Red Families v. Blue Families
I’ve just finished reading (well, partially skimming) the excellently researched Red Families v. Blue Familes. An excellent summary is provided here. The conclusions it comes to are these:
- The biggest factor dividing red and blue families is age at family formation.
- Red families form early.
Historically this was fine (and was true for most Americans), but the effects of economic globalization since it’s beginnings in the 70’s have destabilized key sectors of the economy that used to employ those without further education.
Economic instability translates into family instability. However, Red America doesn’t see it this way. Many don’t recognize the effect of economic instability has on families at all. Those who do blame this on the extremely mixed bag of government social programs, illegal immigration, jobs moving overseas, and vague notions of “big government”.
Others in Red America blame the effects of economic instability on the growth and formation of Blue America and it’s associated values. Those who do are most likely to emphasize specific values about sex that end up perpetuating instable families. E.g. emphasizing abstinence-only education, being anti-abortion, and being anti-contraception in general (you might even choose to include an anti-intellectual stance in this list because that’s often what keeps people from questioning said values).
- Blue families form later.
Blue families have adjusted to the global economy through education made possible by delaying family formation. This increases their chances of financial success by making them more mobile and more likely to get high-paying jobs.
Blue families are much less likely to discourage use of contraceptives in all forms. This allows them to reconcile sexual urges and exploration while also waiting to form families until later. Before the invention of many modern contraceptives sex and childbearing were intimately linked, but with birth control pills and condoms easiliy available this is no longer necessarily the case.
Forming families later also gives those involved a not so easily defined advantage in that they are more mature (having already been given plenty of time to “sow their wild oats”). All of which combined leads to much stabler families compared to Red America.
All that said, I have reservations about both philosophies. Let’s cover the contradictions present in both. With red families the contradiction is obvious: the values they wish to instill in children often result in the effects they are trying to avoid. Evangelical teens who embrace the idea of abstinence are statistically just as likely as all other youth to have sex before marriage.
With blue families the contradictions are harder to tease out and I must resort to using my personal worldview to deconstruct it. The unstated assumption on the parts of the authors of the book in question are that globalization, economic growth, and the resulting prosperity are here to stay. That paradigm’s ideal of success is reliant upon the fate of our industrialized, globalized society. I see this as failing in the long run (although that’s a topic for a post of it’s own). Which isn’t to say that the Red paradigm has nothing to lose with a societal collapse, but I think that the Blue paradigm has particularly far to fall.
If I find the time I’ll follow this up with why I think that is. I also want to do a bit of analysis about what each side has going for them in a future of societal decline and possible solutions to their potential problems. I’d also like to write about why I’m choosing to get married so young and also explain in better detail why I think our industrialized, globalized society won’t last past the end of the century.
