I’ve been thinking (and if those aren’t ominous words, I don’t know what are). I’ve been thinking about the Left’s attack on stay-at-home Mom’s, an attack that Hilary Rosen started, and that others have continued. To refresh your recollection, let’s start with Rosen, who says that Ann Romney “has actually never worked a day in her life”:
While Rosen made a “fulsome” (i.e., offensive, disgusting, and insincere) apology, others doubled down on her behalf. NOW President Terry O’Neill carefully explained that, if you don’t get paid for your work, it doesn’t count — which is precisely what my liberal Facebook friends have been saying, in an eerie echo of 1960s’ male chauvinist pigs.
The doubling down continued when Judith Warner, who writes for TIME Magazine, agrees that Ann Romney is “out of touch” with most women. You see, Ann Romney comes from an intact family where the man is the primary breadwinner. What could be more appallingly regressive than that?
And then, of course, there’s just the ordinary bottom feeder obscene ugliness than routinely emanates from the Left. This kind of verbal violence is the Leftist equivalent of the old dictum that, if you have the law, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; and if you have neither facts nor law, pound the table. If you’re a Leftist, you “pound the table” by calling women the most obscene names possible and threaten them with violence.
That’s the cursory rundown. Now back to “I’ve been thinking….” This is not just a war of tired old feminists who are trying to justify the fact that most of them paid illegal, undereducated women, many of whom speak little or no English, to raise their children. This transcends Leftist feminist sensibilities and touches upon a core issue in statism — namely, who raises the children?
A small, but relevant, digression here: One of the most interesting books I’ve ever read is Joshua Muravchik’s Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. The title is self-explanatory. I highly recommend the book, simply because it’s so good, but I mention it here because of the chapter involving Israeli kibbutzim, which were intended to represent the purest form of voluntary socialism. Part of the socialist experiment was that children would be raised, not within family units, but as part of the cooperative. Only in that way could the kibbutz defeat unhealthy, selfish individualism and assure a new generation of people dedicated to the movement.
Except that’s not what happened. Some moms were very happy to allow the collective to raise the children. However, it turned out that the majority of moms, once those mom-hormones started roaring through their bodies, didn’t want their children whisked off to the collective nursery, no matter how nice a place it was. They’d bonded with their babies, and they wanted to nurture those babies. The kibbutzim were quickly forced to reconfigure to allow for single family homes. Had they not done so, they would have lost too many families.
And now, back to the main point….
For the last many years, I have been the single most important influence on my children. Yes, they go to school (public school, yet); and yes, they both have thriving social lives; and yes, I’ve been unable to insulate them from a Leftist pop culture that is hostile to traditional norms and to conservatives generally, but I’m still the most important person. Of all the influences in their lives, I am the one who is most present, most consistent, and most trusted. I’m sure they’ll pull away as they get older, and they may even rebel, but I’ll still be that little voice in their brain, imparting facts, values, and analyses.
I am the counterweight to the state. Therefore, I am dangerous. I am subversive simply by existing. My love for my children is a dominant force that works its way into their psyches and that trumps the state-run schools and the state complicit media world. Some mothers, of course, are entirely in sync with schools and media. They happily reinforce the statist message. But those of us who don’t are a powerful anti-statist force and we must be challenged.
The Left’s problem with Ann Romney transcends her husband’s wealth, her (and his) Republican identification, and her decision to work for her children, rather than for a paying employer. The Left’s problem with Ann Romney is that she represents the triumph of the individual. No wonder they hate her so much.Email This Post To A Friend
47 Responses to “The real threat that the Ann Romneys of the world represent to the statist Left”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.