Found it on Facebook — misconstruing Mitt’s correct statement about marriage and gun violence

Here’s today’s Facebook find:

This poster, of course, comes from a liberal.  What the liberal doesn’t realize is that Mitt was riffing right off the liberals’ own beloved New York Times when he said that the best way to deal with gun violence is to promote marriage.  Just this July, the Times ran an article acknowledging what conservatives have known intuitively, which is that two-parent families are much less likely to live in poverty than one-parent families:

The economic storms of recent years have raised concerns about growing inequality and questions about a core national faith, that even Americans of humble backgrounds have a good chance of getting ahead. Most of the discussion has focused on labor market forces like falling blue-collar wages and lavish Wall Street pay.

But striking changes in family structure have also broadened income gaps and posed new barriers to upward mobility. College-educated Americans like the Faulkners are increasingly likely to marry one another, compounding their growing advantages in pay. Less-educated women like Ms. Schairer, who left college without finishing her degree, are growing less likely to marry at all, raising children on pinched paychecks that come in ones, not twos.

Estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality. Long a nation of economic extremes, the United States is also becoming a society of family haves and family have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes.

The next analytical step is to recognize that there is a strong correlation between poverty and crime.  Even Barack Obama acknowledged this in an ugly, back assward way when he said that “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but rich people are all for nonviolence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want. They want to make sure people don’t take their stuff.”  The corollary to Obama’s class warfare statement is that rich people don’t take other people’s stuff either — they buy it.

So a root cause of crime is poverty and, as the New York Times admits, a root cause of poverty is single mother parenting.  That means that Mitt didn’t say something stupid; he said something smart.  Only people in deep, deep denial would deny the wisdom of his statement that we deal with violence, not by getting rid of the Second Amendment, which is our bulwark against government tyranny, but by reaffirming traditional middle class values.

While I’m on the topic of marriage, poverty, and crime, I’ll just throw one more thing into the mix:  Daddies.  Studies show that Daddies matter when it comes to boys and crime (and boys commit vastly greater numbers of crimes than girls do).  Interestingly, it’s not clear that this Daddy statistic applies as well to two Daddy families.  Still, two Daddy (and two Mommy) families are still going to be economically more stable than a single parent family, and the single parent trap is what I believe Mitt was addressing.

Facebook is just a wellspring of clever misinformation aimed at credulous, emotionally charged liberals.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    Physicists ought to start investigating the leftist ability to leap from one wild conclusion to the next, a process that apparently exceeds the speed of light.
     
    The inability to understand what Mitt was getting at comes from a deep-seated resentment among many leftists at the fact that the greatest satisfactions in life come from the mundane things that our nature points us to—bonding with another, creating a family from the love between us, rearing our children, accepting our limitations, and being willing to let go of our youth and eventually our lives.
     
    But leftists are special people. They do not see themselves bound by the ordinary. If anything, living an ordinary life condemns their specialness. I can understand that self-concept, because I’m as prone to egoism as any of my fellow human beings. But what I can’t understand is how silly, unimaginative, and self-defeating many leftists’ idea of the unfettered, unbounded life is:
     
    Working in a corporate hive where the instant you retire or move on you are forgotten?
     
    Bedding as many people as you want? And, horrors!, if the bedding leads to conception, paying somebody to eviscerate the result?
     
    Bearing a child out of wedlock, because you, the Center of the Universe, need/want/must have somebody to love?
     
    Devouring the duckspeak output of publishers like the New York Times, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, Harpers, HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC as though there is a wondrous depth of insight and thought there, and you are a member of the elect group of readers smart enough to understand it?
     
    Gotta go. The car needs washing and I have to retrieve the garbage cans from the street. 
     
     

  • Jose

    Talk about a loaded question from an “undecided voter”. 
     
    I’m not impressed with Mitt’s record in this area, but I was pleased with his answer in the debate.  He clearly stated that no more gun laws are needed. 
     
    I was interested in how Obama expressed his interest in renewing an assault weapons ban, and in the next sentence stated that most crimes were committed with cheap handguns.  Great logic there.

  • Libby

    They don’t want to see the connection, just as they have decided that Mitt’s awkwardly phrased “binders full of women” comment indicates he’s a misogynist despite his record on hiring female employees. 
    Then again, these are the people who believe that one’s choice in light bulb could make or break mother earth’s existence. And that promoting abortion provider Planned Parenthood on Mother’s Day makes sense. And on and on…

  • Danny Lemieux

    Charles M, great comments, but I would suggest one very minor but important edit to what you said….

    “Bearing a child out of wedlock, because you, the Center of the Universe, need/want/must have somebody to love YOU?”
     

  • Beth

    Although I don’t have a link to ‘prove’ my point, Daddies also matter when it comes to girls and how early they become sexually active.  I just wish common sense would prevail among people–boy children need a mother and a father and girl children need a mother and a father.  
    Of course with this kind of talk I would be labeled a sexist.
    Progressives are just so much smarter than the rest of us.

  • Charles Martel

    Amen to your edit, Danny.