http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =126653602
Turns out the states that vote Republican have higher rates of divorce and teen pregnancy. They also consume more porn, according to another study.
The author that is interviewed says it's because people in Blue states wait until later to get married, thus have lower divorce rates. I have some of my own thoughts about this but I wonder what others think?
Any political party that encourages, however indirectly, the need for BOTH parents to work, via their economic policies, is NOT in my book pro family values -- for the record, I see BOTH parties as having done this.
This is a stupid argument. It depends on the individuals raising the kids, not their political ideologies.
It's a nonsense question. Family values are individually based. You either hold values that encourage parents and children to live as a family with a minimum of drama, or you don't. You also seem to forget that just because a state is blue or red, that there are plenty people who vote the opposite way.
LE, you should read The Political Mind by George Lakoff. It might change the way you think about this issue.
Maybe you could give me a synopsis. I find most "modern" works to be shallow and silly. Damn, I guess I'll have to read it now, if I could wade through Marx's dreck I can wade through this.
I haven't seen you here on the forums lately; you got banned too?
Heh, no I just finished a semester of school. I really didn't have time to fight the war of words on here. Plus I've done some reading of classic literature they didn't tell us about in college. I've got a few weeks before classes start again, so I thought I'd look around and see who's still around.
Good to see you man, how have you been?
I've been banned for 5 weeks this time. I still let Debra get to me some time. But, I'm back! Just in time for the election campaigns. Hopefully I can write a few more hubs. The is going to be a very interesting campaign season!
Good luck with your classes.
Thanks, man, yeah this November is really going to be interesting. And to think, when I was a kid, I worried that I'd never be able to tell my grandkids I never experienced anything historically significant.
I know the temptation to rip on someone, especially when they're really really stupid, but it really is better to just let it go. Time will, after all, prove you right. If you get proved wrong, well that's just a warning from the universe that you're getting a swelled head. Either way, it's a win/win.
Thank you Led
On to this subject!
With the republican party intentionally alienating most of the American people to appeal to their new "Teabagger Base"; how are they going to win the majority of the people over in November? Who can they possibly put up against Obama in 2012?
Take a look at what they have to run on in the next few years.
Lakoff is a linguist... the specific term is I think "Cognitive Neurolinguistics." He studies how language effects the way the brain works.
Among other things, he studies propaganda.
One of his ideas is that people model their political ideas on their idea of the family. Most righties were raised in what he calls "strict father" households, while most liberals were raised in a "nurturing parent" model.
It's much more complex than that but it's very interesting reading.
People read too much into that, I think. Language is important, but as Lenin said "If you want to succeed in revolution, first confuse the language". At least I think it was Lenin, I have to dig up the reference. It's funny but I have a theory that you can predict the outcome of a particular law by believing the opposite of the bill's stated aims. In a way, the title of a bill is propaganda, is it not? Likewise the campaign of the President is, seemingly, one big propaganda ploy. The renunciation of partisan politics, the supposed transparency, etc. etc.
That's what the students of propaganda seem to forget. You might find the following article interesting: http://mises.org/daily/3060
Gennady Stolyarov is an interesting guy and his writings always get me to thinking. One of the reasons propaganda worked in the 20's and 30's is because the various governments of the world controlled the media. Since, especially in fascist and communist nations, the government controlled the media; the controlled the minds of the people. Such a thing is not possible today. If anything, we're in an era much like that started by the Guttenberg press. So I'm not very surprised to see the philosophy of the Enlightenment making a comeback because the environment that created that philosophy in the first place is making a comeback.
"So I'm not very surprised to see the philosophy of the Enlightenment making a comeback because the environment that created that philosophy in the first place is making a comeback."
In what way have you noticed Enlightenment-era ideas making a comeback?
Since the inception of political parties in the US, the younger people of America have always supported the most practical party. There have been times that the Republicans held that honor. There have been times, like now, when the Democrats held that honor.
Right now, even Republicans will agree that the Republican party has lost it's way a bit. The trouble started when they became staunch supporters of pro-life. Somewhere in that conversion, Republicans became the party of extremest. That is when I got out. The party of Teddy Roosevelt, was no more than a party of greed, and strict, religious, Christian protocols. Much like that of the Democrats, back during the civil war.
Whether it is the blue states for now, or it is the red states of yesteryear; the party with the most human side is the party of the people. In so it becomes the party of less divorce rate, less malice, less things have to be either black or white. Making it better for everyone to prosper and live.
