Charles Richardson writes in Crikey today:
From a lot of cultural indicators, you’d think that religious belief in Australia was on the increase. Certainly politicians and commentators talk about it more than they used to; Kevin Rudd is more open about his Christianity than any of his recent predecessors, and Paul Kelly assured us last year that secularists “are fighting a losing cause”.
…
But if we move from the world of rhetoric to the world of hard data, the picture is quite different. This week’s release of 2006 census figures shows that only 70% of Australians identified with a religion, and only 64% with some variety of Christianity (down from 71% in 1996). Just under 19% said they had no religion, while about 11% declined to answer the question.
Even those figures, however, overstate the extent of religious commitment. While, for example, the 1.1% who described themselves as Pentecostals are probably serious about their religion, we know that more traditional categories – principally Roman Catholic (25.8%), but also Islam (1.7%) and Judaism (0.4%) – function more as social or cultural identities, and do not necessarily involve religious belief.
They certainly don’t equate to church attendance: the 2001 National Church Life Survey found that weekly attendance was down to 8.8% of the population. A 2002 survey found that 18.8% “claimed to attend religious services at least monthly”, down from 20% in just four years. And surveys of what people actually believe consistently find that many professed adherents of traditional religions are in fact gripped by what George Pell calls “heresy or unbelief”.
There’s another particularly interesting aspect of the census data on religion, which was picked up by Bernard Salt in The Government Gazette yesterday. Ignore the gibberish about generationalism – his explanations are his stock in trade pop sociology, but he’s quite right to identify the crucial aspect of the data beyond the headline figures.
Nowhere is the shift away from belief stronger than among Australia’s youth.In the chart above, I show the proportion of believers by single year at various census dates. Believers have lost most ground among those aged 0-5 years: for example, in 2001 some 70 per cent of babies aged under one year were assigned a religion by their parents; last year, only 63 per cent of babies were designated believers. The market for baptisms must have plummeted in the past five years.
This shift away from God by infants is, of course, matched by a similar shift by their parents. The proportion of believers aged 20-35 contracted by no less than five percentage points between the 2001 and 2006 censuses.
I haven’t had time to do a full analysis, but you can download the census data here yourself. The key thing that jumped out at me was that the “no religion” and “did not answer” folks don’t begin to decline by much as a percentage until you get to the 55-64 age bracket, and that there are more people giving those answers in that age bracket than there were in the 1996 census.
Of course, you could posit some hypothetical religious revival in the future, but what we’re seeing here really is the accentuation of long term trends (which is another reason why Salt’s highly speculative explanations are flim flam). And, historically, you can make a good case that having been largely settled after the dam really broke in Europe for universal religious belief from the mid Nineteenth century, Australia was always on track to becoming a very secular society indeed.
What’s also interesting is looking at the census data in concert with social attitudes data which shows more liberal social attitudes gaining much ground the younger the population sampled is, despite all the crazy claims we heard a while back about a “generation of South Park Conservatives”.
Fervent religious belief is highly correlated with conservative social mores (and conservative voting patterns). I wouldn’t extrapolate too much from these shifts to voting intention, because the most important cleavages in determining electoral behaviour aren’t cultural (except, perhaps, sometimes at the margins – which is where it can count). But I’ve always been struck by Guy Rundle’s argument in his Quarterly Essay a few years ago that Howard was holding back a dam of social liberalism, though sceptical about his position that it would be Peter Costello who’d usher in a more socially liberal Liberal Party. Jeff Kennett was an example in the Australian context of a Liberal Premier whose views were largely libertarian on social issues, and he may have been riding the crest of a wave rather than swimming against the Howardian tide. The British Tories under Cameron have also moved away from conservative moralistic rhetoric.
In this context, I think it makes more sense to see the culture wars of the last decade as a rearguard action rather than as some sort of evidence of a return to the religious, or a return to “traditional values”. Of course, here we should make an exception for those fronts in the culture wars which go to national identity, immigration and multiculturalism, because they reflect different underlying dynamics. It’s instructive, I’d suggest, to observe the way in which anti-Muslim sentiment has been framed in such a way as to highlight the issue of gender equality. You can have a cultural identity which is relatively socially liberal and still in some degree xenophobic.
But I think all this helps to place some of the discussions about religion and politics in some perspective. Pentecostal churches may be increasing their market share of Christian believers, but there’s no evidence that religious belief and practice more generally are displaying anything other than accelerating decline. Family First, and Tony Abbott style politics, are more a symptom of a cultural shift away from strong religiously inspired social values rather than evidence of their revival. With any luck, they’ll be increasingly seen that way as the “social issues” culture wars fade from the scene.
Update: This post has been re-published in On Line Opinion today.
“…I think it makes more sense to see the culture wars of the last decade as a rearguard action rather than as some sort of evidence of a return to the religious, or a return to “traditional valuesâ€?.”
Absolutely spot on mark. I am so sick and tired of all the empty puffery written in the newspapers and elsewhere about how religion is staging a comeback under the Howard Hegemony.
For some time now, my only real interest in the four-yearly census has been the religious question (leaving the deeper analysis of other more complex issues to the experts), because the long term trends on religious affiliation or otherwise show up better than anywhere else, given the consistency of the question over the decades.
And yes, in the light of the continuing non-religious trend revealed in the latest census, its imperative that governments all over this nation begin to address the continuing dominance of organised religion in our public schools (if not implicitly as a lazy hangover from the past, then explicitly with Howard’s new army of chaplains), and the absence of any curriculum and teaching in support of 4 million non-believers, many of whom send their children into the public system rather than having them brainwashed in religious private schools.
Heck, I’d even settle for a comparative religion stream in public schools, so long as it includes the atheist option.
After all, children are all atheists when they are born.
mark says:
Family First, and Tony Abbott style politics, are more a symptom of a cultural shift away from strong religiously inspired social values rather than evidence of their revival. With any luck, they’ll be increasingly seen that way as the “social issues� culture wars fade from the scene.
Baloney. Mark has a tin ear for cultural data, as usual. The census data only registers vague attitudinal preferences, not those revealed by following the money.
Religious observances are only one marker for basic cultural values. And not all that reliable.
The Culture War rubber really hits the political road in the class room, rather than the church pews. Going to a religious church for one hour a week was always mostly cultural tokenism. Forking out big bucks to send your kid to a religious school is a real sacrifice.
And here the hard data points to a definite trend towards an increased religious or traditional value committments. A few years back the SMH ran a series on the revival of religious schools in the past decade:
As Phillip Heath, president of Australian Anglican Schools, sees it, parents are flocking to religious education for “the package” that provides “a moral and ethical educational framework”.
NSW is leading this spiritual revival in non-government education. Some 330,000 students, or 30 per cent of the state’s total, attend religious schools. And most denominations plan to open more schools in a wide arc on Sydney’s fringe and along the coast from Nowra to Tweed Heads.
Brendan Nelson, the federal Minister for Education, says religious schools offer the trifecta that parents are looking for: identity, discipline and values. “They increasingly want values that inform the personal development of their children.”
The shift to religious schools dates from the 1920s when values-based education in public schools was replaced by a “strong secularism”, says Professor Terry Lovat, pro vice-chancellor for education and arts at the University of Newcastle.
As the churches’ role in shaping personal values has ebbed, the job has increasingly fallen
to [religious] non-government schools.
And those values are old-fashioned conservative values, which emphasise family, faith and flag. Thats why Australian households have been much less prone to divorce, and more prone to marry nd have kids, over the past five years. And why they continue to send those kids to religious schools in greater numbers. And why those kids turn into flag-waving patriots, much to the disgust of Wets.
You need to read between the headlines and bottom lines to get the full story.
grace pettigrew wrote:
I think you’ll be waiting a while. The religious don’t seem overly keen on comparative religion (at our local school, the anglicans and catholics have different classes for their once-weekly school sponsored dose even though they seem to share handouts). There was no atheist box to tick on the list of choices either, so our kids either end up doing nothing for an hour or go along to the anglican bollocks (at least they hear the noah story and other stuff I suppose). If the atheists could be given a choice of comparative religion, we might be onto something, although I suspect the “chaplain money” dished out by the federal government will not be spent on something so subversive.
The whole pentecostal revival seems very odd to me. Are these seriously conservative people being attracted away from mainstream religion into Assembly of God reactionary paternalism, or young people just plain bored with old style christianity and requiring a bit of theatre with their religion?
Also, it would seem that testosterone poisoning or other artifacts of male aging seem to contribute to a certain late-stage conversion into christianity – pity there are no questions concerning who converted when (i.e. are you a from birth christian or born again etc).
Yes, I’m sure citing Tony Abbott and Brendan Nelson gives you an impartial picture, Jack.
Huh? Not at the Catholic school my brother went to, certainly not “flag” and not “family and faith” in your sense either. A lot of Catholic schools are quite progressive educationally, actually.
Much? You might want to have a dispassionate rather than a hyperbolic look at the data, and perhaps take into account facts like we’ve got less than 50% of adults married for the first time ever.
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963251.htm?section=justin
And:
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963560.htm
I guess you don’t include those who go to irreligious Anglican churches!
That’s pretty close to the mark, I’d say, David.
As usual, Strocchi has drowned the religious baby in the economic bathwater.
The move to schools that badge themselves as religious is a consequence of the crisis in confidence over state school education. If state schools could sack troublesome kids like private schools can and do, much of this crisis would be allayed. State schools are much more prone to be the warehouse of uncontrollable, unmotivated, and unemployable post 15 year olds. This syndrome has a depressive effect on ENTER scores, the holy grail of secondary education, and the primary economic driver in school choice for post-compulsory education.
