When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’

Posted on Comments

Phyllis Schlafly is one of conservatism’s great heroines. Both Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter acknowledge Schlafly’s influence as a role model. Forty-six years after her rallying cry for Goldwater, A Choice Not an Echo, and three decades after she led the crusade to stop ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, she’s still driving liberals nuts:

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for their living. For example, do you know what was the second-biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? . . . Unmarried women. Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider. . . .”

This is what we in the journalism business call a “fact”:

Those numbers are from an exit poll conducted by a notorious right-wing extremist group — CNN — and Schlafly’s explanation of why single women vote overwhelmingly for Democrats is neither new nor “extreme” nor uniquely hers. Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum in National Review, April 10:

Take a recent report entitled “Advancing the Economic Security of Unmarried Women” by the Center for American Progress, the “progressive” nonprofit run by Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta. The report reviews the problems of a growing segment of our society: unmarried women. They are poorer, more likely than other women to be unemployed, have less access to health care, and often struggle to care for children without support from fathers.
What’s CAP’s solution? More government at every turn. Among the recommended proposals are more generous unemployment benefits, more job-training and job-placement programs, greater subsidies for child care, more generous child-nutrition programs, direct welfare payments for those with children, government intervention to prevent foreclosures, expanded low-income-housing programs, an increased minimum wage, government intervention to increase the pay of occupations dominated by women, mandatory paid family and sick leave, and, of course, government-provided health care. In other words, complete cradle-to-grave, taxpayer-provided government support.
It’s tempting to call this paper sexist: Women — especially unmarried women — are portrayed as barely able to subsist without extra protection. One could also ruminate on CAP’s view of family formation, which seems willing to substitute a dependent relationship on the government for marriage. A woman without a man is encouraged to depend on Uncle Sam.

One might disagree with that analysis, but it is hardly “extreme,” and yet the Schlafly speech making the same basic point is being seized as a campaign issue by Democrats:

Democrats aim to exploit the comments to pressure the more than 60 Republican candidates who have earned Schlafly’s endorsement. . . .
Democrats plan to jump on the 75 Republican candidates for federal office that Schlafly’s Eagle Forum has endorsed and donated to — a list that includes Todd Tiahrt in the Kansas Republican primary for Senate, Ken Buck in the Colorado Republican primary for Senate, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and his Senate Conservatives Fund and Sen. David Vitter. Already, reporters in Vitter’s home state of Louisiana are getting releases from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pressing them to ask Vitter if he agrees with Schlafly. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is doing the same thing to Eagle Forum-endorsed House candidates, painting Republicans on dozens of ballots — including Rep. Michele Bachmann and Scott Rigell in the competitive VA-02 race — as “extreme” and saying the candidate should refuse Schlafly’s endorsement.

I plan to renounce any Republican who renounces Phyllis Schlafly.

UPDATE: Linked by Da Tech Guy and liberal feminist Taylor Marsh, and there’s a Memeorandum thread.

UPDATE II: Linked by Virginia Right and Scipio 62 at Red State, and featured by Red at Caught Him With a Corndog.

UPDATE III: Professor Donald Douglas suggests that Rocky Raczkowski is inviting renunciation. I’m not going to be hasty, like Vilsack throwing Sherrod under the bus.

The Blog Prof offers a primer in the techniques of liberal bias, as demonstrated by the Oakland (Mich.) Press News.

For the benefit of any Republican confused by all this uproar, let me explain the basic problem: The way to tackle feminism is head-on.

Feminism is a left-wing phenomenon. It is a radical egalitarian ideology based upon a fallacy, and should never be endorsed or appeased in the erroneous belief that, by kowtowing to ideologues, Republicans can win “The Women’s Vote” (capital-T, capital-W, capital-V, denoting a dubious category that is reified by feminist ideology).  A brief explanation:

Insofar as men and women are different, they are not equal.
Equality implies fungibility — that two things are perfectly interchangeable, so that one thing may be substituted for the other without any difference in value. Only a fool could believe that men and women are equal in that way, and yet this is what feminists would require us to believe. And any man who dares contradict this egalitarian dogma is a sexist, an oppressor, a reactionary representative of the patriarchy.
All the other errors of feminism flow from this one fundamental error, a counterfactual insistence on the equality of the sexes. Men and women are not the same, and therefore are not equal.

Do not think that you, a Republican, can benefit by attempting some sort of “me-too” feminism, nor should you fall into the error of thinking that there is some sort of “conservative feminism” which can be mobilized to elect you. Such foolish behaviors and atttitudes only betray your lack of judgment and courage.

Most of all, do not think that you can benefit by throwing Phyllis Schlafly under the bus. Do you know how Phyllis Schlafly earned her way through college? Working in a munitions plant during World War II, when her job was test-firing .50-caliber machine-gun ammunition.

Think about that, gentlemen.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! BTW, did you hear what happened to the Republican billionaires who didn’t hit my tip jar?

166 comments

  6. my mom voted for obama because she thought palin was dumb obviously she is regretting it now…………that’s nice but she hould have found him out than not now

  7. my mom voted for obama because she thought palin was dumb obviously she is regretting it now…………that’s nice but she hould have found him out than not now

  8. I’ve listened to and admires Phyllis Schlafly for years. She is quite right in her assessment of where President BO is going with the country and how he plans to get there.