Within the Democrat party of today, it is okay to be a Democrat and be a pro-lifer. It is okay to be a Oil tycoon and yet support environmental measures. It is a party where it is okay to be purple, and recognizes that not everything has to be either blue or red.
Over time, history will repeat itself and the extremest party will become the Democratic party and so on and so forth. That is the beauty of American politics.
Actually it's more like the younger you are the more likely you are to support the "liberal" party and the older you get the more likely you are to support the "conservative" party. It's not exact, but it has a good beat and you can dance to it.
I believe that is actually was I was saying. Common on here, you apparently like to argue with me, just to argue.
Read before you type. It is the "right" thing to do.
Define family values first. Likely mine are different from yours
Look out, Utah and Idaho.
Why is this not a surprise....
you forgot to mention that republican states give more to charity.
But, I'm not going to defend either party - it's just that you seem to hate publicans.
I don't think political ideology or political affiliations has a major impact on behavior/
democrats and republicans live in the same social environment so the factors that affect behavior is the same so to speak for both,
maybe ideologies, political party affiliations is just in the mind, actions speak louder than pure ideals
I think the point of the book was that Democrats and Republicans live in very different social environments. It's almost two different cultures.
Here's another interesting link, to a graphic that maps out some of the cultural differences (it's on a world basis, so Red = Left in this one).
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/l … world.html
George Lakoff is another author who says that our political beliefs are based in our family structures.
Neither has demonstrated proper family values or even moral values for that fact. Both are guilty.
I will check the link later
family structures you mean, raised by single mother or father, size of the family, family social status, economic status of the family,
culture et al .. religiosity of the family (Difficult to measure), who is most responsible for raising the child, mass media influences, internet access, kind of schooling
I just think that this is very difficult to measure
I agree with Cagsil - a politician is probably a poor example too of family values these days! Of course in family values I speak not only of infidelity and such things but more of common things like stealing, lying and cheating - so in my humble book, they have failed miserably. Perhaps that is what our government needs overall - getting back to being someone we can look up to and who will take care of us - the extended family!
Of course it depends on your definition of "family values."
Which happens to be a prime example of Conservative "framing." (fascinating topic --speaking of George Lakoff).
The "Right" claimed the phrase "family values" and has pounded the "Left" (progressives) over the head with it since Karl Rove (if not before).
Your definition/evidence is people in blue states have lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates. Certainly both point toward family stability.
But does everyone agree that these equate to "family values"? Blue staters also tend to have higher education levels and lower levels of incest, btw. On the other hand, their very definition of "family" is questionable, since it tends to include racially blended and gay families. Perish the thought!
A red state supporter could, however, just as fervently argue that "family values" means something entirely different. I have good family values only if I am a "God-fearing, born-again, bible-thumping, get-all-I-need-to-know-from-my-friendly-neighborhood-preacherman-on-Sunday, 8th-grade dropout with 6 kids by 4 different fathers."
I'm just sayin'...
I think MM expressed it well, this seems to be fairly accurate.
but I'm not sure we can label that across the broad spectrum of people who make up the two parties.
being a teacher, it has been interesting to watch children. I can generally tell by observing their behavior and how they interact with other children if they come from a red or blue family.
I know that might sound strange, but I went through a presidential campaign and election and it was interesting to hear what kids would say. [and no, I did not endorse a particular candidate. we had weekly reader lessons discussing the two candidates.]
Good point, AdsenseStrategies.
Taking that concept of being "pro-family" a step further (toward socialism, I know):
What about investing in education for our children so they don't grow up to be ignorant?
What about enabling parents to provide health insurance, not only for their kids to get physical exams and innoculations, but also for themselves so the family doesn't fall apart/go bankrups if one of the parents gets really sick.
What about limiting tours of duty so that our armed forces can spend much deserved time with their families???
An argument can be made that the conservative movement worldwide has been hijacked to a large degree. The conservatives of my grandparents' time were not particularly in favour of Big Business and Free Markets.. these were not things they thought about. Instead they thought about community, tradition, decency, the rights of the SMALL businessman to flourish... I see little of this in what most present-day conservatives say -- all this talk of the free market and globalization, of evangelical support for Israel, of pre-emptive War... was this really what conservatives stood for fifty years ago?
Both parties are prone to sex scandals but it seems the GOP is more prone to homophobic gays getting caught with a lover of the same gender.