Moreover, it is now cheaper to send a child to one ofthe non-elite denominational schools than it ever has been. I would hazard a guess that more parents grit their teeth and tolerate the religious component of school at such schools rather than seek it out.
Indeed, some may even see this kind of schooling as vaccination against religious enthusiasm, as indeed it is.
As for citing Phillip Heath, president of Australian Anglican Schools and Stud Nelson, VC, former federal Minister for Education. Oh Puhlease.
What evidence is there that parents are looking for the trifecta: identity, discipline and values?
“They increasingly want values that inform the personal development of their children.�
Huh? This is what parents have always wanted.
Reading through the comments on Salt’s piece, I quite liked this one:
posted by John of Eumundi (28 June at 08:02 AM)
Yes, and if he took any interest in actual non-elite religious schools, he might find some of those values relate to things like conflict resolution and tolerance, not manly stoushes in the playground to the tune of “I vow to thee my country” or whatever.
I’ve always thought the South Park conservative was rather silly. SP might be in some respects right wing, but it generally libertarian not conservative. In general though the people promoting gen SP (Devine et al) would be as horrified by the liberal social attitudes of these people as they are pleased at any anti-left attitude they might have.
Bit like people who still buy their music on vinyl. Not many, but by Crom do they go on about it.
Interesting.
Jack Strocchi observation concerning religious schools is significant, but is he conflating religion and spirituality with a self-abnegating form of reification outwardly resembling “cultural observance”(avoidance)?
Isn’t sending children away from the including egalitarianism of state schools to the Stepfording cocoon of religious schools just a cowardly, precious and muddled response from parents themselves brainwashed earlier in life?
Spirituality is not the same thing as reaction and so much of this crap from mortgage belt mental strugglers comes down to insecurity through identity suffocated by authoritarianism, resulting lack of consciousness and (consequent) unresolved neuroses about sex.
Ah well, back to the middle age again, or at least the ‘fifties and early ’sixties
Anthony:
“by Crom”
????
Indeed. Action against the culture war’s first warriors: The Luvvies of the 1970s.
David, are you perhaps confusing religious instruction with comparative religion? I have a couple of nephews in Catholic schools and apart from Catholic instruction (non assessable) they also have a religion class where they focus on two religions, in their case Christianity and Islam (assessable). Others are in state schools who have an optional non-denominational Christian RI class. And down here, not so long ago, the demand for (Christian) chaplains in state schools – both primary and secondary – was exceeding supply.
I enrolled my kids in the local state school. Very middle class, very academic, very white.
Very dull.
I pulled them out after six months and decided to send them to a catholic school (incidently with far less of an academic focus) after talking with other parents who had kids in that school and speaking extensively with the principal.
My kids are very bright, and sometimes the school isnt as academically challenging as their old school. But I was impressed by the fact that there were kids from other backgrounds including african refugee’s, that the principal and literature actively spoke of eco-spirituality, justice, and equity. And we decided that being immersed in strong community and spiritual values, and a more represenative bunch of kids was a far better alternative to the vile affluenza the permeates mainstream middle class society by default.
ANd i am one of those who doesnt go to a church ’service’, but would identify as a believer, if perhaps a rather fraught and torn one.
AS to hight school, thats a far more problematic choice. I actually like St Peters at Indro (incidently Noel Pearson went ) in Brisbane, but financially that ain;t gonna happen unless the kids get a scholarship, and despite being bright, i’m not keen to get my kids on the brainiac treadmill.
Another option is moving to Highgate Hill to get them into State High as one of m y New Farm friends have just done, but i dont know…..
Just sharing…
Mark on 29 June 2007 at 3:06 pm
About the same level of partiality I find on this site. Perhaps excluding your good self.
mark says:
YOu might want to have a dispassionate, rather than hyperbolic, look at the data, instead of jumping to politically convenient conclusions.
Also, you might want to have a re-think about the difference between absolute levels and relative trends.
“Decline of the Wets” is mostly about how the majority changed its political attitude towards minorities since the mid-nineities. But the majority have been having a bit of cultural change of heart themselves, since the early noughties.
And I take it no-one, not even a Wet, is disputing the fact that family formation is on the increase, given the mini baby-boom. This is surely a real sign of family values, especially amongst late-breeding feminists who want to avoid the tragic fate of Virginia.
Religious school enrollment is on the increase, an inconvenient truth that mark blithely side-steps. And most religious schools are more devoted to traditional values than secular schools.
And finally, the increased involvement in family and faith schools has spilled over into an increasing nationalism amongst the young, most obviously in sport and Anzac day attendance.
Bottom Line: the decline in religious observance does not portend a turning away from conservative familial, parochial or national cultural values.
Moral: Dont give a drowning Wet a dodgy statistical straw to clutch.
The sort of ethos at that school sounds similar to what was around when my brother was at St James a couple of years ago, SC.
I’ve had a few pentacostal friends and so attended a few AOG events. Especially with the younger crowd its almost like its a bit of religion with their theatre rather than the other way around. Those churches do provide a sense of community and something that many people find genuinely fun and entertaining in a venue that doesn’t include alcohol or other drugs (if you don’t include include religion as a drug). A bit of an escape from the usual peer pressures.
The “mini-baby boom” is pretty mini, Jack. And as with the stories here about religious schools which incarnate quite different “values” from yours, I have quite a few friends in their 30s with kids – none of whom would celebrate a model of family which could be described as conservative or authoritarian. Choosing to have kids doesn’t equate to acceptance of “family values” in the culture war sense.
I think you’re quite out of touch with the reality of schooling and parenting, Jack, which is quite different from what it was 30 years ago, no matter how many religious schools open up or whatever. In any case, many of the new religious schools are Pentecostal and Islamic ones. Others are cheap Catholic and Anglican systemic ones. I think sc and Katz have pinged the motivations for parents sending their kids to the latter much more effectively than you have. And as Charles Richardson himself observes, Pell doesn’t think most Catholic schools are anywhere near conservative enough for his taste.
Nor for that matter is it inconsistent with feminism, despite the OFFICIAL CULTURE WAR STRAWFEMINISM stereotype.
Since when did we put an ‘only’ before a 70% or 64% result? I’m sure Howard or Rudd would be delighted with either at the next opinion poll. Now 15% or an 11% result, yes, that’s worth an ‘only’, even if contextually it shows a slight increase.
Look, these are grown ups who have stated that they adhere to some form of belief. There was no question which determined how devout a person is, and neither should there be. The fact that they took the time to decide that, yes, they do believe, is an indicator of how many people conside God to be real. Given that having any kind of belief is more of an option in the 21st century than ever before, these figures are quite encouraging for anyone who is involved in faith projects.
It could be that the latest census gave a clearer indication of the outcomes of past censi had the questions been better defined, or had the idea of being able to admit to no religion been more acceptable.
That is hilarious, totally ridiculous, but absolutely hilarious!!! I nearly fell off my chair. What pompous priggery! I mean, come on, Crikey can’t be serious! Mate, we’re having to plan a new nursery department to accommodate the babies that are being born in our church, and we’ve plans being drawn up for a youth and children’s centre. Young parents haven’t stopped attending church, or believing, or being converted, and children accept Christ easily. There may be many unsaved young people, but by the time they reach their thirties they will have had at least five encounters with the gospel, and many will convert, or at least consider themselves to have faith of some sort.
But I must say that you’re correct to point out the lower averages of church attendance. This is an area most churches will have to look at, and are. The reason Pentecostal churches continue to grow stems out of their willingness to act on the demographics of change and adapt their presentation of the gospel to attract their generation without watering down the essential values or doctrines of Christianity.
No, FaceLift, it’s a percentage of the entire Australian population. And obviously, if people who are having kids are not religious, then they won’t ascribe a religious belief to kids under 5.
And 64% comes as a surprise to me. From memory, it was up in the 80s until relatively recently.
Sorry, Facelift, that quote is from The Australian, not Crikey. And it’s a simple statement of fact, drawn from the census data, not interpretation. Your church may well have lots of parents with young children, but the whole point of census data is to relativise judgements we may make from our own observations and understand that they may run counter to trends which are taking place across the whole Australian population.
That Salt thing yesterday infuriated me on so many levels. I was almost tempted to write a letter to the editor but when I went back to refind the article I couldn’t. As if every baby boomer in this country was affluent, propertied and all their kids had a plasma screen in every room. The media is so in love with this fairy tale. Puke.
I won’t even start on the religious BS in it, I wish to enjoy the rest of my Friday arvo. Bah.
I’ve got no idea what value KPMG get from employing him! They may as well hire Caroline Overington…
It was at 71%, Mark. But look, what does it matter if non-religious parents ascribe ‘no religion’ to their infants, who couldn’t possibly make a decision. It may be that the catholic tradition of christening is diminishing as part of the culture. It is perfectly correct for parents to say their pre-school children have no belief. But it can’t assumed from this stat that none of those children will have an encounter which leads to a religious decision.
In fact, the census confirms that at least 70% of the population have made some kind of religious decision between their formative and adult years. there is no reason to believe that this will drop significantly in the near future. In fact young people are more open to spiritual matters than previously, so there is a probability that they will embrace some form of religious belief.
No one is saying religious belief will disappear overnight, or at all, FaceLift.
What’s being observed is a historical trend:
That’s from 1996.
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/gov/census-1996.html
To have gone from 7.1% stating “no religion” in 1971 to 19% in 2006 indicates a major shift.
And on your other point, kids don’t fill out their own census forms. I’d suggest you download the data and have a look at the proportion aged between 6 and 14 who have no religion stated. In some instances, it’s possible that they will come into contact with organised religion, but with irreligious parents, it’s a lot less likely.
