, or even decades, but eventually gay-marriage opponents would age out of the electorate.

If Mr. Chait’s crystal ball is that good, he should change careers and become a stock touter. Attitudes of the young can change from generation to generation. For example, more women today are pro-life than were 10 years ago. It’s true that opposition to gay marriage is highest among older Americans. But Chait, who has been touting a similar end to the GOP because of changing demographics in America, should take a closer look at his pet numbers: 66% of black Protestants say that “same-sex marriage would violate their religious beliefs.” And 69% of Catholics — a large percentage being Hispanics — also believe gay marriage would violate their religious tenets. At least 58% of black voters backed Proposition 8 in California (exit polls showed 70% support).

In short, the reported demise of the anti-gay marriage movement has been greatly exaggerated and is based more on wishful thinking than cogent analysis.

Just because a few politicians have recently stuck their fingers into the wind and had a Road to Damascus moment on gay marriage does not denote overwhelming, unstoppable momentum for universal gay-marriage rights in the U.S. This is especially true given the probability that the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 will serve only to open the door a little wider for states to decide the issue themselves. Yes, it’s a perilous game trying to predict how the Supreme Court will rule in those two cases. Recall that many of the same court watchers predicting victory for gay marriage also predicted the Roberts court would overturn the individual mandate in Obamacare. But the range of possibilities points to partial victories for gay-marriage supporters, with the justices leaving it up to states to decide the issue.


Source: PJ Media


Related reading:  Legal Equality of Marriage Redefined?; Today's Savage Mind

Single Women and President Obama

President Obama won 65 percent of the single women's vote by promising to look after them.

This past year America has seen a trumped up “War on Women” that claimed women’s freedom depends on “reproductive rights”. At the height of the Presidential election, the Obama camp courted the female vote with an exhortation to “vote like your lady parts depend on it” (in an e-card on the Obama campaign Tumbler that was quickly removed, but not before conservative media drew attention to it) and compared voting for President Obama to losing one’s virginity(an Obama for America online ad featuring HBO’s Girls producer, 26 year old Lena Dunham). Then there was the Life of Julia campaign, an ad which showed how a woman could depend on an Obama-style government to provide for her needs throughout her entire life.

“There’s no way they’ll win on that,” skeptics thought, “this election is about the economy and jobs, and women are smarter than to allow themselves to be reduced to their private parts and government aid.” The skeptics were wrong. The buzz and data post the re-election of President Obama tells us that it was the women voters whose support for the President put him back in the Oval Office.

Nationally, the President won 55 percent of the women’s vote, but that vote was boosted by a large sub-demographic: unmarried women, who accounted for nearly a quarter of everyone who voted. Governor Mitt Romney won the married women's vote by 53 percent to Obama’s 46 percent, but Obama won 64 percent of the single women’s vote, according to election day polling by the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund (WVWVAF). These women include those who are divorced, separated and never married. Many of them have a child or children.

As it turns out, the election was about economics for these women too—they just saw the economic issues differently than married women. Single women, who don’t have their husband’s income and support to fall back on, tend to favor more government support in their lives -- support like no cost birth control, a benefit wrapped into the Affordable Care Act which President Obama enacted and Governor Romney vowed to roll back due to the religious liberty threat it poses.

According to analysts, the marriage gap in female voting is not new. But the size of the single woman demographic is new. According to the US Census there are 102 million unmarried individuals in America, and unmarried women are the majority of that group with 89 unmarried men for every 100 unmarried women. Additionally, for the first time in Census history, marriage rates are below 50 percent with only48 percent of households married. The average age of marriage is at record highs at 26 for women and 28 for men.

Along with the rise of singletons, America has witnessed a rise in out of wedlock childbearing. According to the CDC, 41 percent of births occur outside of marriage. And more than half of all births to women under the age of 30 are to women who are not married. In short, the traditional American path to marriage and parenting is not so traditional anymore.

It’s important to pause here to acknowledge that a great deal of social science marshals evidence that the best environment to raise a child is in a committed,man-woman marriage. Social science has also found marriage is very often the best path to stability and prosperity—both fiscal and emotional. This path deserves social and political support, therefore, not simply because it is traditional but because it is a key to happiness and the American Dream of a better and fuller life.

