Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist
Married to Government
by Terry Jeffrey
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Had only married women been allowed to vote in the 2006 elections, Republicans might still control the House of Representatives.

Fifty percent of married women voting in those elections, the network exit poll revealed, opted for a Republican candidate for the House. Only 48 percent went for a Democratic candidate.

On the other hand, had only unmarried women been allowed to vote, the House today might be almost entirely composed of Democrats. While 53 percent of the overall vote in U.S. House races in 2006 went to Democrats, 66 percent of the unmarried-woman vote went to Democrats.

What does this super-majority of unmarried women want? More government.

Or, put another way: They want the government to tax money away from married couples and give that money to them in the form of government entitlements.

Or, put another way: They want socialism. Or, as the Democratic polling firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner put it in a report published on Oct. 31, "They want and need government to make their lives just a bit easier."

There is an ominous change taking place in American culture that could revolutionize our politics, making it more difficult to sustain our free-market system and our tradition of self-reliance, driving more people into government dependency. This change is the decline in marriage and traditional family life.

Democrats sense an opportunity in this decline. It could boost their political prospects tremendously. "The growing political importance of unmarried women is undergirded by a demographic shift that is fundamentally changing America," Greenberg Quinlan Rosner reported.

"Between 1960 and 2006, the percentile of the voting age population (as opposed to households) that was unmarried increased from 27 to 47 percent," the firm said. "If the current trend continues, the unmarried population will become a majority in the next 15 years. And while the number of married Americans aged 21-54 years is dropping in absolute terms for the first time ever, the number of unmarried couples who cohabitate and the number of women living without a spouse are on the rise."

The polling firm sees a potential 2008 windfall for the Democrats among unmarried women especially. It describes them as "easily the largest segment of the Democratic base."

"In total, there are over 53 million unmarried women of voting age, a number that dwarfs the percentage of seniors, people of color and even union members," the pollsters report. "Unfortunately, in the past their levels of participation and registration have ranked well below that of married women. In all, 20 million unmarried women did not vote in the last election."

Increasing turnout among these unmarried women could help cinch 2008 and other future elections for the Democrats.

To do this, Democrats must offer policy proposals that especially appeal to unmarried women, and the pollsters point to a series of "Democracy Corps" surveys that suggest what these issues might be. In a September poll, for example, respondents were read a list of nine "concerns" and asked to name the two they believed the president and Congress should pay the most attention to. While the war in Iraq topped the list for both all respondents and unmarried women, the other eight concerns revealed a certain trend.

Unmarried women, it turned out, were more likely than respondents in general to want the president and Congress to pay attention to health care, the economy and jobs, and Social Security and Medicare. They were less likely to want the president and Congress to pay attention to terrorism and national security, illegal immigration, energy and gas prices, taxes and spending, and moral values.

Unmarried women, the pollsters said, "reject the Bush supply-side approach to economics" and agree by 58 percent to 32 percent that America does better when "our government helps create conditions so that many can prosper, not just a few," as opposed to when "we have a limited government that keeps taxes low so that businesses and individuals can prosper."

Unmarried women are also ready to support socialized medicine, the pollsters say. "American voters in general may shy away from 'radical' steps such as importing a Canadian-style system," the pollsters reported. "Unmarried women, however, embrace such a powerful step."

What unmarried women seem to want in greater proportion than the overall population is a government that will take care of them. As marriage and family decline in America, the political pressure will mount for government to expand. When government grows, freedom shrinks.

Baby boom liberals may forever deny it, but freedom depends on the bonds of marriage.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Slogan for 2008
I think we need a new name for the Democrats, given that the bulk of them are now unmarried women with FEMinist tendencies. How about "FEMocrats". Our slogan should be one that warns people to avoid this group, perhaps to "duck" it. Hence: "DUCK THE FEMOCRATS!"

Men, your mission is clear
Get married!!!!!

AudiR10
I believe women are paying a price for the shift in emphasis within the schools as a result of the feminist movement. There was/is a mindset within the education establishment that women had been oppressed and deserved special attention and that boys as members of the oppressor group deserved to be ignored. The result was a dramatic increase in the number of women in college and decrease in men (as a percentage).

Increased education naturally led to more employment opportunities and higher incomes. Women though were acustomed to marrying up (in an economic sense) and as their station within the business world improved the pool of acceptable candidates for marriage shrank. Many women find themselves forced to choose between marrying down or being unmarried. Couple that with a decrease in the ability to have children as a woman ages and you have a formula for a huge number of very unhappy women.