It’s very important here to consider how nominal much of the religious belief stated is – particularly among Anglicans, but increasingly among Catholics as well. That’s one of the reasons why I was pointing to Pell’s comments – research done on behalf of the Cardinal has found that very large numbers of young people who’ve just left Catholic schools have little understanding of core Catholic beliefs, and a very low rate of religious practice.
What in fact we’re seeing is an increase in those who’ve probably made a definite decision against religion. The “religious decision” nominal Christians have made – as I said, particularly among those claiming affiliation with Anglicanism – is often not much of a decision at all but more of a default statement about identity. The Anglican Church is well aware of that – I had some discussions with them last year and the National Church Life Survey people about the research.
If you could provide some evidence (eg survey) for that statement, I’d be grateful.
I was expecting you to show up on this thread, FaceLift. I don’t mean that as an insult, as I always find your perspective very interesting. So, an expectation happily met.
I would be interested in some kind of qualitative research being done within some of these denominational categories because you may be able to locate further interesting divisions in terms of the ‘orientation’ towards their stated religions. My theory is that a large minority within each denomination will have become more church-centred than their parents, and that would reflect the observation that FaceLift has made. I think there are important distinctions between those within that 19% as well, speaking as a member of that statistic.
It depends what you mean by that, Adam. Yes – if you’re talking about people who are active in religious practice, and no, if you mean people who are nominal adherents who will be less likely to go to church than when it was more of a social/traditional obligation.
If you’re interested, I’d suggest you check out the National Church Life Survey research – I’m just about to go out, but it shouldn’t be a difficult google!
Religion is on the decline. Australians are slowly waking up. Woo hoo!
I’ll check it out. Thanks Mark.
Do any parents filling in the census identify their children as the Spawn of Satan?
Jus’ askin’…
FDB, this is the chap who makes his oaths by Crom:
Interesting observations are made in one of the occasional papers from NCLS on the effectiveness of churches versus the ineffectiveness of schools as contexts for fostering faith. A lot to wade through, but there’s some interesting stuff there. A lot of the occasional papers etc seem to be based on 2001 data. Further digging needed…
FDB:
Crom – just the usual stuff – singing, clapping, the making of steel. Hey if you’re free this Sunday why don’t you come on down, some really nice people…
Ooh nice pic tigtog, anyone for the gym?
don’t you mean the pharmacy?
Don’t celebrate too soon, silkworm. Check the figures first!
Numerically, the drop in actual Christian affiliation is only 78,506 out of 12.7 million (1.6%), and is almost matched by a decrease in affiliation involving two of the traditional churches, the Anglicans and the the Uniting Church, at 62,890 and 113,247 respectively, who have suffered, I think, from wishywashy synods, controversial decision making and the possibility of splits in the last few years, and lost folk as a result, some to other church groups, others altogether out of fellowship, which was predictable. If they make positive decisions towards evangelicalism in the near future they may recover many they have lost.
As Mark indicates the drop is also reflected in 0-14 year olds, who would not have filled out their own census forms, of course, and, an area churches will have to seriously look at, 35-44 year olds. In every other age group there has been a slight increase.
I think it’s more about community than theatre, to be honest.
Take a swing into one of these churches sometime and have a look at the wall calendar – these churches come with ready made communities, broken down by age, gender, interest, you name it.
The couple of times I’ve been in to one to have a gander I’ve seen everything on offer from playgroups and parenting classes, to ethnic film nights, through to golf days and indoor cricket teams. The strangest? A napoleonic era war-gaming night for church members – true story.
Signing up with one of the mega-churches gives you an automatic sub-culture with a pretty full social calendar – that’s their killer ap, I think.
Numerically, FaceLift, but not in terms of percentage of the age cohort.
If memory served, they were collecting data again last year, Adam. I got on to them to see if they were interested in collecting some on correlations between religiosity and political affiliation and behaviour, but they didn’t think it would be of great interest to the churches who pay for the surveys. It’s still something I’d like to do some research on – if I could convince someone to fund it!
The whole young-people-are-all-raging-conservatives thing was always unempirical tosh invented by baby boomer journalists.
Everyone loves paradoxical stories, especially in journalism or academia. This one generated a lot of copy a few years ago: ‘Young tories rebel against aging radical hippy parents by embracing old fashioned moral certainty and sexual abstinence.’ Only problem is that the story just isn’t true.
As for the minority who do go into Pentecostalism: the thing about these churches is that there is virtually no rigorous theology going on. Its all about the ‘feeling’ (ie. gushy sentimentalism), about being ‘relevant’ (ie. making money), about being ‘contemporary’ (ie. cheesy music and orgasm-inducing spectacle). Lifestyle, identity, feeling – modern consumerism.
I think it’s more a case of the incessant pluralisation of subcultures than a substantive religious revival. Some kids become Emos, some become Pentecostals. People just want to belong somewhere. The fact that it is a religion is almost irrelevant.
Now are you really on about statistical evidence of belief or otherwise, or the faith in statistics their gathering and interpretation.!? I both believe,and consider myself an atheist.Neither is appropiate,and I just couldnt answer the census question,not only because of that,but, to answer only affirms the categories,not the realities as they are,and whatever.Wilhelm Reich a well read author had a saying..love..work..and knowledge are the well springs of life..they should also govern it.How can anyone honestly make up their minds on these things of importance as belief or not,I just do not know!? I cannot claim agnostic values with the last statement,i could however claim that ritual isnt something I find easy to indulge in..and, life is too hard to sacrifice my own sense of the world,for ancient writings,that seem to of come centuries after the phenomena was dead.That remains ,an obviousand real problem of acceptance. David Icke is getting my superficial gong of support at the moment..but the ritual of buying his books would be quite a sacrifice. Dont poke your tongue out at me!?
Mark on 29 June 2007 at 3:59 pm
Mark,
You started off this post in a confident blaze of “data” dumping to prove the alleged rampant advance of liberal secularism. And now you are reduced to groping for some way to explain away facts that are inconsistent with this interpretation, such as baby booms, reduced divorce rates, increased religious school enrollments and so on.
You really need to do a basic Popper filter and weed out sillier interpretations before jumping to conclusions. You have to look at all the evidence, and where its going, not just cherry pick the data to suit your preferred narrative.
mark says:
True, but trivial. MOre marriages and larger families is inconsistent with notions of a decline in traditional “family values” that you are trying to sell. Parental conservatism is simply a function of the experience of bringing up “unruly minorities” [sic!]. Does “live under my roof, play by my rules!” ring any bells?
Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics: Law 1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
I predict that most parents are more conservative-authoritarian than non-parents of comparable age, class and race. As measured by partisan alignment and broader cultural attitudes. In fact I will lay money on it. Are you game?
mark says:
Now who is falling back on homely anecdotes and setting aside hard data?
mark says:
No doubt some religious schools tout fashionable progressive ideas. But their medium is the real message.
Mark is saying that no amount of religious schools opening up will budge him from the dogma that society is becoming less religious or parents less conservative-authoritarian. So his theory is now hardened into a dogma in the space of a few paragraphs of criticism.
The “reality of schooling and parenting” that I am in touch with is that most of my friends are, like myself, building nests and/or raising young families. As a result they have grown out of “free-for-all” libertarianism of our misspent youth. They are not necessarily “right-wing”, just pragmatic.
Libertarianism is the philosophy of immature or irresponsible people with not a lot at stake. Popular in my cohort, but it grew old fast. Perhaps you need to “get out of touch” with people who have not grown up.
mark says:
So Anglicans, Pentecostals, Islamics and cheap Catholics are not traditional religions any more? What is your point?
mark says:
Well if you say so. I am just going by what parents say. Call me old-fashioned but I dare say this is more relevant than leftist demonology.
mark says:
Well he would say that, wouldnt he?
No, Jack, I’m just being realistic in evaluating that data – neither the “baby boom” nor the reduction in divorce rates are all that statistically significant. I’m afraid you’re having yet another Tu Quoque moment.
Sorry, which parents are they? Sublime cowgirl is a parent, and so is my brother’s parent Brian. Anecdotal, I’ll give you, but real experience as opposed to ideological gibberish from Ministers. If I were you, I really would have a serious look at the ethos many Anglican and Catholic schools are trying to impart – in many cases, it has nothing much to do with your fantasy world of “conservative values”. Given your well known googling skills, I’m sure you could have a look at a few of the statements from systemic school authorities. Though I’m sure you’ll just cherry pick SMH articles or other websites to try to support your contentions.
No that’s not a dogma, it’s census data, Jack.
I predict that most parents are more conservative-authoritarian than non-parents of comparable age, class and race. As measured by partisan alignment and broader cultural attitudes. In fact I will lay money on it.
Are you predicting or betting? Or just asserting. (Wishful thinking, more like it.)
Instead of betting, fund a survey!
“If memory served, they were collecting data again last year”
Yes, but I was having trouble with getting to most of it through the front end of the site. Still some very interesting interpretation of the older data, especially about which contexts and which influences related to greater involvement in church activities, or coming to faith. Ah, if only I had time to pursue some of these things in more depth. I’m off to Brisbane tomorrow to give a paper on Kate Grenville and Inga Clendinnen…
Parents are more likely to vote conservative than non-parents…
Mark
If you want a more accurate indicator of Australian views towards secularism and religion check the stats on the mass exodus from the secular government schools.
Well married couples are anyway… Single parents are more likely to vote to the left…
Perhaps being a parent isn’t the relevant variable…
Oh, why do baby boomers hate the truth so much?
It was the inferior drugs, wasn’t it?
John, I’ve addressed that point already.