You don't like homosexuals?
Do you fear them?
Reading is a skill that takes practice. That's not what I said - Try reading for content and you'll not see any indication that I dislike gays - at all.
What I was saying was that there seems to be an endless supply of conservatives who run on a platform of family values and vote to discriminate against gays and vote to oppose gay rights - but are to be found in the evenings cruising gay bars. The conflict is not in being gay - or being homophobic - it's the hypocracy of being both.
So you don't fear them?
They are really just like you and I.
Maybe you should go out of your way and introduce yourself to a homosexual.
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever Jim. Did you read what Doug wrote?
I realized (after a day) what Jim was getting at.
I have to apologize and explain because Jim was being both sweet and subtle. I'm suprrised he was so public. Two times he asked me if I was afraid of gays, and once asked me to introduce myslef to one. Of course it would be a steriotype since Jim is a male nurse to think anything and I didn't - but under the circumstances, I convinced Jim was propositioning me - and he was concerned I am afraid of him.
Jim - I'm maried and my wife has rather conventional views about me seing other people. Besides that, I don't think we would hit it off - and I won't indulge in a shallow physical relationship. However, I do thank you for the invitation.
So you assume male nurses are all homosexual?
I'm a Nurse Practitioner to be accurate.
To be even more accurate I was not propositioning you.
You should let the fear of homosexuals go.
Doug, I say this with all due respect my friend.
I have several times on here heard you, and others I must admit, use the fact that someone, "may be gay", as a slur of sorts.
You, infer it as an insult, but proclaim how you are so open minded and above such bigotries and hatred.
I think you, and maybe some others, are closet homophobes.
I hope I am wrong, bro.
There is no need to hate or fear someone because of their life-style choices. Everyone has the Right to behave as they choose.
If I was a gay man on here. I would grow tired of the way alot of folks throw around the... "you must be a closet homosexual" remark, when you need to attack someone.
It would be to me, insulting that anyone would use it in such a way.
Maybe I am wrong... I have been, on a couple of occcassions in my life, but I don't think so.
And plenty of married men are gay, Doug. Also, you make excuses so quick about it, that it seems as though it insults you that someone might mistake you for a gay man.
The funny part is I am sitting here jammin my ibanez to hooker with a penis by tool. lollll
It does seem to frighten him.
But rest assured Doug, I am heterosexual.
I too have noticed the proclivity to use homosexuality as a slur to insult others from the ones who claim to be above that sort of thing.
TMMason - you put in quotes the phrase "may be gay" the inference being that I said it - I didn't. And you suggested that I used that phrase or its equivalent as a slur. And I didn't. Not in this post - not in any post. If others have done it, criticize them, but don't lay the blame on me.
Of course this is in line with Jim repeating the suggestion that I'm afraid of homosexuals. There's NO post that suggests I am intolerant - quite the opposite I have been vocal in my support of full equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. PERIOD.
The only insult I made of gays on this post is gay homophobes - which should be a contradiction in terms but isn't in conservative circles. That fact is worth commenting on in a post on 'family values'.
Why the personal attack?
I have been informed by hubpages that the argument can be attacked but not the person making the argument.
Are you somehow immune from these rules?
Someone who has been accusing Doug of attacking and fearing homosexuals is complaining about personal attacks?
Your replies to Doug above showed that you were either slow to grasp what he was saying or intentionally taking it the wrong way, and your unwillingness to accept his effort to point out your misinterpretation was stubborn, in my opinion.
I am not attacking Doug, and I only asked if he was afraid of Homosexuals.
You do know the difference between a question and an attack?
And from what I gather from being banned you are supposed to keep your opinions of me separate from the argument.
Are you somehow immune from Hubpages rules?
Just an idea from a parent of 2 and grandparent of 9 perhaps it is the simple fact that most teenagers who by the age of 15 or so are convinced that anything going is better than whats going on at home. Not blue, not red, just kids.
Of course if the left would not go so far out of the way to condone the inappropriate behavior the rights would not have so far to go to manage their rebelling teens.
With respect, you're really going to have to give specific examples of what you are thinking of here. First of all, by the "left" who do you mean exactly? Second, how specifically does the "left" do this? (Indulge me )
It's actually the fault of leftly leaning liberals who corrupted Bristol Palin into having unprotected sex. And it's the heroic values of Sarah Palin that saved Bristol, not a lack of parential supervision. Whenever righties have problems with their kids - ultimately it's the fault of leftly leaning liberals - even if both parties to the illicit sex are conservatives regardless of the gender mix. Got it?
