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.Email This Post To A Friend
6 Responses to “Found it on Facebook — misconstruing Mitt’s correct statement about marriage and gun violence”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.