David, what’s your source?
I can assure you in the classes I share with gen-Y, I am Leon Trotsky and Courtney Love’s love-child compared to their Martha Stewart and Daryl Sommers.
Mark,
I believe David is referring to this Article in the Govt Gazette.
Nationally, the count of sole-parent households has risen from 10.7 per cent in 2001 to 16.3 per cent last year.
The grim news for the Coalition as it prepares to roll out the final round of its work-to-welfare reforms on Sunday is that much of the growth is occurring in Liberal and Nationals seats.
Eight of the top 20 seats for single parents belong to the Government, with six them being rated as marginal.
In the firing line are South Australia’s Wakefield, the northern NSW electorate of Cowper, Lindsay in Sydney’s outer west, Dobell on the NSW central coast, the Darwin-based Solomon and the seat of Page on the NSW north coast.
Each electorate has a concentration of single parents at least 2.5 percentage points above the national average of 16.3 per cent. Wakefield, Lindsay and Dobell are also counted as members of the mortgage belt.
A further nine marginal electorates are above the national benchmark for single parents.
The findings are contained in The Australian’s exclusive electoral map of the nation that plots the 150 federal seats by a range of data from income to ethnicity.
Thanks, Frank. They might have read Andrew Leigh’s work on the worthlessness of extrapolating voting patterns from electorate by electorate data before rushing into print, though I know it’s Megalogenis’ thing.
“I can assure you in the classes I share with gen-Y, I am Leon Trotsky and Courtney Love’s love-child compared to their Martha Stewart and Daryl Sommers.”
Lol. I couldn’t speculate on this as a generational proposition. In my experience, a lot of those conservative seeming Y-ers have been involved heavily in sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll though.
Virtually none of my gen-Y friends are like those you describe, JG, but I spend a lot of time in the rarefied atmosphere of a university humanities department. It’s not exactly vanilla central, and thank Crom for that.
David,
When Charles Wesley started putting words to the popular tunes of the day, Booth introduced brass bands and street drama, and even in earlier times with the introduction of the organ to church music, their ‘contemporary’, ‘relevant’ approach received the same derisive commentary from short-sighted critics who couldn’t see the cause of the failure of the old methodologies, which had worked once, but had become outmoded, and in need of refreshing, because people move, trends change. The gospel is the constant, but its presentation is adaptable.
Old Charles Wesley was scorned for preaching outside the church sanctuary. But he went out where the people were; that is, he didn’t remain where they weren’t, in the pews! Their appeal to lifestyle and identity was also criticised, but it was effective. So now the Pentecostals, as well as the Baptists, and other evangelicals, bring us the ‘contemporary’ and ‘relevant’, which is basically the same age-old message of hope packaged for our times and our generation, and what do we hear from the stuck-in-the-muds? Criticism.
And it’s not entirely about ‘feelings’, if you listened closely. It’s about connection with God. It’s about applying faith and passion in the right way so that our feelings don’t run or ruin our lives, although, I have to ask you, since when did you leave home without your feelings? Don’t they have some sway over your life? And how do you deal with them when they overwhelm you? Get drunk? Get high? Find a friend and talk? Or do we have be like our ‘rigourously and theologically sound’ dispassionate forefathers and hide our feelings away lest they be a sign of weakness? Stiff upper lip, and all that. Hey, we like to sing…to God…and it works! We like to hang out with other contemporary, relevant Christians…and it works!
So are you saying that the growth in Pentecostalism isn’t worth counting because it doesn’t appeal to your concept of church, or could there be some lessons to be learned from their approach which would help the struggling denominations? These figures are fascinating and useful, and I think in many ways encouraging, but don’t try to blur the positives by producing prejudice.
I think it’s an interesting phenonemon, FaceLift, though perhaps you would accept that a lot of the US mega churches have been heavily criticised (by other evangelicals) for being very very light on actual theology and watering down the Christian message.
I do also think it’s important to put the Pentecostal growth in its proper proportion as constituting a very small percentage of Australia’s population. That seems to be completely lost sight of.
Ahh, yes, but arguably the significant relation is a transnational one. The nation as frame may downplay the significance of these movements. My understanding was that Pentecostalism, as well as other evangelical movements, are growing at an incredible rate in lots of places worldwide. As an example, I have heard that there is some serious ground being gained in parts of Central America.
Well, in different bits of Latin America – Brazil most strikingly.
Here’s a take on it from a Catholic priest:
http://www.providence.edu/las/Brookings.html
My main evidence is anecdotal, from my partner’s family in El Salvador. There is much lamentation from the older generation about the abandonment of the Catholic Church. I don’t know if that’s Pentecostalism, or something else, but it is evangelical Protestantism that’s causing alarm.
John Greenfield wrote:
There is so much wrong with this statement it’s hard to know where to start.
1) Where is the mass exodus? The majority of Australian children are still in “secular” public schools.
2) Where is your evidence that the motivation for private schooling lies with religious tuition rather than secular education.
3) Accurate views? Based on census data or a number you plucked out of your date?
That’s an interesting paper. I think the observations about Guatemala would be more relevant to what’s happening in El Salvador. The two countries have a lot in common.
Facelift wrote:
Now I understand. Tell me what I should be throwing at homosexuals instead of stones?
Mark,
I couldn’t find any studies in Australia tonight, although as the Government Gazette example demonstrates, it’s pretty much taken for granted. Certainly rings true in the people I now. And it would make sense, too (all the conservative jibber jabber about the “family” major wealth distribution away from singles to married people with children).
In the United States there is a major and historically constant trend for married couples to vote Republican and singles Democratic.
(eg. http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/column-one/11-20-06-married-voters-break-pattern.htm)
Facelift, I didn’t mean to offend your sensitivities. Personally I’m not religious at all. I base my reasoning simply on the fact that you can go into any Hillsong and hear lots of highjinks and theatrics and oh Jesus oh Jesus oh wonderful savior oh I love you, but really not much actually gets said. The propositional content is extraordinarly repeatitive and simplistic. Fact. No debate needed.
In this context, I think you really need to ponder – are people going for any reason that is peculiar to religion, as opposed to reasons that are common to rock concerts and movies? I have my doubts. Sure Pentecostal churches get a significant minority of people through the doors, but I think you’ll find they probably also have one of the highest ‘turn-over’ rates… Lots of people come.. enjoy themselves for a while… then get bored and find a new distraction. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I remember my old Pentecostal church seemed to have a mantra of ‘relationship [with God] not religion’. During the week I still see Pentecostal churchgoers struggle to fulfil your standard religious duties: reading the Bible, not swearing etc etc. In fact I remember one minister saying that only about 60% of churchgoers tithed.
Even so that church is experiencing growth of over 10% each year. As other commenters have mentioned Pentecostal churches often have an instant community and a vast number of activities available.
The main way this particular church grows is called the G12 model. It basically involves taking church out of the auditorium and into people’s homes. A small group of Christians would meet up in someone’s house each week to have a brief theological discussion and then hang out, eat pizza etc. Members invite their friends and when the small group gets too big it divides and the whole process restarts. The optimum number of people per small group is about 12 (hence the name ‘G12′) and I’m guessing it comes from the idea of Jesus’ 12 disciples.
You can see how the model is so successful. All it takes is for each small group of 12 to recruit one or two lonely people per year and you get great growth figures.
Thanks, David, yes I’m aware of the US studies, but it’s a very different political culture and I’m always wary of extrapolating from America to Australia. I’m not sure it would hold in Australia, though it’s possible that it might be the case in the generations where marriage is no longer a given. Even so, I doubt the correlation would be as strong as in the US.
It seems that Jack Greenfield and certain unlikely fellow travellers from the vile mortgage belt have forgotten how similar to the Aboriginal “emergency” education is in this country.
It is an engineered “emergency” in state education created by deliberately removed funding partly to “prove” how incapable the dreaded “socialism” is compared to the miracle of capitalism. Authority and big business; the status quo, are less likely to be challenged in a conservative environment of course, which is the other reason for this vandalism.
I did notice a thread here about that b—-h Bishop and her latest attempt to tamper with the history syllabus, but that would take toolong.
Same as with sbs and abc against the commercials, where a decade of being ripped off by Howardist economic rationalism for middle class and corporate welfare has ruined the ability of once-thriving government entities to do their job against the ideologically favoured and more obviously politically sympathetic private providers.
Just think, when your ( Stepford ) kids are at a private school they are there because state kids have been ripped of by your mate Howard. But don’t worry though, with media the way it is they’ll never know until it’s too late anyway, so justice maybe done after all!
No offence taken, David. There is more to what is taught than you suggest though:-)
The G12 model comes out of Bogota, Colombia where over 35,000 house groups meet in one church alone. It is probably more charismatic than Pentecostal, but many churches worldwide have adapted the model. The David Yonghi Cho, of South Korea, cell church model has also made a major impact on church growth, particularly amongst Pentecostals, again, worldwide. Australian Pentecostalism isn’t really very American, and is actually taking a leading role in some areas. In fact, Yonghi Cho influenced the AOG movement in Australia to restructure in the eighties, which has since produced rapid growth in the movement, and of course, influenced other movements in the nation through the AOG and, more recently, Hillsong, Conferences. As Chumpai suggests, cell church takes the church into people’s homes and provides relationship-based ministry. but many ‘contemporary’ churches, including, but not exclusively, Pentecostals, are taking more time to look at the demographics of their community and applying themselves to meeting needs in a more ‘relevant’ way.
