You know what you need. Health care. Child care. Equal employment opportunity. And you know who will give it to you…and who won't.
Why single women must vote
Ruth Rosen
Monday, February 16, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle
FORGET THE ANGRY white men of 1994, the soccer moms of 1998 or the NASCAR dads of 2002. This year, Democrats believe that single women -- one- fifth of the nation's population and 42 percent of all registered women voters -- are the demographic-swing group that could decide a close election, oust President Bush and alter the political landscape in Congress.
Who are these unmarried women? They are never-married working women, divorced working mothers raising kids alone and widows who are worried about their economic security.
Last December, Celinda Lake and Stan Greenberg, two well-known Democratic pollsters, released the results of a survey that Democrats are taking to heart. "Unmarried women represent millions more voters with very clear concerns about the economy, health care and education," said Lake.
To this, Greenberg added, "If unmarried women voted at the same rate as married women, they would have a decisive impact on this (2004) election and could be the most important agents of change in modern politics."
The problem is that single women just don't exercise their electoral power. In the 2000 presidential election, 68 percent of married women went to the voting booth but only 52 percent of single women cast a vote.
That means that 6 million single women failed to vote in an election that hinged on a little more than half a million votes nationally and a few hundred votes in Florida.
Posted by P6 at February 16, 2004 09:02 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/421
Comments
I know who will give it to them. Husbands.
Posted by Phelps at February 16, 2004 02:06 PMEh?
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 16, 2004 04:43 PMThe statement was "You know what you need. Health care. Child care. Equal employment opportunity. And you know who will give it to you." The answer is "husbands." It sure isn't "government."
Posted by Phelps at February 16, 2004 06:49 PMI wanted to make sure that was what you meant. So you're advising me to get married if I want to have any social services? What century are you living in, the 19th? Good grief!
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 17, 2004 04:29 AMI'm curious about what employment opportunities husbands provide to wives.
Posted by P6 at February 17, 2004 06:35 AMI am getting married in six months (in Seattle). I would be horrified--not to say very surprised--to learn that my bride is doing this for the health care, child care, or equal employment opportunity. In 1928 that would be a reasonable supposition, not a nightmare.
A few posts back I referred to "entitlement sustainability" as the true measure of non-poverty. If [say] a woman is unable to work because she cannot afford child care, health insurance, and other basic support services for her child or self, then she is in poverty. If she is fortunate, her relatives or a husband can supply these things, but then her ability to work is dependent on spillovers. Readers of this site will, I expect, be aware of memos circulated with in WalMart which advised employees how to avail themselves of social assistance to supplement their meager pay. God forbid the women of this nation shall wake up one morning to find that is their universal lot.
The economy is very different from what it was in 1928, and thank God. I can't imagine anyone, male or female, truly wanting to return to those days. Neither my fiancee nor I would have her be my debt peon. It's really not that romantic.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 17, 2004 01:15 PMIf Phelps had said that single women should get better jobs if they want better social services, I could understand that. But the idea that women should instead get married is simply bizarre.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 18, 2004 07:56 AMYou say employment opportunities, but that isn't the true issue. The true issue is financial security. That is something that having a (competent) husband provides. Health care is something that a competent husband provides. Child care is something that isn't an issue for people who aren't single mothers.
I have zero sympathy for 95% of the single mothers in the US. Short of widows and victims of physical abuse, all of their problems are problems they created for themselves. I am tired of subsidizing other people's stupidity.
Posted by Phelps at February 18, 2004 11:14 AMI have zero sympathy for 95% of the single mothers in the US. Short of widows and victims of physical abuse, all of their problems are problems they created for themselves. I am tired of subsidizing other people's stupidity.
So you would not describe yourself as a core constituency for this chimerical ideology "compassionate conservativism," would you?
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
(Matthew 25:35-40)
So you would not describe yourself as a core constituency for this chimerical ideology "compassionate conservativism," would you?
Being neither compassionate nor conservative, no I would not. As for the rest:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. -- Luke 20:25
As a Christian, I have a duty to help the poor. I do not have a duty to stick a gun in a heathen's face and tell him that he has to help too.
Posted by Phelps at February 18, 2004 02:40 PMChild care is something that isn't an issue for people who aren't single mothers.
What reality do you live in?
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 18, 2004 03:20 PMAs a Christian, I have a duty to help the poor. I do not have a duty to stick a gun in a heathen's face and tell him that he has to help too.
Ah, but you said you have zero sympathy for single mothers. So much for your personal duty to help the poor. Methinks it is more honored in the breach.
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. -- Luke 20:25
This has nothing whatever to do with your argument. Your argument rests on the claim that state programs to benefit the poor violate fundamental rights of the wealthy. Christ's statement says that there is some obligation to Caesar, and another to God. But neither the verse nor its context, say what that obligation is.
You do believe it is okay to stick a gun in a heathen's face and force him to pay for an illegitimate invasion of Iraq. That's what taxes allocated to "defense" spending accomplish, and they're obtained the same way. So please spare me the moral twaddle about taxation being theft. Far more money is spent on social regimentation and military adventures than on social programs for the poor. All of these--i.e., the military and the social welfare spending--could have been avoided if proactive measures were taken to redress social problems early.
It turns out it's conservative principles of anti-compassion that are expensive.
AM: It isn't an issue because they generally can either afford it, or one of the parents can stay home with the children (real child care) while their mate works.