I am afraid that there is not enough time for me now to go into all of this but I will say this and maybe you will understand. I believe in people accepting responsibility for their actions. The liberals who make the laws that restrict the abilities of parents to parent their children and fill their heads with crap like it is not okay for your parents to discipline you are the people who are creating the downfall of family values.
I am neither American (as I am sure you remember) nor a liberal (though perhaps I lean vaguely in that direction), but to be honest I find it very hard to believe that your average person does not believe the same things -- you are responsible for yourself, decorum, modesty and good conduct are high values -- whether they are "conservative" or "liberal".
And the evidence seems to suggest that those who vote democratic are better at upholding the "family values" that the right speaks of so much.
So if the liberals are better at keeping their marriages intact, and keeping their teens from getting pregnant... what does that say about their ideas about how to manage a family?
I couldn't agree more.
My original point was that most kids go through some type of rebellion. It really does not matter what the political environment in their home is.
My comment about the liberals was geared more to the save the psychopathic killer from the death penalty crowd. As uncomfortable as it is people have to be responsible for their own actions. Coddling the kids in their youth only ensures that they will never learn to accept the consequences for their actions.
I'm not sure what liberal laws or rules you're talking about.
of course you do not know because in your opinion the libs in this country have never made a bad choice, or a bad law.
It's more of a morally relativistic philosophy coupled with a belief that a village can raise children better than two parents can. At least that's how I'm reading her beef.
Sorry ledefensetech I get that you are trying to help me explain my point and I might even agree with your explanation if I had a clue what you were saying.
In English - I feel that the liberals in this country are way to quick to say awww that poor kid his parents should not discipline him so harshly while they tend to ignore that fact that he just set the house on fire, or broke his sisters arm.
CPS's record in my state right now, a whopping 89% of the children who have been involved with CPS commit juvenile crimes. Of that 89% 94 percent become repeat offenders in Adulthood. But hey it's okay let's just keep allowing these lunatic liberals to tell us how to raise our children since they obviously do such a fantastic job.
I'm sure you recognize that children who are raised in a small town in North Dakota are in a very different environment from those who grow up in South Chicago or Brooklyn, New York. To be specific in a village or small town children are free to explore on their own, but when they get out of line the grocer, druggist, gas station proprietor act en loco parentis to get them back on track. Very different from the urban environment. I haven't read Clinton's book either, but I assume she's advocating that somehow we should try to duplicate if we can some of the features of small town America of the 19th century. The anonymity offered by a big city, compared to a village, has its pluses and minuses. (Mostly minuses.)
That sounds remarkably like growing up on a military base. The difference is that if we did something wrong, the members of the "village" would refer the issue to our parents. From what I've read of her book, it would seem she takes a slightly different tack from that ideal. Sigh, guess I'll have to read it so I'll have an informed opinion, not simply an opinion.
I also disagree that larger cities didn't have the same kind of environment for kids. Sure the area kids could ramble was smaller, but I'm sure there were places just as interesting to explore and play in New York as there were in Camp Pendelton.
Which seems to fit if you consider Malcom Gladwell's book The Tipping Point. Historically tribes and even villages seemed to have about 150 people in them. Even cities would subdivide themselves into neighborhoods like that. He seems to think we're hardwired to accept groups of 150 and we have problems working in larger groupings than that.
An interesting idea which explains much about human behavior and why large scale centralized structures don't seem to work as well as decentralized ones do.
Tell me, what laws prevent parents from disciplining their children? I'm curious, because I discipline my kids regularly, every time they step out of line, and I feel like I ought to know if I'm breaking the law.
All politicians are the same when it comes to their core. Politics has nothing to do with teaching family values. It is what the individual has learned from his/her family and what he/she has decided is acceptable or not. Political beliefs do not form the family structure, thereby, it does not form the foundation for family values.
Family Values has nothing to do with political affiliation and everything to do with upbringing
It's an individual thing, and studies like this (which often have conflicting studies that say something else) are often either poorly designed or else misinterpreted (sometimes because a lot of people have too shallow an understanding of whatever the study is on).