Women have been told the old way of doing things is passe' and irrelavent. They bought into it because it sounded so liberating and for many that may be true. For many others it will end up being the path to loneliness. For society it means the most important part holding the community together, the family, is being abandoned by those that are most qualified to participate.

A Bit Further Up the Article List,
A bit further up the article list comes another cost of the selfish rejection of the bonds of marriage and family in favor of the gratifying of every personal wish and whim -- the dreadful increase in child abuse.

Rob
I didn't say being married was easier. I said it was easier socially -- and it is. Being part of a couple is, simply, easier socially because there are so many married couples, and married couples often tend to socialize with other couples. Single people sometimes have considerable difficulty finding enough interesting single people (who don't necessarily want to be married people) to socialize with.

But as another bit of proof, just look at the humongous amount of flack that unmarried women like Audi are taking on this tiny little thread alone. Then Wolfgang writes to Audi that her response "seems to personify two distinct types of modern female: the bitter feminist who never got a date with the hunky high school football player ... and never got over the rejection - and the typical mercenary, money-hungry American woman who has been with us for many decades."

Good grief. It's hard to believe in 2007 that there are men who think there are 2 types of women -- 1) those who never got asked out by the "hunky high school football player" and became feminists because they couldn't deal with the rejection, and 2) those who are "mercenary" and "money-hungry." However, Wolfgang's having written this in response to Audi leads to an extremely clear understanding of Audi's feelings to begin with. Who in heaven's name would want to marry that kind of man? A little bigoted? A little biased? Do ya think???

I applaud ALL women, and all men too, who elect to remain single by choice. It's not an easy decision -- evidenced clearly by some of the nasty, bigoted and anti-female sentiments displayed here.

Girls & Sugar Daddy Welfare State
It used to be, before the welfare state, that a young woman (&/or her guardians) knew that it behooved them to reject attractive smooth-talkin' rakes, ne'er-do-wells, & rogues, & instead hold out for a decent man w/ good prospects & work ethic (preferably education & good family too). Only in that way could she/they be reasonably sure she & the children would be provided for, & the children might grow up & become decent contributing members of society in their turn.

Men could for their part be reasonably sure they might get a good faithful mate if they developed those qualities.

Those who flouted the system, esp women, paid a price.

Come Big Sugar Daddy Welfare State, the deal changed. A young woman found herself presented with a choice:
(1) Live w/ her parents, put up with their rules, go to school & study, stay away from the gangbangers flashin' bling when everybody knows they don't get it honestly. Hold out for a good but maybe bland man with a bland not-so-great entry level job or still in grad school, & cleave to him. Option 1 requires a renewed commitment daily; you can always fall off & take Option 2 one day.
(2) Sleep with whoever makes your glands gush, have their babies while they step out & disappear, go to jail, or die off. Then Sugar Daddy Government makes you an instant Grown Mother With Children, & gives you a free apartment, food stamps, & other goodies. Once Option 2 is chosen, that's your life.

How many teens tired of their mom's crap pick Option 2 & are stuck with it henceforth?

Those goodies of course come at the expense of the married couples, & the single childless men & women, who work & earn & pay taxes. Single decent men who work and see their paychecks eaten by taxe$ are rejected by once-potential mates who ruin themselves instead with 'cute' punks, bums, & criminals.

Singles and Social Security
Te article notes that single women want government funds directed towards them.

It's begun to bother me that I am spending a great deal of time and money raising kids who will contribute to the social security of those who chose to spend their money on themselves. In effect, parents raising kids are bankrolling the retirement of single women.

If government funds are up for grabs, I think more should be given to support those raising future contributors to social security.

Andy

depressing
Audi, after reading your responses, i must say, their depressing. i'm not surprised that their are women who think that way, but that dosen't make confrontation with it any less saddining. the only thing i know about you is what you've written, and with that you seem to look at marriage as more of a business venture, than a normal step in one's life(like your first car, or graduating high school). i don't hate that you want to travel the world, own sweet cars, and be the c.e.o. of your companies, that dosen't make any sense. you seem to have covered all the bases in your stance except love. if a man loved you, he woulden't ask you to hand over your life to him, he'd ask you to share it with him, and his life with you. i don't think men should control all the money in the world either, that's just dumb. i don't want to boss you around and control your life, i don't live in Saudi arabia. you love your job, that's fine, i however cannot think of a profession that would make me happier than being married to a woman i love. your suiters have not impressed you, that's your business, i have no comment. i don't know what men you've met that would lead you to have these conclusions, but as a guy, i'm embarrased, it is not in our best interest to drive away females, quite the opposite. as for covering for your co-workers, that's the policy of the business you work for, unless they asked you personally, then you chose to cover them. as for you deal, i would gladly provide for my children(be a father) while you remain single and provide for yourself, i don't see a problem. all that said, i didn't write this to argue with you, in fact, i hope you find a loving husband, have lot's of children, and grow old together. i still have hope for you.

