I was rereading a USA TODAY article from September that reported: “Marriage and parenthood define what’s different about Democratic and Republican districts even more clearly than race, income, education or geography.” Republican representatives, far more than Democrats, come from districts that have high percentages of married people and many children, with Republicans averaging 7,000 more children per district.
My first response was, “What would happen if we include the same-sex couples who would get married if they could?” In reality, this might boost the Dems’ family numbers slightly, but not enough to make a huge difference, even if we’re generous with the number of same-sex couples (PDF link) and their children. There are clearly other social and economic factors at work here as well. It’s not surprising, though, that Republicans, the party of “traditional values,” are strong in areas where married couples are the predominant social structure.
The article goes on, however, to quote Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, who says, “Both sides are very pro-kids. They just express it in different ways. Republicans are congenial to traditional families, which is clearly the best way for kids to grow up. But there are some kids who don’t have that advantage, and Democrats are very concerned with helping those kids. Children in Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty and with single parents than kids in GOP districts.”
“Clearly the best way?” “Kids who don’t have that advantage?” Dennis Cauchon, the USA TODAY writer, never questions those statements. Let’s look at the Census again, though:
- Less than 25% of all families consist of a married, opposite-sex couple living with their own (biological or adopted) children—down from 40% in 1970.
- One third of all births are to women who are not married. Half of them are not teen mothers, but rather women over the age of 20. This number doesn’t distinguish between those cohabitating with a partner and those living alone— regardless, it shows that marriage and family are no longer the coterminous institutions they once were. (The one third also does not include women who adopt, since we do not know how many women adopt on their own.)
- For women over 30 years old, 8% birthed children on their own in 1970, but today the proportion has jumped to 12%.
Yes, there are still far too many children living below the poverty line, and too many single parents struggling to support their families. Nine million children without medical insurance is nine million too many. There is still too much disparity in income along racial lines. These are complex problems without simple solutions. Let’s not assume, though, that all non-traditional families are struggling or in search of help to transform themselves into some traditional ideal. (Conversely, let’s not assume it’s okay to restrict the privileges of the marital state to only a portion of the population. As Terrance says, everyone should have the choice.)