Faith-based programs attempted to bypass the social disaster of the lost 
family without ceding the social territory to big government
---
yep ... been seeing a lot of Divorce Care signs at churches.

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> Daniel Greenfield's article: Americans Alone 
> <http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/> 
>
> [image: Link to Sultan Knish] <http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/>
> ------------------------------
>
> Posted: 16 Sep 2014 08:02 AM PDT
>
> For the first time in American statistical history, the majority of 
> American adults are single. 124 million or 50.2% of Americans are single. 
> Some will get married, but increasing numbers never will.
>
>  
> <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kLMLa4swcTg/VBhQqk4L0oI/AAAAAAAAOX8/MBwOHA_4Xtg/s1600/lonely-loneliness-21529870-329-328.jpg>
>  Demographically 
> a population of single adults means the death of the Republican Party. It 
> eliminates the possibility of libertarian and fiscally conservative 
> policies. It leads inevitably to the welfare state. 
>
> Single people are less likely to have a support system that keeps them 
> from becoming a public charge. Children born to single parents perform 
> poorly in school and are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. A 
> nation of single people will inevitably become a welfare state and a police 
> state.
>
> The statistics have always been known and the conclusions to be drawn from 
> them are inescapable.
>
> A lot of attention is being paid to the political consequences of the 
> nation’s changing racial demographics, but it’s not a coincidence that the 
> racial group that Republicans perform worst with is also the least likely 
> to be married. While there are other factors in the mix, Republicans do 
> better with married than unmarried black people. 
>
> The same is true of most other racial groups.
>
> The latest Reuters poll shows that 36% of married Hispanics are planning 
> to vote for a Democratic candidate in the upcoming midterm election and 28% 
> are planning to vote for a Republican candidate. Among unmarried Hispanics, 
> those numbers change to 42% Democratic and %15 Republican.
>
> If Republicans want to start getting serious about the Hispanic vote, they 
> might want to spend less time muttering about amnesty and more time 
> thinking about where their strength with married voters lies.
>
> Married white voters lean toward a Republican candidate by 43% to 24%. 
> Among single white voters, Democrats lead 34% to 26%. There are other 
> factors that affect these numbers such as age, race, sexual orientation and 
> religious affiliation. Growing minority demographics have certainly helped 
> make single Americans a statistical majority, but it’s dangerous to ignore 
> the bigger picture of the post-family demographic trend.
>
> If Republicans insist on running against the nanny state, they will have 
> to replace it with something. That something was traditionally the family. 
> Take away the family and something else has to fill its place.
>
> In the West, government has become the new family. The state is father and 
> occasionally mother. The nanny state is literally a nanny. It may be hated, 
> but it is also needed.
>
> That is why married whites oppose ObamaCare 65% to 34% while single whites 
> also oppose it, but by a narrower margin of 53% to 47%. 
>
> ObamaCare’s support base among whites is highest among single white men 
> and women. (Despite Julia and Sandra Fluke, the latest poll numbers show 
> that young single white women oppose ObamaCare by a higher margin than 
> young single white men. Pajama Boy with his hot cocoa is more likely to be 
> a fervent proponent of ObamaCare than Julia. But the margins for both sexes 
> remain narrow.)
>
>  
> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t8f0vrokTH0/VBhQr7FZ1zI/AAAAAAAAOYI/8vu_g4TLSa4/s1600/this-lonely-morgan-stanley-analyst-wishes-people-would-return-his-calls.jpg>
>
> It’s unrealistic to expect people to vote against their short term 
> interests. Without family, the individual is vulnerable. A single bad day 
> can leave him homeless and hungry. While the system of social welfare 
> actually intensifies the overall economic conditions that are likely lead 
> to such a state of vulnerability, those who are caught in that cycle will 
> choose to protect themselves from the consequences in the short term 
> without considering the long term causation cost to themselves and everyone 
> else.
>
> That was the logic behind ObamaCare. It’s the logic behind the entire 
> spending spree of the nanny state.
