This is a really big pet peeve of mine.
And let me explain why.
Politics, tainted as it may be as a "hobby," is one of the more noble ones in that it shows you actually care about the country. THis is why this blog is here and arguably why you are here. You care about the future of the country and so you opine, theorize, and if you're particularly intellectually honest, study and research the facts and then form an opinion.
But Bruni, all of the sudden, deciding she is "not so left wing anymore" is just another example of a another typical leftist-turned-conservative because "her husband is conservative." It's akin to the "Sean Hannity Trophy Wives" I spoke about before where a "typical" 20 something girl with the politically correct liberal arts degree, swallows the leftist BS whole and skips along in la la liberal land during her 20's with no serious or rigorous thought given to her supporting a leftist ideology and what the ramifications are for her country and future in voting so.
Then comes along the first REAL challenge and responsibility she ever has face - a husband and children.
This heavy dose of reality does two things.
1. She now has something more important than her politics (her husband). And since supporting liberal causes was not really an passionate ideology for her as much as it was a "hobby" or something "fashionable" to do, she abandons it to pursue a family.
2. When kids come into the equation, HOOO BOY! Now the woman has genuine skin in the game in the future. And instead of being worried about whether there will be a Sex and the City 3, she now has plenty o' time to think about what kind of future her child will grow up in (which is why I LOVE it when liberal Gen X'ers start having children and all of the sudden start to take an interest in the federal deficit).
Of course, while this is disproportionately a phenomenon you see with women, men are the same to blame too. THough I like listening to him very much, Michael Medved was a liberal. And if I recall correctly Dennis Prager was one too (in his youth??? Or am I thinking of another talk show host?) Took my old man 55 years of life to finally get past "stage 1 thinking" and realize "just throwing money at the poor" doesn't solve anything. Here, I'm even more harsh on men because I want to say, "WHAT THE HELL!? Where the hell have you been??? You're FINALLY GETTING THIS NOW?! Great, thanks for effing up everything up with your past 30 years of voting. Oh, and look, you get to die off and not see the destruction you've wrought upon this country!"
Of course the catalyst which brings about men's realization that youthful leftism is stupid and ultimately unsustainable is usually the real world. The working world. That when you're done with college and the smoking pot and partying, you realize "claiming to be a liberal to score with chicks" might have some long term and serious consequences if you don't grow up. It's not because, "Oh, all of my buddies are Republican, so I am too!"
But now that I think about it. Perhaps not. How else can you explain union members religiously voting left all the time when Detroit has been gutted and the Iron Range is at a mere fraction it's former employment.
11 comments:
You really shouldn't be suprised at this stage of your life. Off topic, http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/01/end-of-the-savings-boomlet-bon
why do the most recent recessions get somewhat shallower (except this one) but longer and longer. Too much playing with/printing money by the Feds? Also shows you can't avoid the pain, you only stretch it out.
To excuse my own turn in liberalism, I'd been told over and over (in school) that it was the duty of government to care for the poor. When you're single digits, its a rare child who can make a coherent argument against an adult.
The other side is that we now have solid evidence that just throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it.
I believe it was Winston Churchill that said "if a man is not a liberal before he is thirty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative after he is thirty, he has no brain." Simply put, most people simply allow themselves to be guided by emotion instead of reason, and this seems to be a universal truth.
Personally, I've been a heartless wanker since I was born.
Funny how a mortgage and a family will suddenly make you stop caring about world hunger.
Seriously though, it is not unusual for a spouse to take on a bit of the political philosophy of their partner. Normal really. Couples talk, well... they should talk. And that talk is about the future, the economy, world events, etc...
And, since liberalism is based on feelings and beliefs, their positions are a bit tougher to support, thus it is natural for a leftist to move to the right as a result of a relationship with a conservative.
Now, this would be something totally different if she was only saying she was more conservative to support her husbands career.
"claiming to be a liberal to score with chicks"... I resemble that remark.
Alas, my ex turned liberal roughly the same time the Omessiah appeared. Jarring, because she'd previously been fairly centrist and moving right after long association with me. She was a poli sci major with Democrat patrons, I'm a soldier who has to deal with the real-world consequences of their decisions. I can understand the move, as it helped her career. It also established what kind of person she was and what her price was.
Fortunately, it drove home the notion of what kind of people are in politics.
I think CBMTTek's right. It's not so much the woman switching because of her husband as it is exposure to the conservative worldview. One noteworthy exception aside, I've yet to encounter very many conservatives-turned-liberals, whereas almost every conservative I know has been a liberal at least once in their life - typically when they're young, dumb, and stupid.
I'm fortunate enough to have married a lady who is just as conservative as I.
I was also fortunate enough to never have a time when I was a "liberal".
I've always been a "heartless conservative" - because even back during the LBJ days when I was in junior high, I knew that logically the "Great Society" programs were doomed to fail - because they weren't designed to help people become self-sufficient. The programs handed out fish and never attempted to teach people to fish themselves. They perpetuated failure.
A neo-con is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.
David Horowitz was a Marxist - right up until someone he loved was murdered by Marxists.
George Orwell was a pacifist and a socialist, but in his Notes on Nationalism he scolded many pacifists for their admiration of totalitarianism, and he warned the world of the evils of socialism in Animal Farm and 1984.
Brad DeLong is a lectern leftist. He preaches about saving the environment, correcting inequality and promoting diversity. But every night the fat puke drives home to his posh suburban home in a town that is only 0.5 percent black.
Liberalism is a cult of self-hatred and death. A person's natural instinct for self-preservation usually causes them to "cheat" on leftist principles. If you don't cheat, you end up dead, broke, or insane.
Liberals teach their kids to be liberals, but in general they train their kids to be disciplined, functioning, self-sufficient adults. It is grown adults and other people's children whom they are compelled to remove shame and restrictions, lavish with gifts, and grant unearned praise.
Liberalism is at odds with basic human nature. It stirs such strong cognitive dissonance, it's a wonder of modern self-hypnosis that their heads don't explode.
Simply put, people are not really as liberal as they like to say they are. Actions, not words, reveal a person's true preferences.
Very good observations- marriage did it for me-- having another's life in my hands.
Small complaint?
Your white on black format is nearly impossible to read easily. Some of us have bad eyes...
Women opting for their husbands' politics is not a bad idea. It diminishes frictions, and also, the old love-honour-obey is not dead. The husband is still usually the principal breadwinner, and his ideas on politics in regard to family income might have weight for that reason. He bears the brunt of the responsibility for funding home and hearth, and his political views should be respected for that reason.
It never worked that way in my family (extended) though, where the women tended to be conservative and the men liberal.
The part of a woman's head that she votes with is connected to the part that makes all the other decisions.
Keep that in mind.
Post a Comment