If you read no other story tonight, or early this week, read this one from Saturday's New York Times. In it, two women who started from similar positions in life find themselves a few years down the line in dramatically different positions. The culprit? Marriage, or more correctly, the failure to marry. Read closely, as you find the NYT figuring out (finally) that the dreaded "income inequality" and "decline of the middle class" has not actually been a plague visited upon our society by depredations of the 1%; rather, they are in no small measure the result of the explosion in out of wedlock births to women of all races.
Are there men to be blamed here? Yes, indeed. But in these days of ridiculously inexpensive birth control, the accumulation of out of wedlock children (above the first in a relationship) seems somewhat preventable. Additionally, this "lack of marriageable men" phenomena must in some way be enabled by the easy availability of commitment-free sex, reinforcing their status as not worthy of marriage.
Here's Mitt Romney--speaking the truth before the NAACP: "A study from the Brookings Institution has shown that for those who
graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before
they marry and then have their first child, the probability of being
poor is two percent. And if those factors are absent, the probability of
being poor is 76 percent."
Yes folks, that's Brookings--as in left of center. Was the NAACP listening? Will they go back into their communities and "preach" this gospel? One hopes, but one would likely be disappointed.
When George Bush and Karen Hughes said these things, they were sneered at by the liberal intelligentsia. Hell, when Dan Quayle said it, he was vilified. Perhaps now that the NYT has said it, liberals and Democrats (why, I repeat myself) will listen.