More on “dear” after the jump. In keeping with the screams of “War on Women”, Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers tried to have it both ways to Sunday in her post about the Conservatives being wrong as to the reason for the female voting gap but also proving the Conservative allegations about Democrats transforming Government into being a proxy Husband and Daddy that has been promoting dependency. We conservatives have complained for years that Government is creating dependency – I have heard her on Fox News refute this reasoning. Yet, here it is in black and white:
…Fast forward to Nov. 6, 2012: unmarried women showed up, and they went for Obama 67 to 31 percent; women with children preferred the president by 56 to 43 percent.
…The media treated the “War on Women” as being primarily about reproductive issues, but not so the Obama campaign. Team Obama knew that the issue that women cared about the most was the economy, and reminded women constantly that the hostility the GOP shows toward the government could leave single women in a perilous situation. Republicans ridiculed “The Life of Julia,” but it was a brilliant campaign outreach tactic that showed how a Romney administration would affect women in a way that left nothing to the imagination.
See where this is going? She’s not being truthful – this is not about “the economy” but just one of the artificial economies kept alive by government spending and subsidies for special interest voting group (along with the constant redefinition of commonly defined words for political purposes). Look at what has happened in “green energy”; as Governments world-wideover pull their subsidies – bankruptcies and layoffs in the “great next thing” as defined by Government hacks (and not by demand from the real marketplace). But I digress. This is not about an economy, this is about a “propping up” because Progressives have achieved one of their main philosophical aims – doing to everyone else what they have achieved in the black urban families. There is no mention of any other viable solutions.
…A constant cry from the right is that Democrats “talk down” to women and appeal to their emotions, especially with unmarried women. Ironically, their claims of condescension are condescending themselves. The real reason that unmarried women prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican Party is because they don’t have a spouse to help carry the load, so the government becomes the only safety net they have, and they view it as a good in the world. They live with an economic vulnerability that most men and even many married women will never experience. If they lose their job, their children don’t eat—unless, of course, the government provides them with some help. They aren’t “moochers,” they aren’t “sluts” for having out-of-wedlock sex, and they aren’t dummies driven by emotion.
If the GOP ever wants the keys to the White House again they’d be wise to learn how to show a little respect to these women.
So “a little respect” is now redefined as “financial support”? Respecting women means supporting them? Does it mean that when people make wrong choices we need to bail them out? I think not, but Powers does. No, this was yet another direct application of the Obama campaign’s mantra: They are going to take stuff away from you…and we will give you more (and, by the way, they’re evil anyways). I’m going to be politically incorrect, this is not talking down to women – this is not agreeing to assuage someone’s insecurities.Conservatives talk about the primacy of traditional family structure and responsibilities that have worked for thousands of years. Families WORK – and one of the primary triggers of poverty is being single with children; isn’t the better proposition to work to strengthen families. She wishes to push that this traditional notion makes no sense, that only the Progressive centralized Government “one size fits all” assistance is the answer in this case. The needs of individuals, either through their own decisions or through no fault of their own, can be met fully by involuntarily drafting others to assist.
Obama said that he didn’t want to punish his girls with babies for a mistake yet Progressives have no problem in punishing Society in the large for that same mistake? Where is the fairness in that? Where is the Freedom in that? If these women don’t have a spouse to “share the load”, why does Powers assume that that the only safety net is Government? Haven’t years of militant feminism taught us that women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle? So if women don’t need men, why is it a goodness that they require Government? Are both, men or Govenment, a dependency? And why is the latter better than the former? And why is government dependency better than depending on loved ones or friends first (admitting that sometimes there can be neither)? Is that a true dependency message or what?
And why should Conservatives and Republicans agree that dependency is a good message? Isn’t striving for independence a better message? Why should we embrace what we know to be a wrong policy?