Huh?
I thought the feminist revolution was all about women taking care of themselves?

As others have mentioned, given the 50/50 sexual demographic of our species, for every single woman there must be a single man. What do they think?

I'm single, divorced, 43, an involved father, and definitely a LMTHA conservative. I'm used to being judged for my circumstance (both personally and politically), but, FWIW, (1) not everything works out as planned, and (2) a big weekend for me involves spending as much time as I can with my teenagers, along with some relaxation, cranking up the bass guitar, a nice long walk someplace, and then church on Sunday followed by football. Most of the single women my age party and 'hook up' like there's no tomorrow, and most 'dates' assume that's what I'm looking to do. Oh well.

Random Observations
1. How many of these pro-big government single women are members of ethnic minority groups? It may be very un-PC to say so, but since it is documented that two-thirds of black children are now born to unmarried mothers - and these women seem to bear multiple numbers of these children - of course they want government to take of them. Their own males certainly can't or won't and these women don't have even the minimum sense of personal responsibility not to bear one illegitimate child after another.

2. AudiR10, based on her comments, seems to personify two distinct types of modern female: the bitter feminist who never got a date with the hunky high school football player who preferred some ditzy cheerleader instead - and never got over the rejection - and the typical mercenary, money-hungry American woman who has been with us for many decades - explaining why whenever this country has an overseas war, the fellows in uniform bring back scores of foreign brides rather than wanting to come home to the domestic model. Ultimately, it is still sour grapes however you cut it.

Complete lack of logic
This article is pathetic. It lacks any logic whatsoever right from the start. Let's see: unmarried women voted Democratic by 66%. Therefore, they want more government. Therefore, they want to steal from married couples and therefore, to put that stolen money into their own pocket via entitlements.

JeezLouise -- is Terrence Jeffrey actually PAID to write? A third-grader could have reasoned out Jeffrey's conclusions. Pathetic.

And, belittling or negating any segment of the population because of its marital status is the height of lunacy. Many women AND men are unmarried for a huge variety of reasons. Choice is often a top reason. So is the refusal to settle for a life partner who is in some way "less" than what a person wanted as a lifelong spouse. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing. And many people on both sides of the equation WERE married and have been widowed or, unfortunately, divorced.

When someone wants to offer EVIDENCE (not the "I assume" logic that yavapaidiane offers -- "I assume this group is liberal," "I assume this group is conservative" -- again, useless) that unmarried women are unabashedly liberal, maybe then an article is due. Maybe not.

Frankly, I think both men and women who have chosen to remain single because they have not found a suitable life partner is a tremendously responsible position. They're not taking the easy way out by marrying just to be part of a couple, which is infinitely easier socially.

Single women are not a monobloc
There are many women who are single because we have surveyed the field and it does not impress us.

The fastest growing demographic in North America is women between 18-44 who have never been married.

And each of us has her own reasons and is steering her own life accordingly.

We are not a monobloc. Nor, I suspect from just surveying my married sisters, are married women.

Libs vs. Conservatives
The main difference between the two ideologies is that Liberals support the taking (confiscation) of other people's money to give away to others (poor, elderly, et al) while Conservatives want people to be responsible for and support themsleves. Liberals want to tell you how to live your lives and Conservatives just want to be left alone. The Socialists (Libs/Dems) will probably ultimately be successful in creating their oppressive, socialist USSA because they convince weak kneed Republicans to go along with their stupid redistribution policies, i.e. SCHIP, that give money to people that ought to be taking care of themselves. If people can't take care of themselves they shouldn't have children and force others, via the Federal government, to take care of their kids for them. They will also be successful because too damn many people vote their feelings instead of their own best interest and the best interest of the country.
Is it really in our best interest to subsidize and therefore exacerbate poverty through the plethora of programs ($$$) available to the "poor" (who own cell phones, cars, have cable, Internet, etc) such as SCHIP, WIC, Medicaid, free lunch programs, free housing, food stamps, etc?

Audi - if you REALLY want to be self-supporting then why the HELL are you a Liberal?

Another way
What about targetting single women with meaningful conservative policies that appeal to them (concealed carry, better policing, tax cuts) and changing their voting habits?

Being single doesn't mean that you have to be a socialist or a liberal, regardless of your gender.