There is actually only one Hillsong Church in Australia, as far as I know, but its influence is also crossing denominational lines, and many leaders from a large range of denominational backgrounds attend their conferences and relate, which means assessments made on purely denominational lines may be misleading. The main input from the US isn’t Pentecostal but Baptist, with Rick Warren, John C. Maxwell and Bill Hybels being the main influencers, even amongst Pentecostal churches, Hillsong included. There are no figures here which can indicate how many Australian churches, across denominational lines, are using aspects of their methodology.
Mark says:
Hmmm…big call. Lot of Doctors Wives and Battlers out there who would disagree. And ethnicity seems to be a very strong predictor of voting intention in Sydney, at least.
I wonder how many of the “Australian born voters in the outer suburbs” are married with kids, sending them to religious schools. Just askin’.
mark says:
Yeah, like Kevin Rudd PM will really be unleashing a flood of social liberalism. Dream on. That ship sailed 15 years ago when Hewson got the boot.
Hewson, Kennett are all yesterday’s men. Nothing more tragic-comic than middle-aged men trying to be with-it, body shirts and sports cars – gimme a break. Compare that batch of trendy social liberals to the current crop of tweedy labourites Carr, Bracks and Beattie.
mark says:
Been following European election results recently? Do the names Sarkosky and Merckel ring any bells? Or the half back flip the Nordic countries have done after being burnt by “social liberalsm”. And Blair is sounding Drier by the day, so Cameron can only outflank him to the Left.
mark says:
So the collapse in the combined vote of the GREENs/DEMs (social liberals if nothing else) over the past decade is really evidence that the “social liberal� dam is just about to burst? And Howard/Rudd are just perversely trying to undo the work of Keating/Hewson?
This is rampant wishful thinking, Bahnich-verse style. You have a real cheek taunting me about “Strocchi-verse” if you are willing to believe such far-fetched nonsense. After every battle in the culture war the Wets sound more like the Black Knight.
marks says:
Now you are starting to make sense. A modern conservative is simply one who wants to conserve the universal and particular traditions of his ancestors. In our case we are talking about modern liberalism, which carries both “ethico-logical” values of the Enlightenment and ethnological identities of Occident. Much unnecessary ink is spilt arguing at cross-purposes over these concepts.
The “ethico-logical” values of Enlightenment (liberty, equality and community) are universal traditions kick-started by modernity. They are encapsulated by modern liberalism. A realistic liberal will not tolerate the intolerant, which is the fashion under post-modern liberalism.
The ethnological identities of the Occident (family, faith and flag) are particular traditions which go back in a crooked but unbroken line to antiquity. A sociological functionalist sees them as cultural integrators to keep teams working co-operatively at various scales of organization: familial, parochial and national.
Obviously there are elements abroad that are hostile to both the universal values of the Enlightenment and the particular identities of the Occident. It is rational and moral to be xenobphobic about such things. So a modern conservative is just someone who is tough-minded and serious about conserving modern liberalism, as it has been played by his teams throughout the ages.
William Burroughs
Mark on 29 June 2007 at 9:52 pm
Well that depends on how representative the “Tu” is of the “Quoque”. I think the recent improvement in family integration is a bellewether, you think it is a staw in the wind.
Interesting that the Cultural Left pins its political hopes on broken families. A message for Northern Territorians there.
Mark on 29 June 2007 at 9:55 pm
As I said above, the institutional medium is the ideological message. You are a bit naive if you think that a few trendy social studies teachers will trump a thousand year old tradition touting the virtues of discipline, teamwork, authority, sacrifice and so on. If anything it is the secular schools that are taking a leaf out of the sectarian schools playbook these days.
Mark on 29 June 2007 at 9:55 pm
Again, school enrollments tell a much deeper story than religious observances. And it helps to weigh as well as count.
Please read for meaning, Jack. When I’m talking about “cultural values”, what I’m talking about is social attitudes – for instance to abortion or homosexuality. Many of the ethnic Labor voters you’re talking about would have more conservative attitudes than those of the general population. I specifically stated that matters to do with immigration, ethnicity and race were likely to continue to generate political controversy. I note you even quoted that paragraph, but apparently failed to connect the dots. The culture wars are actually more complex than you culture warriors think.
Blair’s resigned from Parliament, Jack. Please also try to keep up with current events.
I think that’s an antideluvian and highly stigmatising description of divorce.
Mark on 30 June 2007 at 11:56 am
The word “culture” covers a multitude of political sins. When you say “the most important cleavages [sic] in determining electoral behaviour aren’t cultural” alarm bells ring in my head. Because recent changes in cultural attitudes are very important in shifting the vote of the more fluid members of the electorate. And traditional class is not a great predictor of vote, look at the switcheroo between Right-leaning tradesmen v Left-leaning professionals.
You are quite right to suggest that minority ethnic multicultures tend to be far more authoritarian than the majority civic monoculture. Yet these foreign folk tend to vote ALP, the slightly more libertarian party. But this is the notorious “culturalist” contradiction that post-modern constructivist liberals are always getting knotted up in. Much to the disgust of modern conservative liberals.
When I talk about the electoral connundrums of “cultural values” I am talking about the political fork that the Cultural Left have impaled themselves on, straddling ideological vanities and ethnological realities. That is, I am talking about how those who profess liberal ideologies are busy undermining liberal institutions.
The Cultural Left say that they want to maintain liberal institutions, fine we all agree with that. But they then spend half their time scoffing or underrating institutions that incarnate the particular identity of the liberal tradition in the West (integrated families, traditional schools, nationalist states). And they spend the other half of their time importing and cultivating breeds of people who have a native hostility to universal values of liberalism.
This is not the way to go to conserve liberal institutions. Nor is it a sound electoral strategy for the Left, given current demographics. But never mind, we must let the Great Liberal Death Wishers have their way.
mark says:
I dont think I can be fairly accused of being a grand simplifier here. If you read my comments here and there I have flagged the electoral conundrum posed on both the majority and minorities sides of the Culture War:
- European majority: there is a status-conflict going on between Left-leaning, libertarian, urban “Doctors Wives” v Right-leaning, authoritarian, suburban “Howard Battlers“.
– Eurasian minorities: there is a political dysjunction between the Right-leaning, integrating, class-mobilism of Northern Eurasians v the Left-leaning, segregating, cultural enclavism of Southern Eurasians.
I argue that the Culture War amongst those ideologically motivated in the majority has tilted to the Right, against ritualistic libertarianism in favour of realistic liberalism. The “Battlers” have so far out-gunned the “Doctors Wives”, as evidenced by the slump in minor party progressive vote and the ascendancy of conservative leaders in the major parties. It will be interesting to see if the ideological cross-wiring continues this election.
For now, the ideological centre of gravity of the whole electorate has shifted to the Cultural Right. “Social liberalism” is not even on the table at this election, so much for its dammed-up tide waiting to break.
I am also arguing that the Culture War amongst the ethnologically identified in the minorities is up for political grabs. It depends on demographic flows.
So far Howard has succeeded in selecting immigrants on economic, rather than ethnic, grounds. Ironicly, there are plenty of economicly gifted ethnics out there who make the cut.
I bash the Cultural Left because they have not learned anything from Howard’s victory of common sense liberalism, in both ethnological and ideological senses.
Ethnic demography is a large part of political destiny. And a lawful institutional authority gives more power to individual autonomies. It is anomie, not authority, that is the enemy of freedom.
Friedrich Nietzche
Mark on 30 June 2007 at 12:13 pm
You need to rely less on “point and splutter” and more on facts and logic.
If only some couples could get to the divorce stage, just like the good old days! I am talking about those who never bothered getting married, or even living together, in the first place.
I dont want to tar all broken families with the same brush. The life of single parents can take many paths, depending on positions in the culture and class ladder, social networks and inheritances etc.
But the combination of welfare moms and dead-beat dads is a great breeding ground for rock-spiders. There is quite a bit of that out there in the remoter regions, beyond the fringe of latte-land.
No wonder the Cultural Left are so irate when Howard moves in on their wasted territory, to repair the damage with a bit of old-time “religion”.
Oh how kind, and how condescending.
I’m a bit puzzled by the conflation of Durkheim and Nietzsche, just quietly, but I’m heading out to enjoy a sunny Winter day, so I don’t think I’ll spend too much time thinking about it.
Showing off your vocabulary again, Jack?
And how big a part of political destiny (whatever the hell that means) is ethnic demography (whatever the hell that means? So many words – as usual, so little content – nothing new there either.
Gummo Trotsky: “And how big a part of political destiny (whatever the hell that means)…”
Odd that somebody who makes such a fuss about waving the name ‘Trotsky’ around, is lacking for ideas about ‘political destiny’…
Here we go again. It’s a joke, Joyce.
And whatever ideas I might entertain about the meaning of “political destiny” (high sounding mumbo-jumbo to impress the rubes basically) it’s up to Mr Strocchi, having used the term, to let us know what he means by it.
That whole sentence is completely devoid of any intelligible meaning as far as I can see.
Just a thought folks – is this 71% professing a religion a measure of anything meaningful? I know a lot of people who, come census night, tick the box that correlates with the religion they were christened/baptised, even if they have not set foot in the church since. Purely anecdotal, but it points out that assuming that someone professing affiliation on the census form may not really be an indication of religious belief, or the importance of religion.
Just sayin’
To return to the issue of those nominating No religion in the Census,
Some studies were done by Philip Hughes and others at the Christian Research Association back inthe 1990’s that probed the group who nominated as no religion. Can’t find the original reference
CRA at http://www.cra.org.au
Hughes found that those who claim they have ‘no religion’ can be divided into three groups as far as beliefs are concerned.
