The Analytic Papers

A Confirmation on the Determinant Relationship Between

Sexual/Marital Patterns and Politics
Robert L. Kocher

The September 27, 2006 issue of USA Today published a collection of studies and data under two headings: "Marriage gap could sway elections" and "Fertility gap helps explain political divide."

Rightly or wrongly, The Democratic party is perceived as representing countercultural values. It appeals to people living those values.

One of the conclusions of the article is that "the political tug-of-war" between Political party support, "is between people who are married and those who never have been."

According to a USA analysis of 2005 Census data, "House districts held by Republicans are full of married people. Democratic districts are stacked with people who have never married."

"Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people.

Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married."

"The 'never married' group covers a variety of groups who form the Democratic base: young people, those who marry late in life, single parents, gays, and heterosexuals who live together."

"The marriage divide drew attention in the 2004 presidential race. President Bush beat John Kerry by 15 percentage points among married people and lost by 18 percentage points among unmarried people, according to an exit poll conducted by national news media organizations."

When the 25 congressional districts with the highest proportion of married people are compared with those of the lowest 25, the highest 25 are 63% married and all Republican represented while the lowest 25 are about 39% married and represented exclusively by Democrats.

A greater percentage of married people vote, which is why Bush won the election.

Another serious political determinant is children. "House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic mother of five from San Francisco, has fewer children in her district than any other member of congress: 87,727." "Rep. Chris Cannon: R-Utah, a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children: 278,398."

"GOP congress members represent 39.2 million children younger than 18, about 7 million more than Democrats. Republicans average 7,000 more children per district." That's only half the story. The stability of conditions under which the children are being raised is entirely different. Democrats exclusively represent 30 districts in which less than half of children live with married parents. Such districts are a metastasizing social, economic, and political catastrophe for the United States.

When the family oriented group members are children's advocates are so by advocating dedication to committed family life. They stress family commitment/cohesiveness, responsibility, and moral sexual values as necessary for raising children. Non-family life children's advocates advocate governmental financial subsidy of children and of the social patterns producing or raising them predominant in their districts, while steadfastly avoiding criticism of those patterns. This becomes subsidized license. It also puts power in the hands of politicians doling out license and subsidy. Hillary says "it takes a village," not a family or committed relationships not individual responsibility to raise children, thereby transferring responsibility for serious adulthood exclusively to other members of society. The more accurate meaning is that consaequences for disinclination to enter serious adulthood and take adult responsibilities will be imposed upon the village, licensing and enabling perpetual adolescents to remain so.

There are a number of cross-correlations here. A district in which only 30% of children are living with married parents is going to be dependent upon government welfare programs to support those children. This also secondarily correlates with racial cultural characteristics.

What I have also seen in personal experience during the last 40 years and have analyzed in the series on the deteriorated relationship between men and women on this site is that politics is substantially determined by sex lives and consequences of sex lives. Certainly that is a controversial statement and apt to be dismissed as crazy, but the data show it to be true. Certainly there are issues such as war that affect party affiliation, but marital states and stability and commitment come up through the background on a broad level much as spring water comes up from the ground.

A man who looks into his little toddler daughter's eyes and is committed to a future for her, and an environment for her, thinks far differently than a man who's primary interest is partying that weekend in passing episodes. He also votes differently than a man who creates children, then goes off on his merry way, or aborts them. Similarly, a committed married couple with three kids is oriented toward an entirely different cultural value system than someone whose primary interest is passing amusement the next weekend and hooking up. The worlds the two groups are attempting to create and the values they endorse are direct opposites. One group is striving for Norman Rockwell while the other is living Picasso or Dadaism.

It has also been my observation that the second of the above groups of people suffer from a type of existential angst. They are living psychodynamically dishonest and destructive lives, producing a diffuse sense of life dissatisfaction that they attribute to society. The bitterness generated is transferentially displaced and converged into a compulsive countercultural destructive hostility toward society and rationality which has become a mutually supportive politically correct crusade in recent years. The failure of family and instrumental personal relationships has generated a generalized diffuse bitter antagonism that astigmatizes interpretation of all events and has become one of the strongest determinant factors in American political and intellectual life.