JRM: Perhaps I should have been more specific; single mothers who feel that society owes them martyr status for poor life choices while not facing up to the idea that they are selfish, immoral people who are harming both themselves and their children get zero sympathy from me.
As for Caesar, the point that I get from that speech is that there is a secular and a spiritual life. Giving to the poor is a mitzvah. There are great mitzvahs, and small mitzvahs. When you do it because it helps the person you are giving to to, and not to get recognition, or to make a buck, or some other self-serving reason, that is the greatest mitzvah. When you do a good act because you have no choice (like when you help by paying taxes) that is no mitzvah at all.
To me, this is the greatest crime of government. It takes something good, something Holy, and perverts it into an act of force, an act of violence. That is what government is -- collective violence. It has no other method of working. Yes -- I do think that Saddam Hussain needed great violence visited upon him, and I think that it is the obligation of every free man to contribute to that violence. By not acting, you condone him, and not condoning a tyrant like Hussain is something worth sticking a gun in someone's face.
Posted by Phelps at February 19, 2004 01:15 PMPhelps, I repeat: what reality do you live in where childcare is not an issue for married couples? It may be that way in your ideal libertarian world but it is most certainly not that way in the world where the rest of us live. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 19, 2004 02:23 PMYes -- I do think that Saddam Hussain needed great violence visited upon him, and I think that it is the obligation of every free man to contribute to that violence. By not acting, you condone him, and not condoning a tyrant like Hussain is something worth sticking a gun in someone's face.
Please recall this exchange on the other active comment thread:
P6: You do understand the difference between punishing someone for initiating violence and preventing someone from living as they please, don't you? I mean, as a Libertarian you surely understand the difference, right?
PHELPS: Absolutely. I just don't trust the government to make that distinction.
You perceive all government as collective violence. You say you don't trust the state to establish--regardless of the evidence--that a crime is a hate crime, or to distinguish between a Muslim squabbling over a bag of cheetos with a Christian (BTW, when did this happen?) versus the murder of Matthew Shepherd. Yet you aknowledge that state coercion is needed to enforce contracts:
If someone breaks a deal with you, you should be able to get your neighbors together to make the other person live up to his end of the deal (enforcing contracts.)
And here:
The Everlasting Phelps: Because the code does not recognize this property right [...] people will enforce these rights in a less-than lawful manner. Vigilantism will provide the rule of law that the state fails to provide.
You see, that is what the law is. It doesn't live in some book at the local courthouse. The code lives there. Those are the laws that are written down. The rest of the law -- the common law -- lives in the minds of society.
(Do you really hold society in as much contempt as you do on the other comment thread?)
Anyhow, your minimalist notion of the state you regard as a moral absolute. Clearly, when you resort to the premise that all taxation is theft, and any compromise with this principle makes the state utterly reprehensible--then I admit I am amazed to see you demand that the same state adjudicate the legitimacy of other leaders around the world. The sole remaining rationale for removing Saddam is an internationalized version of the absolute maximalist state, and you seem to reach this conclusion by using the analogy of the righteous vigilante mob.
Forgive me Father for I am really, really confused.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 19, 2004 03:22 PM(Do you really hold society in as much contempt as you do on the other comment thread?)
Pretty much. Individuals are pretty good people. Once you take violence and fraud out of the picture, most problems work themselves out. When you turn to government, violence is the stock in trade. I'm okay with violence as the tool used to prevent other violence or fraud. I'm not at all behind it being the tool used to solve problems that people bring on themselves.
Anyhow, your minimalist notion of the state you regard as a moral absolute. Clearly, when you resort to the premise that all taxation is theft, and any compromise with this principle makes the state utterly reprehensible--then I admit I am amazed to see you demand that the same state adjudicate the legitimacy of other leaders around the world. The sole remaining rationale for removing Saddam is an internationalized version of the absolute maximalist state, and you seem to reach this conclusion by using the analogy of the righteous vigilante mob.
I don't see how you jump to the conclusion that removing someone who violates the very fundamentals of the rights to life, liberty and property is indicative of a totalitarian state. Saddam wasn't removed because he toyed with the interest rate, misallocated resources or wanted to keep his country on the gold standard. He was removed because he murdered people, tortured people, and stole anything he could get his hands on.
Is this really something that you find to be morally equitable, or are you being sophistic? (I'm aware that there are people who find them morally equitable, and I want to see if that is what I am dealing with here.)
Posted by Phelps at February 19, 2004 05:26 PMHe was removed because he murdered people, tortured people, and stole anything he could get his hands on.
I want to know if you believe this. I have to confess you are as likely to convince me of this as somebody else is likely to convince you that socialism is a good idea.
Do I equate mismanagement with a murderous tyrant? No I don't.
Do I think removing a regime like Saddam's is indicative of a totalitarian state? No. Never said that. But for a nation of 292 million to make this decision for other nations on pure whim--remember that qualification, because it was pure whim--at, as you insist, the point of a gun--that is an absolute maximalist state.
I am not being a sophist. Appeals to common sense are not sophist.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 19, 2004 07:15 PMSo phelps thinks taxes are good, because that is the context of renedering to caesar's what is his, and then servitude is mentioned after that. Paul referred to it later as well, so bringing back slavery for anyone who is a porfiessed christian would be ok as well.
These stupid liberals want to change things, let's get it back to the good old days, a few thousand years ago it was all good.
Posted by Mr.Murder at February 21, 2004 09:19 PM