I’m having a good deal of fun listening to those who were absolutely sure that Romney was going to win the election now try to explain why Obama won. The thoroughly mediocre Jonah Goldberg blames it all on the breakdown of the traditional family.
One of the stark lessons of Obama’s victory is the degree to which the Republican party has become a party for the married and the religious. If only married people voted, Romney would have won in a landslide. If only married religious people voted, you’d need a word that means something much bigger than landslide. Obviously, Obama got some votes from the married and the religious (such people can marry their interests to the state, too), but as a generalization, the Obama coalition heavily depends on people who do not see family or religion as rival or superior sources of material aid or moral authority.
A couple things jump out to me. The first is the bizarre combining of family and religion, as though marital status was directly correlated with religious belief, and the equally bizarre combining of “material aid” with “moral authority.” Yes, I think being married probably correlates with higher incomes (mostly because that often means two incomes instead of one and because of some inherent tax advantages), but I don’t see what in the world that has to do with religion or “moral authority.” This is just a gibberish statement, the kind of nonsense Goldberg seems to be able to pump out effortlessly day after day.
The second thing that jumps out at me is that weird paranthetical aside that married and religious people can “marry their interests to the state, too” — by which he apparently means that those married and religious people who voted Republican are not trying to “marry their interests to the state.” That is utterly laughable, but reveals much about the deranged view of the world that Goldberg must have.
Like Dispatches on Facebook: