Phyllis Schlafly launched a no-holds-barred barrage on Republicans and John McCain wondering “Where did the Reagan votes go in the 2008 election?”
“By a colossal 40-plus point spread, unmarried women voted for Barack Obama by 70 percent to 29 percent. One explanation is economic: The women who cast off husbands look to Big Brother Government to support them. They vote for the party that promises more benefits from the Welfare State…
The United States today has 24 million children growing up in households without their own father, and 17 million of those are in mother-headed households. Why is anybody surprised that the dissolution of marriage, depriving kids of their own fathers and the widespread acceptance of matriarchy produces eager supporters of Obama’s promise to “spread the wealth around”?”
Is it that simple? Is the changing structure of family changing the role of government?
Schlafly talks about several other issues, including trade, bailouts and youth, but none was so pervasive as her bit about Obama and unmarried women. Trade didn’t decide this election, and the bailout didn’t either (although I think what caused the bailout hurt the GOP on the critical competence issue), and young people have no reason to be conservative – they get more than they give from government.
But both unmarried men and unmarried women went for Obama (men 56%, women 70%) and unmarried voters have been about 35% of the electorate since 2000.
So, why have single people supported Democrats so demonstrably? Is it a big government shift? Are unmarried people more likely to support government safety nets, or even movement towards socialism? Absent the traditional support systems of marriage, or even the days when one salary was enough to provide for a family, is government becoming a more reliable support system than marriage and family?
I don’t think all Schlafly’s conclusions are correct. But, I do think this: While every party official is wondering about “outreach” with regard to race, I think we better plan an effort of outreach into “the marriage gap.”