There's just too many subtle things involved. Even if I'm not doubting this particular study, one person's idea of what's "family values" may be to live in a destructive home environment "for the kids". Someone else's may be to create a healthier environment for the kids. As far as I know, the chances of a marriage lasting are greater when people are out of their twenties, slightly greater if they're in they're later twenties. Then again, there's no guarantee.
Suppose, in blue states, there's a higher rate of low income people (more likely to be reluctant to go out on their own) or a higher rate of abusive marriages that result from poor upbringing, aggressive, and ignorance? Suppose, on the other hand the education level is generally higher. If someone calls having a teen pregnancy and not aborting it "more moral" - then there's that. If someone else calls bringing a baby into the world when a young mother is ill-prepared to raise a happy, secure, well nurtured child, then there's that. Perfectly moral parents may expect their teen to abstain from sex. Perfectly moral other parents may believe the right thing to do is encourage contraception. Overbearing parents sometimes get kids who rebel. Again, there's a lot of different things there.
As far as porn goes, who knows. Maybe SOME Republicans (more than Democrats) have the time, money, and home office to indulge in their porn. Maybe some are freaks. Maybe some just think sex and porn is a normal thing. Maybe some need some "outlet" if they're inhibited about "regular" sex in their relationship.
People really need to be very careful about taking studies and running with them. Sometimes they do little more than create greater misunderstanding.
Liberals believe that all morals are relative. If it feels good, do it. You might notice that liberals will give someone a pass because in their "culture" it's OK to do or say something. Like black calling each other the n-word, for example. They can do it amongst themselves, but if someone not black does it, it's an insult.
The village comment referenced Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village" which I have to admit I've only read synopses from, I've had a hard time sitting down and reading that one. This is coming from someone who has, mind you, slogged through the "Communist Manifesto" and "Das Capital". Those were bad enough. Basically Clinton claims that some sort of collective village is a better way to raise a child than two parents.
Which is weird because the Clinton's, oddly enough, seem to have done a great job with Chelsea and I doubt very much it took a village to raise her.
Ok well then I guess you do understand what my beef is and feel free to continue interpreting my views when I am not relating my point of view very well.
I realize that my simplistic approach and desire to promote commonsense can be a little difficult for some here who feel that because they may have a better education than I do that somehow makes my point less valid.
Wow...that's about as far away from lberal as you can get.
Liberals are actually far more conservative and practical than any "conserve" politician of late....since Reagan actually.
How conservative is it to push greed, waste, excess for the very few people at the top while millions of people live in desperation?
How conservative was it to invade a foreign nation for peronal vendetta and agrandizement?
How conservative is it to push your nose into people's personal life and make them live by your agenda?
Liberals believe live and let live....just don't push your crap on me!
And allowing such excess at the top...taking from people who have less, to give to people who have more is not only not conservative, it's not moral, just or Patriotic!
Don't you have to first define "family" and then define "values" as there is notable disagreement as to what constitutes a family. Well, they might consider "themselves" as being a family unit and having value as such. But others do not recognize their "family" as a family. So if they are not even a family, how can their values be taken seriously?
Long-winded way of saying, those who make a big deal about "family values" have a very narrow definition. It is so narrow, in fact, that many people in their own party can't even pass the FV test!
One political party as a whole cannot have family values as its policy. Family values are restricted to a particular family only and the head of the family is at liberty to join any political party.
demeecrats are for stealin my money,
republig'ins are for killin my chitlins!!
THEY BOTH SUCK
This is the kind of question that clearly illustrates the immaturity and demonizing nature in our understanding of politics in America. The divisive nature of our system today will be it's downfall. Mark my words though we will go down pointing fingers at each other......
by My Esoteric18 hours ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with...
by ptosis15 hours ago
seriously - I'm not, I'm indie leaning Dem but it's so dysfunctional.Tend to agree with this article: Party elders say it’s no time to squabble. They always say that. The specter of an emotionally arrested,...
by Onusonus3 years ago
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.
by American View5 years ago
I was in another forum where Habee made an interesting post about it is time for a woman to be President. I agree that it would be cool for a woman to be President, but it got me to wondering.Do you think the Democrats...
by thaivalentine5 years ago
In doing research on the entertainment industry, I was frightened by my findings. It seems the industry clearly celebrates and glorifies bad behavior. Some examples, Kim Kardashian (Got famous from releasing...
by American View4 years ago
I find it interesting when Democrats say the only reason people will vote for Romney is because he is a Republican. They chastise the people on the right who are loyal to their party. They cannot see that people will...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.