1. No interest in religion or spirituality (50% of the no religion group)
2. Affirm spirituality but reject belief in God (15% of the no religion group)
3. Affirm spirituality, accept belief in God, but reject reject religious organisations (35% of the no religion group).
It would be interesting to do the analysis again and see if the proportions had shifted
At the catholic school I went to we were taught comparative religion in our senior years (Islam, Buddhism, and Aboriginal religion, in particular). For my senior research assignment, I surveyed a range of arguments against the existence of God. I was part of an atheist troika in class (our teacher called us the High Court justices) who made it our business to put the alternative opinion forward. Not once was I criticized or marginalized for my heresy and unbelief. I think most mainstream private schools are fairly secularised, in my opinion.
So you didn’t learn “faith, family and nation” and how to be a good young conservative, then, Cliff, as they do in the Strocchiverse private schools?
The whole ‘doctor’s wives’ and battlers thing is such a beat up. Traditional liberal areas are moving left not because of all these doctor’s wives, but because of boundary rearrangement – eg. John Howard’s small majority has everything to with Bennelong moving west.
As for the Battler stuff. I live in Western Sydney myself, and I think you’ll find that the swing right is caused by an influx of wealth. Those who are still genuinely poor know that the conservatives aren’t much good for them.
The ‘battler’ myth inspires all kinds of delusions, like the suggestion at both last NSW state elections that the Liberals might have a hope in Macquarie Fields. I laughed out loud when I heard that.
I think Jack is a bit desperate to prove a point eg. that the best measure of religion is not the measure of religion but private school attendance. I mean seriously? Obviously there is a lot more considerations involved in selecting a school than religion. I know a bazillion secular people who send their kids to Christian private schools. I know Hindus and dogmatic atheists who go to Catholic schools. I think you’ll find that non-religious private school attendance has also increased by similar, if not greater, percentage. That would suggest that the increase occurred for non-religious reasons.
I also like his weasel words – conservative moralism becomes “common sense liberalismâ€?.
People who choose not to marry or choose to divorce are “broken families�. Since you campaign for facts and logic, how about some real social scientific language rather than flagrantly ideological and moralising constructions.
“But the combination of welfare moms and dead-beat dads is a great breeding ground for rock-spiders. There is quite a bit of that out there in the remoter regions, beyond the fringe of latte-land.”
I come from a single-parent family in Western Sydney myself… I’ll just treat your conceited ignorance with the “lofty disdainâ€? it deserves.
I think it’s part of the mythologising of Howard that he’s supposedly won the hearts and minds of ‘the battlers’. Sure, he must have won some of them, but not in my home town of Melbourne, where virtually all of the working class and/or outer-suburban mortgage belt areas are safe Labor territory. The only safe Liberal seats are blue-ribbon places where the electorate is relatively wealthy, and unlikely to shift to Labor in the near-future.
Jon Cleary on Sunday Night talking about Religion and the Census.
They are pretty much covering the same ground as us, and I think they are nailing it pretty well.
its live now btw…
Jack quotes Nietzsche from “Twilight of the Idols” ?!
Oh the irony!
Alas, Nietzsche with his aphoristic style left himself wide open for people to pick and choose quotes that suit their needs.
How bout you read the text or perhaps even Beyond Good and Evil or The Antichrist and then see if you still want to quote him…
I went to St Peters, Indooroopilly back in the 50s when it was a smallish boarding school for country kids and the progeny of Lutheran missionaries in PNG. We had about 20% non-Lutherans as it was a favoured boarding school for rich Asians from SE Asia and Fiji. So we had ethnic Chinese, Indians and a few PNG natives.
There was this German Catholic guy with a PhD who taught Greek to the kids heading for the ministry. He used to go to a Lutheran church because he felt more at home there than with the bog-Irish Catholics.
Further to what Katz and sublime cowgirl said, the ‘one strike and you’re out’ attitude to drugs attracts quite a few to private schools.
State schools are quite conservative in relation to their communities. Teaching the norms of the dominant culture is one of the major functions of schools.
SC if you’re looking in the area I think you are there is quite a lot of choice. I’d give that mob with green shirts and straw boater hats a swerve. We know a kid who was bullied mercilessly there. Kenmore HS is supposed to be good. Indooroopilly (Film and TV Studies and no uniforms) and Toowong (Maths/science) have good facilities and strong senior schools. All Hallows is said to be good for girls and St James is worth a look. It is co-ed, had over 50 ethnicities from over 150 suburbs when our bloke was there. Superb outdoor education teacher. Atheists fit in just fine. Our bloke won the Personal Faith and Development prize one year in spite of his unbelief.
St Peters I’d be wary of. Smart kids (there is an entrance exam) and great facilities but teachers no better than elsewhere. I’ve known some to be unhappy that their kids needs didn’t seem to be met. And they are not as relaxed about their religion as the Catholics. The Ironbark facility (like Timbertop) at Crows Nest is unique.
Then there’s Brisbane Boys and Girls Grammar, private and definitely secular. Good for smart kids.
So I’d suggest you get along to the open days and select the most appropriate for each of your kids.
If you are prepared to move, have a look at The Gap and Mt Gravatt.
The quality of schools depends quite a lot on who is Principal at the time.
I’m actually not over Indroo way – i wont say online, but lets say I’m in Hardgraves electorate.
Dilemma is partner is opposed to same sex schools for boys for a raft of social reasons. My daughter would thrive at a girls school, but if i enroll her in one, then its only fair i do the same for him (as he is keen to go with all his friends) so ideally we would like a co-ed.
What do you recommend at Mt Gravatt?
Many many years ago, when I was in High School, Cavendish Road High at Holland Park used to have a good rep.
I thank my lucky stars (and not my mother) that I wasn’t sent to a single sex school.
Mt Gravatt High was a school we thought about seriously before we went with St James. It has facilities that were designed for a school of about 1200 but when I went there for an open day in 1999 the enrolment was about 500 including about 50 Asian students.
The facilities were excellent and I was particularly impressed with their Manual Arts department, although they also had an excellent academic tradition. There science department also seemed very strong.
I recall that they offered a lot of sporting and other extra curricular opportunities, where the emphasis was in developing kids skills and interests rather than winning comps.
The whole school just had a very good feel about it. Very caring and valuing every kid. I had a chat with the head girl and she came from near Sunnybank HS but preferred Mt Gravatt. The govt built too many schools in the area (Macgregor, Cavendish Road, Holland Park, Coorparoo) so Mt Gravatt survives by pulling from other schools’ catchments.
All of those have had fine reputations at times, BTW.
The only negative was that they didn’t have an assembly hall because they had emphasised facilities that were more directly useful educationally. It dropped off our list because it was simply too far for us.
The school has had a good reputation since 1970, but as I say what it’s like now can depend on who’s boss. I haven’t had any contact with the school this century.
We recruited some of our finest teacher-librarians from the school and it was one school that had an established and educationally relevant library dating back to the early 60s when the provisions generally in Qld were pathetic.
I don’t find anything much attractive about the suburb, as Mt Gravatt seems to have more than it’s fair share of fundy churches. But the kids from there probably go to fundy schools.
SG I heard the other day that the notion that girls do better in single sex schools was a bit of a myth. Can’t remember much about it, but it was probably on ‘Life Matters’ and quite recent, so you may be able to trawl through the past programs.
Gummo Trotsky on 30 June 2007 at 2:44 pm
You asked for it. A big part, if you have been paying attention to debates on recent trends. It all depends on whether economic class or ethnic clan is a better predictor of partisan alignment. ONe might say its Marx V Darwin refereed by Weber. Heavyweight stuff, but I will try to tread lightly.
Nations were originally the product of demographic evolution, by racial endowments and regional environment. YOu dont have to be a “blood and soil” reactionary to acknowledge that national selection was to the ethnology of states as natural selection is to the ecology of species. One look at the ME shows that this factor is still alive and kicking.
More contemporarily, political sociologists routinely classify social factors conditioning political values under bio-diverse heads: age, fertility, gender and race. Thus demographic nature is the raw material of democratic culture.
This is most obvious in relation to fertility. Longman suggests that, in the US, voting is strongly dependent on breeding.
Ron Brownstein points out that in the US 2000 election, the regional political divide depended on racial and religious factors:
Australia, as in so many things, is following America down this track. Birrell maintains that the ALP is heavily dependent on the ethnic vote, at least in ethnic-dense regions
If it comes down to a choice of which factor is more important – blood or money – it would not be wise to follow the money. Although capital has no flag we have it on the authority of Orwell that workers have a homeland to lose.
Gummo Trotsky on 30 June 2007 at 3:02 pm
Let a greater man than I put it this way:
Greg Cochran
David on 1 July 2007 at 4:54 pm
There is some truth in what you say. I mention the “Doctors Wives” v “Howard’s Battlers” because this is how the Culture War issue is conventionally framed, at least for the majority.
My argument is that the Culture War is helping the LN/P amongst the majority and helping the ALP amongst the minorities. Right leaning “Howards Battlers� Dries have so far swamped Left-leaning “Doctors Wives� Wets amongst the majority. Whilst Left-leaning SW Eurasian hoodies have so far trumped Right-leaning NE Eurasian yuppies amongst the minorities.
But you are right to point out that these electoral stereotypes are being conflated with demographic and economic changes. The LN/P’s improved vote in some parts of western Sydney does have something to do with economic growth. But the ALP’s improved vote in other parts of Sydney has alot to do with ethnic growth.
There is a grain of truth in the “Doctors Wives” myth. A lot of professionals are swinging towards the ALP. Many white-collar voters out there who are higher on the education scale but not so high on the income scale and are leaning Left.