>
> If Republicans are going to start winning based on something other than 
> the public’s frustration with Obama, they will have to address this 
> reality. Republicans have treated family as a reference point, like the 
> United States or the dollar, a verity that would always be there, a word 
> that they could reference to show their singular virtue without having to 
> meaningfully assess and address what was wrong with it. 
>
> The American vision of limited government depended on a stable society 
> that could fend for itself. The progressives originally gained power from 
> the collapse of large economic institutions which they used to prove that 
> their intervention was needed. They have gained even more power from the 
> collapse of social institutions. 
>
> Without an underlying network of families maintaining a working society, 
> the nanny state grows. And it doesn’t limit its attentions to those who 
> seek it out. Small scale solutions are made possible by the integrity of 
> small institutions. Without the order created by the small institution of 
> the family, the order that teaches children right from wrong, that cares 
> for its elderly parents and supports members of the family, the only 
> alternative becomes the large scale solution of the totalitarian state and 
> its bureaucracy.
>
> Republicans cannot campaign on policies that assume that the family is the 
> dominant institution once it no longer is. If they do not place a fiscally 
> conservative agenda within the larger context of restoring the family, they 
> will become the advocates of policies that hardly anyone except their donor 
> base supports. 
>
> Three choices lie ahead. 
>
> The Republican Party can fight for the family. It can abandon fiscal 
> conservatism and social conservatism in both word and deed to pursue its 
> real program of trying to make big government work. Or it can look for 
> alternative institutions that can replace both family and government. 
>
>  
> <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9cwXLZW6A9U/VBhQp4j1v2I/AAAAAAAAOX4/ljv5Eui3ca8/s1600/72.jpg>Faith-based
>  
> programs attempted to bypass the social disaster of the lost family without 
> ceding the social territory to big government, but there is only so much 
> that any entity outside the family can do. No amount of programs can fill 
> the gap for a child or an adult. The family is an organic wraparound 
> entity. Replacing it led to a Great Society in which a horde of social 
> workers, teachers, psychologists, parole officers and sociologists 
> struggled to fill the role of a mother and a father.
>
> It doesn’t take a village to raise a child except in a failed state and no 
> village can afford to hire an entire other village to raise its children. 
> That, among other things, is what is bringing California to its knees.
>
> Replacing the family, with or without government, is expensive and 
> difficult. Republicans can and should champion private sector alternatives 
> to government takeovers, faith-based or otherwise, but such an approach 
> will only delay the inevitable. There really is no institutional 
> replacement for the family. 
>
> The demographic shift taking place is critical because it will determine 
> whether we have a big government or a small government. Republicans can 
> either adapt to a post-family America by becoming the party of the welfare 
> state or they can work toward an America that is once again centered around 
> the institution of the family. 
>
> Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a 
> Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
>
>  
> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews?a=MVG-1kQfwwA:jTuKVC_1Dd4:yIl2AUoC8zA>
>  
> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews?a=MVG-1kQfwwA:jTuKVC_1Dd4:I9og5sOYxJI>
>  
> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews?a=MVG-1kQfwwA:jTuKVC_1Dd4:63t7Ie-LG7Y>
>  
> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews?a=MVG-1kQfwwA:jTuKVC_1Dd4:F7zBnMyn0Lo>
>  
> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews?a=MVG-1kQfwwA:jTuKVC_1Dd4:UT3xtbGYFzA>
>  
> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews?a=MVG-1kQfwwA:jTuKVC_1Dd4:qj6IDK7rITs>
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Email delivery powered by Google
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> __._,_.___
>  ------------------------------
> Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> 
> ------------------------------
>  
>
>  Visit Your Group 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbm4wcGs3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MTA5Nzk1ODM->
>  
>    
>    
>  [image: Yahoo! Groups] 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZTBxYzlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQxMDk3OTU4Mw-->
>  
> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • 
> Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use 
> <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> 
>  
> __,_._,___
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to