Who Is Reponsible for the Illegitimacy Explosion?

On February 17, 2012, Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise of the New York Times write, Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage, advertising what we all know: that the opinion makers in our country have become increasingly tolerant of, even apologetic about, what “used to be called illegitimacy.” They describe it as, “the new normal,” failing to differentiate the statistical norm from the ideal norm. In some neighborhoods, drug abuse is the statistical norm. Would the New York Times call that “the new normal” too?

De Parle and Tavernise cite some statistical facts:

Percentages by Race of Children Born to Unmarried Mothers: black children, 73%; Latinos, 53%; whites, 29%

Percentages of Women Married at the Time of Their Child’s Birth According to Mothers’ Level of Education: college-educated women, 92%; women with some post-secondary schooling, 62%; women with a high school diploma or less, 43%.

“Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.”

Armed with that data, the authors spin it to their purpose which is either to directly state or imply that poverty is responsible for illegitimacy, and, therefore, for the misery that out-of-wedlock children and society often suffers. The failure is our collective failure rather than any shortcoming of irresponsible mothers and fathers. Consider the following statement by De Parle and Tavernise: “Amber Strader, 27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant.”

Found herself pregnant? How did that happen? Did she find herself deciding to have unprotected sex, find herself looking for a place to have unprotected sex, find herself enjoying unprotected sex, and, no doubt, find herself having subsequent unprotected sex?

If you and I had only acted more socially responsibly, Amber never would have become pregnant, and her illegitimate child would have had a better chance to realize the American Dream.

The New York Times article fails to acknowledge that America has included poor and/or uneducated citizens since its inception. Instead, it quotes University of Pennsylvania sociologist, Frank Furstenberg: “Marriage has become a luxury good.” The Times, apparently, does not realize that heretofore poor people always have been able to “afford” marriage. The cost is not financial but moral, the mores of sexually consenting individuals, their families of origin, and their communities.

And, as for education, the correlation with out-of-wedlock motherhood is presented as though it is a direct consequence of poverty, that poor “folks” cannot get a proper education and, therefore, “get" pregnant. Could it be that responsible women are more likely to stay in school, that they have the intelligence and self-control necessary to make the sensible choices required to wait for marriage before having unprotected sex?

De Parle and Tavernise inadvertently touch on the central issue concerning illegitimate births when they write, “Ms. Strader said her boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. ‘It was like living with another kid,’ she said.”

The authors choose not to interview a single father of illegitimacy. To do so, they would have to hunt the father down, probably at the basketball court or corner hangout, and they would have run the risk of being called prejudiced. In fact, the Times piece does not offer a single statement about absconding impregnating males.

The irresponsible male has learned that only a fool marries the casual sex object that he impregnates. He even has a word to describe her: “baby momma.” Why incur life-long commitment to a woman or child merely for having a good time? Better to let society accept responsibility, blame, and guilt for the consequences of casual sex. The perpetrator always can depend on the New York Times in his attempt to project blame onto you, me, and our country.

Emperor Barack Obama: Mandating Morality

For many on the right and left, Barack Obama’s current stand on abortion funding is a matter of morality, infinitely more important than anyone’s election or re-election.   For the moment, however, let’s view the issue exclusively through the prism of the President’s dark-triad personality that is characterized by narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.

Since abortion is all about values, one cannot point to any definitive, objective data to resolve the searing social dilemma with which we struggle.  At the level of the individual, however, the question of abortion is deeply enmeshed within the core of our personalities: who and what we are and what we stand for.  Because abortion is so personal, I believe that no one should “tell” anyone else what they “should” believe about abortion, provided, and this is my essential point, that the individual’s position authentically represents that person’s true beliefs.

Enter Barack Obama.  His narcissism is such that he knows not only what is best for him, but also what is best for every American citizen.  He truly believes that he has the righteous authority to impose his will on the nation, and that after his policies are enacted we all will realize that the Emperor had been correct.  (Recall his health care “mandate.”) 

Obama, the psychopath, is not an axe murderer, but a man so devoid of empathy and emotional insight that neither shame nor guilt plays any part in enabling him to consider the inalienable moral rights of those whose opinions diverge from his.  Barack Obama comforts himself by readily recalling all the wickedness of America–past racism, Imperialism, blah, blah, blah.  Like his wife, the inimitable Michelle Antoinette Obama, Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama conveniently forgets the blood, treasure, and tears that Americans have shed when fighting for, feeding, clothing, and comforting people from virtually every major nation on earth   

Finally, Barack Obama, the Machiavellian, evidences a superior capacity to conveniently amend his rhetoric whenever his highness perceives national outrage so intense that it threatens his essential self-serving goals, such as his re-election.  He likely comforts himself by conspiring with his supporters to find some subterfuge by which later to get what he must publically concede.  

So, what about the current abortion funding issue?   Since he knows that the policy is costing him, in true dark-triad personality style, Obama has adopted a widely-publicized strategy of policy revision.  Like a snake, he slithers forward, halts, and tastes the wind before proceeding.  He will be checking his focus groups and opinion polls in order to decide which next move is best for HIM.

As of this moment, the media suggests that Barack Obama is “considering” revisions to the abortion funding mandate.  Time for the administration to pause in order to see who says what, how loudly, and the potential affect on Obama’s chances to remain at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue after January 20, 2013.        