But generally speaking, the “Doctors Wives” swing to the ALP and GREENS in eastern and northern Sydney hasn’t yet gone through the formality of actually taking place. In any case, anyone who thinks the arrival of Rudd or the departure of Howard will usher in a revival of “social liberalism” is delusional. The days when “liberal” Liberals – John Gorton, Steele Hall, Gordon Barton, Malcolm Fraser, John Hewson and Jeff Kennett – ruled the Coalition roost are long gone.
David says:
There is a grain of truth in the “Howard’s Battler” myth. A lot of tradesmen are swinging towards the LN/P. Many blue-collar voters out there are lower on the education scale but higher on the income scale are leaning Right.
Howard has slung a fair bit of govt loot the Battler’s way, what with first home loans and baby grants. I dont know whether this makes him Santa but he certainly isn’t Scrooge.
David on 1 July 2007 at 5:23 pm
Sending a child to a private school, denominational or not, is a sign that the parent is more likely to approve of traditional conservative communitarian values ie familial, parochial and national. Every survey I have ever seen confirms this, as does anecdotal evidence despite all this talk about Buddhists at Xavier.
This does not always mean that parents or kids will be “right wing� on every issue or even vote LN/P. It does mean that these households will tend, on average and ceteris paribus, to be more respecting of authority instead of just reveling in autonomies. The institutional medium is the ideological message.
David says:
Well “constructivist moralism” has not advanced the cause of “actual and existingâ€? liberalism, has it? The social effect of the libertarian Cultural Left in Londonistan, remote Northern Territories and western Sydney has been to cultivate a brutal resurgence in predatory Alpha-males. Not exactly what Mill had in mind when he talked about “experiments in livingâ€?, is it?
Institutional authority, talked up by “conservative moralism”, can create space for individual autonomy. The parable of the “Lord of the Fliesâ€? is instructive.
David says:
Read for comprehension, please. And dont take things personally. Individual exceptions weaken but do not refute statistical rules. I am sure I was thinking of someone like you when I wrote:
Broken families tend to be a greater source of social pathology. Particularly amongst the minorities. The majority already has a fairly comfortable safety net. The disadvantaged have a particular need to keep on an even keel. No trust funds to fall back on.
That is why it is more important for those who care for minorities to be more conservative and authoritarian. The missionaries and our grand mothers knew something about human nature after all.
Jack, the reason you see so much that others can’t is because you’re high as a kite on your own ego. It has nothing to do with your intellect.
The missionaries and our grand mothers knew something about human nature after all.
Jack got the first bit right about the missionaries,oh yes,they truly did like to root the natives.
Any chance you boys might dispense with the sophomoric ridicule for a bit?
I mean its very entertaining to a point, but Phill, i mean, really, was that necessary?
Mark,
I see what you’re saying, and I agree that isn’t the case, so christian leaders will have to address the changes which will take place, maybe not so much at the next election, but certainly into the future. Mostly, the illusion of a dramatic increase stems from the amazement of left-leaning pundits like Kerry O’Brien who were taken by surprise by the seeming Christian ‘revival’ at the last election. The reality is that the Christian vote was more organised than previously.
I think Christian leaders will be identifying the need for a greater degree of influence in the community through quantitive church growth over the next ten years, rather than relying on what will continue as good lobbying tactics.
The well orchestrated thrust of the last election will be largely countered or, at least, more evenly distributed between the major parties in coming elections, unless there is a concerted effort by one party to really go after the Christian vote, which, apart from token gestures and a little lip-service, I don’t think will happen, since both parties will make some concessions, but cancel each other out as the preferred party.
The last election was easier because the Liberal party was showing a better grasp of the Christian demographic and courted the Christian vote better, but that isn’t yet guarranteed in the next election, although Howard and Costello are recognised as at least listening to Christian ideals. Rudd has said he will court the Christian vote, but will have to give more clues to the Christian voters than he has so far, however, if he is to overcome the Liberal ascendancy in this area this time around.
So the real hope for a future influential Christian lobby group is in the basic priority of Church groups – that of a concerted evangelistic push, and, primarily, amongst its own demographic. What is identified in the latest ABS stats is a huge pool of around 55% of the population who are happy to declare themselves to have Christian allegiance of some sort, but who are clearly not regular church attenders or even well connected with the church of their choice. Still, it’s a big pool, and one which may bear fruit for the future if churches work well together.
“I mean its very entertaining to a point, but Phill, i mean, really, was that necessary?”
Hey sublime cowgirl, Jack screams out for a bit of sophormic piss taking,cause ol Jack loves to spruik sophormic twaddle.Now I know ol Jack aint stupid, egotistacle and pompus would be a better description for the man who thinks he knows everything..Also ol Jack likes to think he has a superior intellect than most on this ol blog,but I aint buying it.
You see even ol Jack can’t hold that much information in his grey matter,if what he writes his straight off the cuff he is indeed wasting his time here.Jack should be working in the U.N. or an institution of higher learning where he just may if he gets a spare moment find a cure for H.I.V. maybe an overnight fix for global warming,indeed the mind boggles of what ol Jack could achieve.
Just ask him.
Phill on 2 July 2007 at 7:03 pm
I do not claim to “know everything” about this subject or anyother. I do claim to know something about the cultural basis for pshephology. No lie, I put quite a few correct electoral predictions out there, ask Mumbles and Pr Q.
If I come off sounding “egotistacle and pompus” then I am sorry both for myself and anyone in earshot. I will try to moderate self-acclaim to sub-audible levels.
But really, this stuff is not rocket science. Most of the data is out there, exhaustively studied over two generations. And the basic theory (Darwin, Durkheim, Weber) has been known well enough for a century. Also there are any number of “Left-liberals mugged by reality” ready to lift the scales from the none so blind.
So it is hard not to sound like a know-all when purportedly highly-educated professionals make silly remarks (“dam of “social liberalism” about to break”) about the evolution of Australian political culture.
And they the persistently stone-wall on embarassing questions like: How has the liberal-Left ideological program failed its “clients”? Why does liberal-Leftism no longer strike such a resonant chord with the general populus? And what is your record of prediction?
Now clear thinking, wide-ranging and straight-talking on the subject is now considered on a par “cure for H.I.V. maybe an overnight fix for global warming”. Really, you flatter me. You should hear me the day I crack a really difficult problem!
Somehow the Cultural Left has managed to make academic analysis of culture both unintelligible and untruthful. This is done through an informal regime of nonsensical theory (po-mo) and censorious (multi-culti) speech and text codes.
They do this because of intellectual failure and ideological rejection. Competent scientists do not take seriously the Cultural Leftist social model. And the general public regard it with open contempt.
No doubt I deserve the occasional jeer from the outer, when I carry on like a show-pony. But really, its not hard to look like a thoroughbred when the rest of the field is running like nags. Are Larva-Prodders actually proud of how things have panned out with unruly ethnics and rule-less indigenes?
Look at the scoreboard! You guys need to lift your own game instead of playing the refs or continually muttering darkly about how how “we wuz robbed”.
“Well “constructivist moralismâ€? has not advanced the cause of “actual and existingâ€? liberalism, has it? The social effect of the libertarian Cultural Left in Londonistan, remote Northern Territories and western Sydney has been to cultivate a brutal resurgence in predatory Alpha-males.”
I think this is an astonishing claim… Predatory males are the fault of the cultural left? Is there any evidence of a rise in the number of predatory males? Contrary to popular opinion, crime is decreasing, not increasing (based on both self-report surveys and official rates).
Even if this was not the case, how the hell can you blame it on the cultural left?
“Broken families” is an offensive construct. Non-conventional families may indeed (primarily for economic reasons) correlate with social problems. But you keep that correlation separate to the construct itself. You don’t build a negative into the very name of the category. Many non-conventional families operate quite well, so calling them all by default broken is quite deceptive, and not social science at all. (On average black Americans commit more street crime than whites, but it would be quite wrong to use, say, “black street thugs” as a general description of black people. The negative correlation has to be kept separate to the construct itself.) The false implications of failing to follow basic principles of social science in this manner are indeed quite offensive.
Interesting link that “competent scientists” one, Jack. Did you actually read to the end of the article or just skim through, paying attention only to the bits that reinforce your own opinions?
It’s the consciously invented Australian version of “civic nationalism” that you decry as “multi-culti” and “po-mo”. And this last paragraph could have been written just about you:
No one here is “playing the refs” when they rebutt your arguments Jack. You’re too obviously partisan to be given the black uniform and the whistle.
Jack’s method of arguing is citing a shopping list of social problems and then blaming them a priori on some vague conspiracy among ‘cultural leftists’.
Even if raging pomos have had the dominance over policy he seems to think they have had, correlation does not equal causation! Just because social problems exist, some no doubt getting worse, does not mean you can blame them on the ‘cultural left’. Nothing is a panacea – the real question is whether things would be any better under a conservative policy. Certainly various areas of the USA have always been dominated by harshly punitive policy. These areas have some of the highest rates of violent crime in the liberal democratic world. Of course I wouldn’t lapse into Jack’s crappy social science and suggest that conservatism caused the problems. But at the very least, it does suggest that social problems and ‘lawlessness’ etc cannot be blamed on the cultural left.
“Why does liberal-Leftism no longer strike such a resonant chord with the general populus?”
Since when has it ever struck a chord? I think it is tending towards increase.
The politics of moral dogmatism is dominated by older people adversely affected by globalisation. Everyone starts to look for irrational figures to blame if their pockets start to hurt; broad economic transformations are too complex, and too intangible to make good media copy.