In the past, FAMILIES paid the price of girls’ making the bad decisions, and then Dads brought out the shotguns. This was never a problem for Government nor was it ever expected to be such. It was a problem that was family oriented, a societal problem but over the last few decades, Democrats have used Government to crowd out what used to be Society into a smaller and smaller box and thus, have made it a Government problem as there is the perception that there is no other way to turn. Powers is making it clear that only Government should be responsible for “clean up in aisle 4” for bad outcomes. During the campaign, the Right constantly harped that with this bait and switch that Democrats have been building over multiple generations, this expense and spirit sucking dependency – and Obama has put the pedal to the metal to that. Powers has been one of those on TV that has vehemently protested this line of reasoning and pushing back on Conservative, yet, here she is proudly continuing the Democrat position of socializing the bad decision across those that are innocent of making that bad decision. And simply making it a voting issue: we vote for dependency.
It comes down to this – the Freedom of us all is diminished, yet again, by the Democrat push to redefine Charity as an action by the Collective (i.e., Government) instead of the voluntary action by an Individual. The feedback cycle of failure that can teach real lessons is diminished by the Progressive / Big Government swooping in to “rescue” us (one only has to look at FEMA with Katrina and Sandy to see how well over-grown bureaucracies are ‘compassionate’)
The real reason that unmarried women prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican Party is because they don’t have a spouse to help carry the load, so the government becomes the only safety net they have… They live with an economic vulnerability that most men and even many married women will never experience. If they lose their job, their children don’t eat—unless, of course, the government provides them with some help.
Sorry, but with greater government intrusion is what used to be private family life, this is the dependency that has been wrought. What the heck is wrong with the idea that if you cannot support a child, don’t have it? Of course you are vulnerable if you put yourself into this situation without being married. But is it the purpose of government, the proper role of government, to mitigate such bad decisions? I’ve seen it and cared for the children in that situation – it is not a pretty sight. Yes, divorce happens, but why is it proper to automatically assume that only Government is the answer? Isn’t it better that turning to family and society’s organizations should be the next step? Why is it right that Progressives have taught entire generations that your bad decisions will be subsidized by others – and yes,
Yet, that line is seen as a shot against reproductive rights – the Right controlling a women’s womb. Sorry but it has nothing about R.R., but it IS about the Economic Freedom of the rest of us. The single women are free to have the babies they want but we are not free to say “not on my dime – my family needs it more?” Again, I saw this over and over – social workers were running to provide govt assistance when the next consequence of giving into emotions (er, lust) happened. Set up in her Journalist / Pundit Ivory tower, I’m betting that Powers has never had to consider this monster problem that Govt was creating up close and person – over and over again. These single ladies made a decision to participate in an act that could result in a baby – and the Government response is “ok, here’s the money”.
So, where in all this is the incentive to stop making bad decisions? She glosses right over that – after all, that would be judgmental, yes? It is and I have no problem in doing so. Here’s my problem with this: in many cases (and in my daycare I ran into a LOT of them), we had single moms continuing to sleep around and ending up with multiple babies with multiple baby daddys. They never had to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions – government workers swooped in and took care of everything. Who wouldn’t want that “privilege” to continue? Progressives have been the crack dealers for Government dependency – why should we be surprised that those who live on this continue to vote for it?
BTW? If you look at all of the comments left on the piece, they all pretty much say the same. Freedom to have babies, but no freedom for school choice for those same children? Is that being consistent? No, it is not, and she pretty much gets ripped to shreds in those comments.
Note from the start: Oh, the “dear” comment? Or honey, or sweetie. Let’s see if Jennifer Horn, NH GOP Chair Wannabee, will consider that “derogatory” (as she called my post that contained “behind a skirt” when Jack Kimball was running and threw GraniteGrok under the bus – I dare say she would not want me publicly posting THAT email string….) as she finishes her run from being a Conservative to being a buddy-buddy with the Establishment type in trying to be anointed for NH GOP Chair. Sorry, dear, the only chair you’d get from us would be set behind Cliff Hurst. There, I said it – consider this not an throwing under the bus but a full frontal smack WITH the nose of the bus for Mrs. “I’m in it for me”. With that out of my system (er, for now), I think it clear that no endorsement will be forthcoming from us for her.