The question for conservatives, in the light of their political defeat, is how seriously they take the issue of marriage and the path to it. It is time to reflect seriously on their political platform and messaging and to ask how America arrived at the point where an election could be influenced, perhaps decisively, by encouraging sex without babies, and babies without marriage -- all with government support.

Hindsight is 20/20, and perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that the message of contraception and abortion as absolutes for women’s health and freedom won out in this election. After all, for the past 40 years a majority of women have bought some version of the feminist message that equality for women will only be found when women became more like men.

Contraception has allowed women to “have sex like men” -- that is, without concerning themselves about pregnancy. They can be child-proofed bycontraception as the first “protector” and abortion as the “back-up.” When the “protection” fails because of human or method error (as it often does given that54 percent of women seeking abortion were using contraception around the time they became pregnant), abortion is often expected.

Many women, though constrained by their biological clock, still want marriage and children, but social pressures no longer predominantly demand that a man wed a woman who is bearing their child. So, when a woman decides to give life to her child, it is, as the mantra goes, “her body, her choice” -- and often largely hers to raise.

This “sexual freedom” was supposed to empower women and make them less dependent upon men. Well, women are less dependent upon men now. But it appears their dependency has shifted to the government. And can we really blame them for wanting—in some cases needing—some sort of support?

The conservative message that lost this election was not one that doesn’t care for those in need of support. No, the conservative message that lost was one that failed to adequately communicate how it wants to help all Americans get the support they and their families need to live happily and securely. This must include encouragement to have children within a stable marriage. After all, no one really wants to, or should have to go through the trials and joys of life alone.

A ray of hope here is that desire for marriage remains high among young Americans. According to a 2009 report conducted by the non-partisan research firm Child Trends, 83 percent of young adults ages 20 to 24 responded that it was important or very important to them to be married at some point in their life. More than three-fourths of those young adults answered that love, fidelity, and making a lifelong commitment are all “very important” components of a successful relationship. And in a 2010 survey, conducted by the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, 82 percent of respondents, ages 18 to 32, answered that they intended to marry and remain married for life.

Since at least the 1970s, social scientists have asked high school teens about their own prospects for marriage; anywhere from 77 to 88 percent of teens respond that they expect to marry someday. In fact, in a 2006 study by the Monitoring the Future project at the University of Michigan, 91 percent of high school students said that having a good marriage was either “important” or “extremely important” to them, with only 2 percent reporting it was “not important”.

But how do we help young Americans realise these desires and appreciate also the support gained through the partnership of marriage?

“It is not enough to promise health, wealth, and happiness—benefits the social science evidence shows that married couples on average enjoy—to young couples considering marriage,” say researchers David and Amber Lapp of the Institute for American Values. This is especially so since the government is attempting to provide many of those benefits.

But we fool ourselves if we believe that, in a country the size of America, we’re really in a partnership with the government or that government regulations are really able to be tailored to every individual’s needs. Instead, we must communicate to young Americans that marriage offers committed support, in good times and in bad, and reduced their need of government support -- which inevitably will fail them.

Marriage isn’t always easy and there won’t always be happiness, but we should help women, and men, see that it does not mean simply becoming dependent on another person (rather than the Department of Health and Human Services) but working with another person to achieve their unique needs and desires. And most importantly, that marriage offers the fierce commitment, acceptance and love that all individuals crave.


Meg McDonnell is the communications director for the Chiaroscuro Foundation and a coordinator at Women Speak for Themselves

Obama's Popularity Wanning

This from Pakistan Dawn


WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama’s popularity reached an all-time low this weekend while his Republican rival Mitt Romney maintained the lead he gained after the first presidential debate 10 days ago.

On Sunday, Real Clear Politics, which monitors and analyse opinion polls, published an analysis of seven leading polls, giving Mr Romney an average popularity rating of 47.3 per cent, compared to Mr Obama’s 45.9 per cent.

Three of these polls — Pew Research, Fox News and Washington Times/JZ — gave Mr Obama 45pc, his lowest since the election campaign began early this year.

