In The Blogs

Why Sarah Palin Backfired: Parenting Makes Moms Liberal, Dads Conservative

| Tue Sep. 8, 2009 6:22 PM PDT

357px-William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_Charity_(1878).jpg

— Charity, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

So this is why father thought he knew best. Parenthood pushes mothers and fathers in opposite directions on political issues. Mothers become more liberal and fathers more conservative with regards to government spending on social welfare issues like health care and education.

Researchers from North Carolina State U used data from the 2008 presidential election to evaluate the voting behavior of men and women with children living at home. The findings:

Women with children in the home were more liberal on social welfare attitudes and on attitudes about the Iraq War than women without children at home.
Men with kids were more conservative on social welfare issues than men without kids—though they did not differ in their attitudes towards the war in Iraq.
There was no evidence of a 'Sarah Palin effect'—even when looking exclusively at Republicans. The self-professed hockey mom and working mother of five did not attract votes of parents, especially mothers.

Smart moms.

I mean, it wasn't Father Jones, now was it?

The researchers also evaluated the data for elections going back to 1980 and found the trend is strengthening for dads to become more conservative, while the trend is holding steady for moms to become more liberal.

Which means the Republican party which calls itself the family-values party might as well call itself the daddy-values party. Or maybe the white-daddy-values party. Or the red-state-white-daddy-values party.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

Advertisement

Julia Whitty is the Environmental Correspondent for Mother Jones. Her latest book DEEP BLUE HOME : An Intimate Ecology of Our Wild Ocean will be out in July. For more of her stories, click here.

Comments

Leftist Versions of Archie Bunker

Submitted by avannavon on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 11:59 AM PDT.

Being closed minded is a danger for liberals just as much as it is for conservatives. Lately I have been meeting increasing numbers of these knee-jerks, who are willing to be lied to and refuse to see what it right in front of their faces. Joe Wilson lacked decorum, no doubt. But BHO lacked truthfulness, and that is the greater sin. Wake up, wannabes. Illegal aliens will be covered under Obama's health care reform bill, because there is nothing that prevents them from being covered. He lied to both houses of Congress on national television. Now, THERE'S a STORY for you, if you had sense enough to recognize it and cover it. He also lied straight in the teeth of the Congressional Budget Office when he said his health reform wouldn't add "one dime" to the deficit. All this money IS NOT going to come out of your paychecks and out of the cash people have available to pay for subscriptions, too? Aunt Nancy will just fire up the printing presses, right, and print some more, just for you?

Health Care

Submitted by NancyP on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 1:02 PM PDT.

I actually read the relevant pages in the bill and I find that you are wrong, illegal aliens will not be covered and it is the law now that they not be covered. There is nothing in the proposed bill to change that. And why would it be changed. You really need to stop believing everything that you hear or read in chain emails. Remember the health care industry has a vested interested in keeping the status quo and if it doesn't change many more Americans will be the losers. Xenophobia needs to stop.

To avannavon: Your comments,

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 12:46 PM PDT.

To avannavon:
Your comments, and the health insurance story, are extremely important to everybody.
So we need to know how and where you found this out so we can learn.

Health care

Submitted by NancyP on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 1:13 PM PDT.

One place to start is factcheck.org. Its the easiest to find but there are others, however, factcheck.org explains where the misinformation started.

health care

Submitted by jacknoir on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 3:21 PM PDT.

Current law explicitly already prohibits illegal aliens from participating in government health care programs. If that wasn't enough, the new health care bill under development on page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." If you can't figure that out, it means illegal aliens don't get health care coverage.

Avannavon is wrong. My guess is he doesn't really care what the facts are

health care

Submitted by alxzba (not verified) on Fri Sep. 11, 2009 7:14 PM PDT.

I do not believe BHO lied, that Nancy P is telling what she reads to be true and that Joe Wilson is first class jerk. I have one question: if an illegal alien who cannot afford medical treatment enters an emergency room with a legitimate problem, is that person turned away or treated? If treated, as I imagine will be the case, who is going to pay the expense of treatment, and how is this possibility covered in the proposed health care legislation?

Illegal Aliens in the

Submitted by Reg (not verified) on Sun Sep. 13, 2009 6:07 AM PDT.

Illegal Aliens in the emergency would be treated, just like Americans without insurance are treated. However, if Americans could have an affordable self-payer public option, not contingent on their low-paying small business jobs,this type of treatment in emergency rooms would be for emergencies and not be the norm. We could make what the ER is for vs a backed up clinic for the poor.

It's not covered

Submitted by greenknight on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 5:51 AM PDT.

If a hospital treats an illegal alien who cannot afford medical treatment, that would be a charity case - or they could try billing them, though it would be a waste of time.

The proposed legislation is about providing health insurance to Americans, it has nothing at all to do with such a case.

Using common sense....

Submitted by cjger31 on Sun Sep. 13, 2009 8:20 AM PDT.

To avannavon: You do know that there is a specific, unequivocal exclusion of illegal aliens from benefiting from HR3200, don't you? You do know that the consequence is that THEY DON'T GET PAID FOR TREATING ILLEGALS, don't you? Common sense informs me that Joe Wilson is wrong. President Obama was right. Actually, it would be common-sense smarter for the bill to cover illegal aliens because then they wouldn't spread viral and contagious diseases around. Cheaper too. Emergency service costs more than a few antibiotic pills.
As for the cost of this health reform, it will come from budget cuts in other areas, like defense spending. I don't know where you get your common sense, but mine informs me that spending on the health of our citizens is better than spending for a war. And not one dime added to the deficit. Q.E.D.

Dads and Moms and political persuasions

Submitted by jay lewis (not verified) on Sun Sep. 13, 2009 10:39 AM PDT.

The determinations put forth are good ones, and generally without error in terms of assaying the ground dirt of American politics re the yin yang parental factor.

However, I think it imperative to add that it is a freeze frame in the evolution of individual parents and their employment. Mothers having jobs is one thing, mothers having jobs in major corporations is another thing altogether.

As more and more mothers rise in corporate enterprises, and eventually rise to an even divide (one hell of a hypothetical, given that corporate mindspeak is not only male oriented but decidedly paternalistically authoritarian), one should see a correspondent shift to balance, but in reality one will see a tendency to reinforce the yang side, not because women become more yang, but because they are the same victims to corporate think (a process controlled by what is loosely referred to as political correctness) as men are.

Corporations demand, usually in a voice more whispered that traceable, that their team stay on company beam, and today that means political persuasion. That will not change unless women actually achieve such success in the corporate world that they can influence change in general corporate policy-making--not in the minor stuff, but in the core principles that corporations have always interpreted are best held by a Promise Keepers' (daddy is boss, mommie is hepmate) perspective.

In fact, one can add that with the undeniably growing, heavy influence of mega-church mentality, the corporate world is either reinforced with their adamant man-mindedness, or that the influence of the religious right introduces a retro action that promises to hamper any evolution to the gender center.

Sociological observations of

Submitted by Bella (not verified) on Sun Sep. 13, 2009 3:00 PM PDT.

Sociological observations of human beings have shown that young males usually start out radical and grow more conservative with time. Women are the opposite of this, usually starting out conservative and growing radical with time. This is why we have "raging grannies" rather than "raging grandpas". Young women start out conservative largely because they are often faced with heavy responsibility in young adulthood (being a mommy) while in this same age cohort, young men are often exploring their new freedom and independence. As men mature, they obtain responsibility, yet women when their children are grown experience a liberation, that frees many to seek new horizons.