That said, if there wasn't such a shortage of Conservative women in socialist Britain where I live, I perhaps wouldn't be single at 36.

Maybe Ann Coulter was right
Anyone who has been paying even scant attention to the changes in U.S. society, including demographic shifts, is aware of the issue Jeffrey expounds upon.

It does seem to portend great difficulties for the GOP.

While it is true single or unmarried women prefer the democrats, I wonder what the percentage is among single or unmarried men.

That demographic group probably is much more equally aligned between support for democrats and republicans, with white males supporting the GOP.

At any rate, it is difficult to argue against the demographic trends that seem to bolster the democrat party.

Maybe Ann Coulter was right in her observation that women(or did she specifically say "unmarried" women)should not be allowed to vote).

The above remark was only half in jest.

The Deciders


The corporate owners of The Unified Establishment Party* are already shifting funding from Rudy to Hillary. They don't care which one wins. They win either way. The RNC and the DNC are two divisions under the same ownership. The cheap labor express will be kept running, regardless of the will of the people.

That is, unless we nominate and elect someone who actually WILL secure the border and enforce the laws. It's up to us to save the GOP from itself and bring it back to its principles. The "handlers" have to be shown the door by voting your conscience in the primaries. Stop listening to the spin and hype, decide for yourself who best represents your values. If a cross-dressing, former mayor of a sanctuary city who marches in gay pride parades reflects your values, vote for Rudy. If that does not reflect your values, figure out who does and vote accordingly. We can nominate someone other than the MSM's choice. It's our country, we are the deciders.

*(h/t Pasadena Phil)

A police state instead of a family
How strange it is, ...

The increase in singleness is primarily due to people rejecting the limits and boundaries that being part of a family imposes on its members. Those who refuse to marry largely do so because they can't bear the thought of having others' needs and requirements restrict their freedom to indulge any of their whims and impulses.

And the result of this refusal to willingly bond with another in a loving partnership where each contributes to the welfare and the security of the family and then raises children to continue that loving support into the future is to cry for policies forcing others to provide for people they neither know nor love at the expense of their own families.

Thus those who refused to be willingly yoked together in a marriage contribute to all being chained together under the whip of a police state.

Bring back Polygamy
Well, we would have less single women.

And remember fully 50% of people that get divorced our women also!!!

What? I can't make jokes?
Tinsldr2@yahoo.com

I'm a #2
yavapaidiane, I fall into the second category:

2. How many single women are single because they simply never found "Mr. Right" because of the numbers of men who decided they are/were gay or that they wanted to live shacked up? I would bet that most conservative single women are part of this group.

I'm a single, Christian, conservative female, and I am disappointed in the lack of single Christian men. I refuse to marry just for the sake of marriage, but I want very much to find a man I can spend my life with. I like men very much, but most single men my age (42) are not active in a church, and they are pursuing hedonistic pleasures like there is no tomorrow. But all I need is one, and I figure there has to be one somewhere, and I'm just trusting that I'll find him eventually!

SINGLE WOMEN
As an unlikely conservative myself, I think there are questions that need to be asked:

1. How many single women are single by choice? I will assume that this group is made up of mostly leftists and liberals.

2. How many single women are single because they simply never found "Mr. Right" because of the numbers of men who decided they are/were gay or that they wanted to live shacked up? I would bet that most conservative single women are part of this group.

3. How many single women are lesbians? I think it is folly to underestimate the significance of this since gay men and lesbians as a group are well educated, affluent, and a major voting bloc.


Their Path To Power
The Leftnuts see nothing wrong in the results of their programs. As they see it we are all better off with a socialist form of government and if a byproduct of the damage they have done to society is more socialist voters then so much the better. Clinical insanity is the description of the Leftnut syndrome. They see the answer to any problem as always being more government. Most often that answer makes things worse and their solution is,of course, more government.

Freedom to a Leftnut means the freedom to kill their children and the freedom to live off of the work of someone else. Break the family, break the society and impose socialism, the Democrat party platform.

Married to Government
Sadly, this is the result of the forty plus years of The Great Society and subsequent government programs intended to "help" the poor but, combined with the expansion of the voting franchise, have done nothing to eliminate poverty but have only served to create a permanent welfare class supported by huge permanant government programs. We have spent over six trillion dollars and the problem is worse than when we started, primarily because we do not limit or discourage people in the professional poverty class to two children. Therefore they are reproducing at a greater rate than can be assimulated into an increasingly technological society and causing a non-productive drig on the economy, the end result of which will be an economy simular to the socialist economies of Europe.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.