On Sunday afternoon, Gallup Poll also reported that Mr Romney continues to hold a slight edge over Mr Obama – 49 pc to 47 pc — among likely voters. But among registered voters, Mr Obama maintains his lead, 49 pc to 46 pc.

Pew and Reuters/Ipsos poll says that Mr Romney has been slightly ahead since the Oct 3 debate but a Washington Post/ABC News poll says he is just closing the gap.

Mr Romney also leads in some key swing states, such as Florida, Colorado and North Carolina. But in other swing states, such as Ohio, Virginia and Nevada, Mr Obama still has an edge over Mr Romney.

Even the New York Times, which favours Mr Obama, concedes that Mr Romney has continued to surge since the debate. The surge “has generally been very strong for Mr Romney. But there have also been a couple of rays of hope for Democrats and President Obama,” it notes.

The NYT pointed out that although Mr Romney’s standing declined by two points in the Gallup national tracking poll, he improved slightly in four other tracking surveys, from Rasmussen Reports, Ipsos, Investors’ Business Daily and the RAND Corporation.

And the state polling data was generally consistent with about a three-and-a-half-point bounce for Mr Romney.

In polls conducted in the 48 hours after the debate, Mr Romney’s bounce was as large as five or six points.

Even Thursday’s vice presidential debate does not seem to have done much for the Obama campaign.

Two surveys released since Thursday show both candidates making strong impressions on voters, but differ on who performed better.

A CNN survey of registered voters declared Republican Paul Ryan the winner, 48 pc to 44 pc.

A CBS News poll of uncommitted voters, however, found that 50 per cent thought Vice President Jo Biden won, 31 pc believed Mr Ryan won, and 19 pc said the debate was a tie.

Gallup Poll, which includes the latest data from both presidential and vice presidential debates, notes that neither candidate seems to have “a statistically significant lead,” but Mr Romney “at this point benefits from turnout patterns,” given the five-point swing in his favour when the transition is made from registered voters to likely voters.

The polls, however, do underscore the competitive nature of the election, noting that likely voters at this point are more likely to support Mr Romney than registered voters.

Gallup Poll also found that President Obama’s slight — 49 pc to 46 pc — seven-day lead among registered voters is just about where it was in the seven days prior to the debate.

But while analysing its own statistics, Gallup notes: “Mr Romney’s impressive debate performance may not have a lasting impact as Mr Obama has retained his edge among registered voters.”

Besides, Friday’s generally positive jobs report — showing an eight pc drop in unemployment — may have helped Mr Obama’s standing.

A breakdown of interviewing over shorter periods shows that Mr Romney gained ground among registered voters in the immediate aftermath of the debate, moving from a five-point deficit to a tie.

Since Saturday, however, President Obama has regained a 50 pc to 45 pc edge among registered voters — the same as his margin in the three days prior to the debate.

Many Americans Believe Obama Has Failed

A new poll -- conducted for the online journal "The Hill" -- indicates that a majority of American voters think that the United States is worse off now than it was four years ago when President Barack Obama was elected, the Spero Forum website reports today (September 4, 2012).

This majority asserts that President Obama does not deserve to be reelected president.

The poll says that 52 percent of likely voters says the country is in "worse condition" now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say President Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.

The poll -- conducted by Pulse Opinion Research and concluded on September 2 -- found that only 31 percent of voters believe the U.S. is in "better condition," while 15 percent say it is "about the same."

H/T: Theology and Society

Related reading: Obama Grades Himself 'Incomplete'

Signs and Portents

By A.S. Haley


With all the campaign brouhaha crowding out the news, it is very difficult to get a fix on the bigger picture. Make no mistake, however -- the bigger picture exists, even if we have trouble seeing it. Because man is fallen, and is therefore constantly engaged in looking at things that distract and detain him, it takes a special character to be able to lift one's perspective above and beyond the daily muck.


I do not pretend to have that character -- though I believe I can learn, through the eyes of those far greater than I, something of the intimations and portents which motivated them to warn of storm clouds gathering. One such individual with whom I have become much more familiar in recent days, through the writings he left us, is the marvelous English sage and journalist (for he was both at the same time), Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936).


As you can see from his dates, Chesterton did not live to see the beginning of the Second World War. But that is not to say that he did not foresee its advent.