Remembering the Obama-Russia Reset Button

In early 2009, the Obama Administration, with much giddy showboating, boasted how they were pressing a bright red “reset button” with Russia.  Although not directly condemning George Bush, they strongly implied that his mishandling of Putin et al had caused the USA to miss an alleged opportunity to develop American-Russian collaboration that would make both countries and the world better places.

From the outset, the gesture was laughable.  ABC.net documented the absurdity of the attempt on March 9, 2009 as follows:

Russian media have poked fun at US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she gave her Russian counterpart a "reset" button with an ironic misspelling.

Ms Clinton's gift to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at their meeting in Geneva on Friday evening was meant to underscore the Obama administration's readiness "to press the reset button" in ties with Moscow.

But instead of the Russian word for "reset" (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word, meaning "overload" or "overcharged" (peregruzka).

Daily newspaper Kommersant put a prominent picture of the fake red button on its front page and declared: "Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton pushed the wrong button."

For once the Russian media had gotten it right, laying bare the sophomoric attention-seeking antics of Obama and his not so merry men and women.  The gang thought that the red button would be perceived in our country and throughout the world as dramatically symbolizing the “I’m not George Bush” philosophy that served as the basis for Obama’s intended remake of America.  Instead, the red button fiasco presaged a wagon train-long line of policy blunders.  Barack Obama proved one thing:  neither a president nor an administration can fashion a personality or practices that depend on not-being someone or something.  (Psychologists call that “negative identity” and it is negative in every sense of the world, the kind of identity adopted by many charlatans, crooks, and other criminals.)  

Since 2009 we have seen the results of the myopic not-George Bush governmental policies, especially as revealed in our interactions with Russia.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have empowered Vladimir Putin’s interminable anti-USA sniping and undermining.  On February 6 of this year, the Goggle search “2012 Russia condemns USA” produced 31,700, 000 results, including items illustrating negative Russian remarks and actions regarding  our country pertaining to Libya, Israel, Cuba, international law, violations, spying, and a host of others.

The Russian refusal to sanction Syria is only the latest of that country’s failure to cooperate with the USA, albeit the most inhumane one.  CNN reported that the United States, France, and the United Kingdom “were furious” with Russia for its February 5, 2012 veto.  The article noted that American Ambassador Susan Rice told their reporter, "Those that have blocked potentially the last effort to resolve this peacefully ... will have any future blood spill on their hands.  The people of Syria have yet again been abandoned by this Council and by the international community."  On February 6, Reuters quoted Rice as having used the word “disgusting” to describe Russia’s veto and its implications.

Syrian people lie dead in the streets because, having seen that Barack Obama supported the Libyans, they erroneously expected that our President would lead Russia, China, and the free world in supporting their rebellion as well.  

Susan Rice’s comments explain, then, why the Obama-Russia reset button had been colored blood red.  

The Mind of Political Mindlessness

"Men at some time are masters of their fates:  The fault [brutal] is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

Why do we permit political Caesars to double speak us into mindless cognitive complacency?  Daniel Kahneman, psychologist and Nobel Prize winner, provides a partial answer by positing two more or less distinct systems of thought.

System one, our default system, operates via speedy, often emotional, intuition.   Under ordinary circumstances, we respond to messages instinctively.  We look to validate what we already believe.  Kahneman uses the acronym  WYSIATI  (What You See Is All There Is) as a memorable pneumonic to underscore that proclivity.  All we seek is a story that “seems” consistent with our beliefs and accurate in the context in which it is delivered.  As always, context is critical.  And context, in this case, means the message AND the messenger.  We not only are likely to fall for a thinly supported message that we already believe, but more so if it is delivered by a person who frames the message in a neat, simplistic, easy to swallow package.  Put together the “Tell me what I want to hear” content with the “He’s so smart and righteous” messenger and you see why Barack Obama does so well with desperate minority and elitist majority citizens.

The alternative to system one, of course, is system two thought.  Kahneman posits that system two is capable of monitoring and challenging system one.   Note, however, that while system two CAN influence its naive brother, it rarely does.  In fact, two is more likely to convert one’s intentions into actions rather than to negate them. 

We must educate and discipline ourselves intellectually in the most critical spheres of living, if system two is to have any chance of over-riding one.  In politics, that means that we have to challenge each and every political pronouncement and program, all the more so if we like the communications and those who deliver them.  In short, only effort—intense and consistent—can counter our endorsement reflex.  And that level of effort presumes an enduring commitment to struggle, even to obsess, about our political opinions.  Just writing about it makes me tired.         

The power of Kahneman’s theory lies not so much in the originality of the basic ideas, since virtually all of his major tenets had been articulated by “big theory” psychologists of yesteryear—persons as familiar as Sigmund Freud and as thoroughly forgotten as Harry Stack Sullivan—but in its timeliness.  In our age, neuropsychologists tend to command most of our attention.  We wait with bated breath for discovery of the next neurotransmitter that psychopharmacology can exploit into a medication.  That expectation helps fuel the system one mentality that emphasizes effortless, automatic processing of events rather than effortful, deliberate system two thought.  And nowhere is system one thinking so detrimental for us, our loved ones, and our country than it is in the socio-political sphere.   Whenever a politician says anything beyond hello, we need to launch system two, since he is no more likely to advise us to challenge his ideas than is the proverbial used-car salesman likely to point out the mechanical defects of the automobile that he hucksters.