If you are the kind of person, like me, that thinks that honest and nuanced writing from a conservative editorialist is something that exists only in a fantasy land, today's NY Times op-ed from Ross Douthat is a refreshing change.
In today's piece Douthat gives an interesting and essentially correct assessment of how America is developing two divergent family models, and why the 'blue' one is more successful.
When observing family structures in contemporary America, one almost immediately comes upon a seeming paradox:
A large segment of society by default tolerates all kinds of "non-traditional" family and sexual arrangements, ranging from premarital sex and unmarried cohabitation to homosexuality, and well beyond. The other large segment of society, divided in this way, is more outwardly socially traditionalist on these matters. And yet, it is the former segment of American society that exhibits stable families and socioeconomic success, while the later is mired in divorce, teen births, and other social pathologies.
Of course, to those of us steeped in the language and values of the left, this is not a paradox at all. But it is not hard to see how to someone steeped in the language and values of the American right, it certainly would be. That is why I find it significant that Douthat addresses essentially this issue head on - and, probably reluctantly, but at least honestly, draws basically the same conclusions we would.
... a culturally conservative “red America” that's stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates.
This self-defeating cycle could explain why socially conservative states have more family instability than, say, the culturally liberal Northeast. If you’re looking for solid marriages, head to Massachusetts, not Alabama.
Douthat is right on here. It is sad but true that in the more culturally conservative, less educated segment of America (whether among White, or Black, Hispanic or non-Hispanic people), early pregnancies and out of wedlock birth have become an acceptable and almost default aspect of life. For Sarah Palin's fans, for instance, the fact that she had a pregnant teenage daughter just made her even more like them, rather than any sort of stand-out. This part of society has kids early and often, and moving in and out of relationships afterwards.
Meanwhile, among the more educated and culturally (though not always politically) liberal portion of society, with its more tolerant attitude toward adult sexuality, unplanned and early births are rarer than they have ever been, and are viewed as a life-altering horror to be avoided. This part of society moves in and out of relationships for years in the 20s and 30s, before eventually settling down into a more or less permanent marriage, followed by a usually smaller number of children.
This is a sociological issue near and dear to my heart, because I find the yawning contrast in family expectations between people who inhabit the same space amazingly remarkable, and a crucial aspect of our contemporary culture that is receiving too little attention.
This division is even something that transcends (somewhat) the more typical red-blue divide. It is truly a matter of class and social expectations, more than anything expressly political. As an entire new generation comes of age divided by this major life difference, I think that the cultural implications will be profound.
But the issue of how to stem the tide of out-of-wedlock births (now over 40% of all births in the US) is expressly political. Given that, it is nice to see at least one conservative seeming to come around to realizing that their traditional explanations, revolving around the supposed harm done by sexual liberation and gender equality, are essentially wrong.