![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsDavid Levine makes the correct observation that there's no obvious causal relationship between a state's voting for a national candidate and the state's subsequent economic and social well-being.
Red staters will tell you that it's all about the values: the values that contribute to the well-being of a polity are also those that come into play when choosing a candidate for wider office. Blue states voted for Barack Obama for the same reason they have lower pregnancy rates: that's what their values tell them is the best course of action.
Philip Premeau more or less makes this point when he links to a PZ Myers (!) post in which Myers talks about being married for 31 years, yet he's a "dirty little atheist," while Newt Gingrich gets to speak on behalf of the party that "talks family values," but has had multiple, unnecessarily cruel, divorces along with multiple incidents of infidelity. Premeau wrings his hands about several undeniable facts:
Premeau, however, must end with a long paragraph in which he says, "I could not link to Myers' post without confronting his odious insinuation that traditional Christian marriage dictates abject servility for the wife and unbound power for the husband."
He should have.
By ending with a long wail about how unfair and "ignorant of the way of the cross" Myers is, including quoting from his favorite spellbook, Premeau short-circuits his point. He wants to spark a discussion about how red states are failing to live up to their values, but blue states not only live up to theirs, but surpass red states in living up to red-state values. Instead, his conversation is all about Myers. His thesis is ignored in favor of lambasts (and defenses) of a consciously deliberate lightning rod of a guy.
Red staters will tell you that it's all about the values: the values that contribute to the well-being of a polity are also those that come into play when choosing a candidate for wider office. Blue states voted for Barack Obama for the same reason they have lower pregnancy rates: that's what their values tell them is the best course of action.
Philip Premeau more or less makes this point when he links to a PZ Myers (!) post in which Myers talks about being married for 31 years, yet he's a "dirty little atheist," while Newt Gingrich gets to speak on behalf of the party that "talks family values," but has had multiple, unnecessarily cruel, divorces along with multiple incidents of infidelity. Premeau wrings his hands about several undeniable facts:
The formula of the culturally liberal upper middle class - contraception, education, extended courtships, late marriages, small families - spells success. The formula of the culturally conservative lower middle and working classes - abstinence, religion, brief courtships, early marriages, large families - spells disaster. ... When it comes to inculcating sexual piety, the power of bourgeois culture rivals, even exceeds, the power of traditional religious institutions.So, despite being of "the party of family values," Premeau re-iterates that blue staters are still succeeding, because of their values, whereas red staters are not.
Premeau, however, must end with a long paragraph in which he says, "I could not link to Myers' post without confronting his odious insinuation that traditional Christian marriage dictates abject servility for the wife and unbound power for the husband."
He should have.
By ending with a long wail about how unfair and "ignorant of the way of the cross" Myers is, including quoting from his favorite spellbook, Premeau short-circuits his point. He wants to spark a discussion about how red states are failing to live up to their values, but blue states not only live up to theirs, but surpass red states in living up to red-state values. Instead, his conversation is all about Myers. His thesis is ignored in favor of lambasts (and defenses) of a consciously deliberate lightning rod of a guy.