Speaking in Toronto in 1930, ten years before Germany would invade Poland, Chesterton took as his topic "Culture and the Coming Peril." The "peril" of which he warned his audience was essentially the onset of industrialism and mass production, which required the creation (through advertising and propaganda) of mass markets, and whose creation he foresaw in turn would have the consequence of destroying individuality and local character. (Indeed, just eighteen years after Chesterton spoke, we would have George Orwell's 1984, which spelled out the same consequences in vivid detail.)

Read it all here.

Carnegie Corp of NY

This is a group that should be watched very carefully by conservatives, especially as election day approaches. The Scot immigrant and Pittsburgh industrialist was a great philanthropist who believed in the American way of life. He would be angry that his legacy is being used to undermine the rule of law.

The left-wing Knight Foundation should also be monitored closely.

Romney Denies Prejudice Against Palestinians

Mitt Romney told Fox News that he was not criticizing Palestinian culture when he suggested that Israel’s economic success was due to its "culture" at a fundraiser in Israel on Monday.

"I’m not speaking about, did not speak about, the Palestinian culture," Romney told Fox’s Carl Cameron.

Romney came under fire from Palestinian leaders when he compared the GDP per capita in Israel to that in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, saying at one point, "Culture makes all the difference." Although he never specifically implicated Palestinian culture, he seemed to imply judgment, CBS News notes.

In a statement to the Associated Press on Monday, the Palestinian labor minister responded, "The statement reflects a clear racist spirit."

Romney's praise of Israeli culture backfired when he tried to contrast the standard of livings of Israelis and Palestinians living in areas controlled by the PA. CNN reports that Romney attempted to blame the liberal media for twisting his words, saying, "They’ll instead try and find anything else to divert from the fact that these last four years have been tough years for our country."

The truth is that Palestinians in Gaza suffer from both Israeli and Palestinian restrictions, but Romney wasn't likely to say this at a fundraiser in Jerusalem.


A hornet's nest

An organization called Jewish Voice for Peace has condemned Romney and is asking people to sign an open  letter requesting that he apologize to the Palestinian people.

Here is the letter:

To Governor Mitt Romney,

Your statements in Jerusalem regarding the growth of the Palestinian and Israeli economies were inaccurate and misleading. Israel's Occupation of Palestinian land makes it impossible for the Palestinian economy to succeed, not "cultural differences." Your comments were not a reflection of the values Jews, Americans, and our allies hold dear. We call on you to apologize to the Palestinian people for your willful lack of understanding of the facts on the ground and the racist assumptions behind them.

The organization admits that the Israeli GDP is ten times that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. See their website here.

Related reading:  Liberal Jews Support Obama

An African American Friend on Obamacare

I've been following this healthcare deal for a while. I didn't like how it started off. I mean "you won't know what's in it 'till you pass it", what kind of foolishness is that? That's what I call a sucker's deal. Then the unreasonable infringements on religious conscience, not only upon individuals but institutions, definitely violate 2nd Amendment guarantees but mainstream media and the American public seem oblivious to it's effects. History shows, my friend, that politics is like chess: one move precipitates another. In this case it seems the forces of overgrown government are playing against an unsuspecting, indeed unconscious, populace. And the stakes are nothing less than freedom." -- Andre Cross

Pelosi and the Goddess Cult

Obama's Goddess Cult

By Grace Harley

This past week, I was invited to a conference at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. celebrating the inspirational accomplishments of high-profile women.  When I arrived, the welcome banner told me that it was sponsored by the National Journal, and certainly the program speakers were very impressive.  I sat in the conference room filled with attractive young women and a few brave but curious men, all eager to hear what words of wisdom would be imparted to hopeful future leaders.

[...]

I doubt that these last three mentioned ladies (Ms. Rabbitt, Representative Rodgers, Senator Hutchison) would be found on the long, long list of women who surround the Obama administration.  They do not fit the profile of "goddess."  In fact, just the opposite.  These competent, calm, and conservative ladies are just what a successful president should be seeking.


Obama's cult of goddesses will one day find that they no longer need any male to promote "the causes of women."  And he will find himself with no one to worship and no one to worship him.


Read the whole article here.