So yes, moral dogmatism has had a boost in support, but is a conjunctural phenomenon, a bump in a general tendency towards the opposite direction. It is aging. Demographic shift will kill it. Studies of youth consistently show a ‘liberal leftist’ inclination – more so than ever before, I would suggest. When they aren’t liberal leftist, they are apathetic; they just don’t care enough to honour old tory rubbish.
David, your problem is that you’re just not looking at the world the way jack does.
.ʇı ʇɹoddns ʇÉ?ɥʇ suoıssÇ?ɹdɯı puÉ? spıoʇɔÉ?ÉŸ ’sʇɔÉ?ÉŸ Ç?ɥʇ Ç?ɯÉ?ɹɟ puÉ? puıɟ uÇ?ɥʇ puÉ? ʇsɹıɟ ʎɹoÇ?ɥʇ É? Ç?ʇÉ?Ç?ɹɔ oʇ sı ɥɔıɥÊ?
Cool Nabs. What’s the tag for that one?
.sÇ?Ç?ɹbÇ?p 081 pɹÉ?oqÊŽÇ?Êž ɹnoÊŽ Ç?ʇÉ?ʇoɹ ʇsnظ .pÇ?pÇ?Ç?u bÉ?ʇ ou
1ɯʇɥ.dı1ÉŸ/ɯoÉ”.pÉ?ÉŸÊŒÇ?ɹ.Ê?Ê?Ê?//:dʇʇɥ
ʇ ob ɹo
David on 3 July 2007 at 12:55 pm
Absolutely. The Cultural Lefts fingerprints are all over immigration policy during the high tide of “social liberalism”, from the mid seventies through early nineties. More predatory males are generated by bad cultural policy: letting them in, breeding them and cultivating them. Lax selection and mad settlement policies certainly increased the ratio of predatory Alpha males either coming in or growing up, as any resident of W Sydney could testify during the long crime wave.
Sydney’s surge in predatory male hate crime can be put down to poor cultural policy:
And of course free-for-all libertarianism and self-determinism have made things much worse for Aboriginals, esp mothers trying to bring up children. Theres your vicious effect of cultural leftism right there.
Just because you do not will a consequence does not mean that you are not responsible. No doubt GW Bush and his neo-con Martial Rightists were perfectly sincere in not wanting a civil war when regime changing Iraq. But they got one jus the same. And should rightly be hectored and pilloried for the result.
Likewise the cultural disasters amongst minorities that Theophanous, HC Coombs and his merry band of Cultural Leftists have set in train were no part of their original intention. Nonetheless their stupid policies are in part responsible for the vicious outcomes.
David says:
Crime has gone down recently due to…Cultural Rightist law and order policies. And a more authoritarian approach to welfare. The prisons are overflowing with convicts in both AUS and US.
OT, I note that the best sociological surveys conclude that religion has a negative effect on crime, controlling for other factors and irrespective of secular trends:
David says:
I am sorry if I offend thee with my blunt speak. A few years listening to screeching Leftists at Uni Melb a couple of decades ago has coarsened my sensibilities.
The meaning of “broken families” in the Culture War context is plain for anyone with any experience of Aboriginal settlements or any any area of concentrated disadvantage. “The Pines”, for example.
As far as I can see it is not a race-, age- and gender-specific term. So I am not guilty of formenting bigotry. I am guilty of calling a spade a spade, which I gather is a hanging offence in some parts.
¡¡noÊŽ ʇɹÇ?ÊŒuı ʇxÇ?ʇ ‘É?ıssnɹ ʇÇ?ıʌos uı
.Ç?dʎʇ ɥɔnoʇ ʇ,uÉ?É” ı puÉ? ‘Ç?ɯ puıɥÇ?q buıʇʇıs sÉ?Ê? ʇı uÇ?ɥʇ ʇnq ‘punoɹ pɹÉ?oqÊŽÇ?Êž ʎɯ pÇ?uɹnʇ ı
Nabakov on 3 July 2007 at 4:40 pm
The way I am “looking at the world” is based on direct experience of the front line of the Culture War, working in ethnicly diverse Texas and in visiting remote Aboriginal communities. A little bit more down to earth than the latte-land reveries of publicly subsidised wankers like Nabakov.
For a more rarified scientific analysis of how ideological vanities toxicly react with ethnological realities you could do worse than look at two studies recently published by two more or less liberal scholars, now mugged by reality.
Helen Hughes study shows how Cultural Leftist dreaming made a mess of the political culture and economy of remote Aboriginal communities. HC Coombs meant well, but he was in effect a reactionary of the worst kind. In fairness, I have witnessed at first hand how local artists have salvaged something from the wreckage.
Robert Putnam’s study shows how a lax and liberal immigration policy has helped turn LA into the worlds least liveable developed cities. My friends and contacts in LA and Santa Barbara still think he is being overly charitable. But what would these poor deluded fools know, merely from living there all their lives?
Putnam was so embarassed for his fellow Leftists he held off publication for years. But political embarassment is in pretty short supply with Larva-Prodders. Better to indulge in sophomoric humour whilst shoving certain horrors into the “too hard” basket. And then indulge in ostentatious indignation, for “not going through the correct channels” or “engaging in consultation”, when a politician has a proper crack at the problem.
One bit of cultural capital that can help unruly elements in the minorities integrate with general society and pull themselves out of downward spiral of depravity is organised religion: its institutional structures and inspirational scriptures. But we must spare no effort in kicking that can, musnt we?
The peevish and petulant undertone of this kind of New Leftists reminds me of the funny vibe coming off Old Leftists in the mid-seventies, when thir particular solution for all social problems was starting to look a little tired. Kolakowski noted that Leftist bad faith in his famous open letter to EP Thompson:
Please note that comments which are designed to “turn a debate around into one about themselves” are discouraged by our comments policy. I don’t think your recent ones are germane to the topic, Jack.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/about-larvatus-prodeo/comments-policy/
Here’s where you can find that podcast from SUnday night on ABC about religion and the census.
Ignore the 15 secs of shit music at the beginning. (sorry harry secombe fans)
IF this thread isn’t a train wreck already……
There is absolutely nothing, necessarily, contradictory between Science (including evolution) and Roman Catholicism.
May I direct your attentions to Augustine’s De Civitate Dei?
Here, I have to agree with John:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/01/02/intelligent-design-god-of-the-gaps/
Mark
I am not even remotely religious, did not attend a religious school, and both my parents are atheists, so I am not really up on how contemporary Roman Catholics justify some of the nonsense they come out with on the tele. But my reading of history, particularly Augustine, suggests it is not that bloody difficult.
Maybe they argue that things like biochemists conducting reasearch on RNA transcription or archaeologists learning how to design and use plasma mass spectrometric devices that show ample evidence of human migration quite a bit longer than 7,000 years ago, are sure signs that these biochemists and archaeologists are not using this god-given knowledge to love god better.
Rather, maybe Pell, et. al see it as the work of demons conning biochemists and archaelogists to use this god-given knowledge only so they can turn their god-given love onto themselves, rather than god.
In which case, it is time to tell Pell, etc. that not only do they not understand Roman Catholicism or God, but more profouncly they would not know if their ass was on fire. Ergo they should shut the fuck up and stop making such silly tits of themselves.
Jack Stocchi
Kolakowski is a God (irony intended). He is the person who has most changed the way I look at the world.
Update: This post has been re-published in On Line Opinion today.
Jack, I’ve only come back to this blog.
I assume you are so stuck in your opinions that extensive discourse is of little use.
The primary reason for the drop in crime rates in demographic shift. Any criminologist will tell you that. I speak as someone who has a first class honours thesis in US punishment policy.
The crime rates ballooned in the 1960s and 1970s as the baby boomers entered their teenage years and twenties.
The tough on crime phenomenon in the US goes back to 1969. It was intensified in the mid 1970s and 1980s. Crime only began to decline in the mid 1990s. Moreover, this occurred in all parts of the United States, including the smaller states that didn’t actively pursue tough on crime policies. This can be explained largely due to age shift and change in the composition of the inner cities.
There is basically no evidence of a deterrent effect gained by increasing penalties for crime. Some incapacitation effect is gained, but this is highly inefficient, as it only lasts as long as the person is incarcerated, which is extraordinarily costly, both in terms of direct costs (tens of thousands at least a year, and going towards $100 000 at the upper end) and indirect costs (loss of taxation, increased welfare dependency, social disintegration). Moreover, any incapacitation effect may be neutralised by the evidence that going to prison has a ‘criminalising’ effect on people.
Almost all criminologists – not just pseudo-radicals decked up on French theory – believe that the war on crime is one of the most absurd and useless policies in history. Most these guys are just pragmatic centrists.
The label of “Broken familiesâ€? is not telling it like it is – unless it is meant to exclude those single parent families that work well, or that would have been worse off if the parents stayed married. It should also include those wealthy families in which domestic violence occurs. As a general description of single people or single parent families, it is not some strong-willed conservativism penetrating the idealised mystification of latte lefties, it is simple wrong.
You claim to be throwing away political pieties and getting to the facts – but in actual fact you are exceptionally dogmatic and unempirical. You will assume any covariation is a simplistic causal relationship if it benefits your policies. Predictable, cheap epithets like “latte leftiesâ€? seem to be the crux of your argument. This doesn’t get you very far, particularly when interlocutors like myself don’t fit that description.
David
Actually the biggest driver of lower crime rates in the US since the early 1990s was Roe vs. Wade. R v W aborted a whole generation of “at risk” kids, who otherwise would have been committing crimes as we speak.
Only one person that I’m aware of has made that interesting argument…
Anyway, that counts as a demographic factor doesn’t it?
The point is it’s not this tough on crime jibber jabber.
Although, it would be interesting if it was correct – and the primary cause of the decline in crime was cultural leftist policy!