  9. I’ve listened to and admires Phyllis Schlafly for years. She is quite right in her assessment of where President BO is going with the country and how he plans to get there.

  12. Hardly extremist. Unmarried men with kids, as a demographic, seem almost as bad in voting for Obama too. So there is plenty of blame to throw around.

  13. Hardly extremist. Unmarried men with kids, as a demographic, seem almost as bad in voting for Obama too. So there is plenty of blame to throw around.

  19. I think the problem is not with the statement that unmarried woman vote for Obama, but that they “kicked their husbands out” and want a government handout.

    Men sometime abuse their spouses, woman have marriages that don’t work out, and woman live longer than men and therefore there are lots of unmarried woman, who did not kick out their husbands.

    I doubt that woman choose to leave their abusive or otherwise unacceptable husbands or do not remmarry because then they can rely on government aid.

    There are lots of reasons why a woman may be unmarried other than her love of the nanny state.

  20. I think the problem is not with the statement that unmarried woman vote for Obama, but that they “kicked their husbands out” and want a government handout.

    Men sometime abuse their spouses, woman have marriages that don’t work out, and woman live longer than men and therefore there are lots of unmarried woman, who did not kick out their husbands.

    I doubt that woman choose to leave their abusive or otherwise unacceptable husbands or do not remmarry because then they can rely on government aid.

    There are lots of reasons why a woman may be unmarried other than her love of the nanny state.

  21. But “And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider” is NOT a fact.

    It is an opinion that demeans women that choose independence. It tells us that any woman without a man is unable to provide for herself.

    It also non-sequitors from an actual fact (lots of unmarried women) to a manipulative, pretend fact (these are women that kicked their husband out). Not only does this ignore the women (probably the majority of unmarrieds) that either are not ready to marry or were “kicked out” BY their husbands, it denigrates those that did initiate divorce with the term “kicked out”.

    This is extremism. It characterizes a large segment of the population unfairly, reduces their motivations to a caricature, and associates it with a political viewpoint that nobody really has (“Big Brother Government” should be your provider).

    This woman was a force for evil when she abused gay people in the seventies and she is a force for evil today. Of course, I understand that most people reading this page like it that way.

  22. But “And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider” is NOT a fact.

    It is an opinion that demeans women that choose independence. It tells us that any woman without a man is unable to provide for herself.

    It also non-sequitors from an actual fact (lots of unmarried women) to a manipulative, pretend fact (these are women that kicked their husband out). Not only does this ignore the women (probably the majority of unmarrieds) that either are not ready to marry or were “kicked out” BY their husbands, it denigrates those that did initiate divorce with the term “kicked out”.

    This is extremism. It characterizes a large segment of the population unfairly, reduces their motivations to a caricature, and associates it with a political viewpoint that nobody really has (“Big Brother Government” should be your provider).

    This woman was a force for evil when she abused gay people in the seventies and she is a force for evil today. Of course, I understand that most people reading this page like it that way.

  23. Proud to be among the 30%.

    I doubt that woman choose to leave their abusive or otherwise unacceptable husbands or do not remmarry because then they can rely on government aid.

    Oh, please. Women initiate about 60-80% of divorces, and, while there are certainly some bad men in the lot, there are also women who do it because they know that alimony is there for them. In fact, that’s a huge issue in Massachusetts right now; ex-wives can return for alimony, even on the shortest of marriages, for the rest of their lives.

    The other thing is that a lot of liberal women want it both ways, and want us to fork over the money for it. They don’t want to marry (or marry young), don’t want to work in a job that would provide them with a decent living (because that’s caving into the capitalist system), and don’t want to be poor, so they turn to the government for help.

    Reality is that marriage, on the whole, reduces poverty, and especially poverty among women.

    Reality is that 40% of women CHOOSE to give birth out of wedlock, and then turn to the government for help. So, they might not have kicked their husbands out, as per Mrs. Schlafly’s words, but they have made choices which have resulted in unwed motherhood and want us to pay for them.

    None of that is counter-factual nor sexist; it’s just reality – a place that these chickies are encouraged to join.

  24. Proud to be among the 30%.

    I doubt that woman choose to leave their abusive or otherwise unacceptable husbands or do not remmarry because then they can rely on government aid.

    Oh, please. Women initiate about 60-80% of divorces, and, while there are certainly some bad men in the lot, there are also women who do it because they know that alimony is there for them. In fact, that’s a huge issue in Massachusetts right now; ex-wives can return for alimony, even on the shortest of marriages, for the rest of their lives.

    The other thing is that a lot of liberal women want it both ways, and want us to fork over the money for it. They don’t want to marry (or marry young), don’t want to work in a job that would provide them with a decent living (because that’s caving into the capitalist system), and don’t want to be poor, so they turn to the government for help.

    Reality is that marriage, on the whole, reduces poverty, and especially poverty among women.

    Reality is that 40% of women CHOOSE to give birth out of wedlock, and then turn to the government for help. So, they might not have kicked their husbands out, as per Mrs. Schlafly’s words, but they have made choices which have resulted in unwed motherhood and want us to pay for them.

    None of that is counter-factual nor sexist; it’s just reality – a place that these chickies are encouraged to join.

  27. Fact: Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama

    Opinion: To think that the President is trying to promote this is absurd

  28. Fact: Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama

    Opinion: To think that the President is trying to promote this is absurd

  31. I love how you righties just morph the argument any old way to keep your unfair argument alive. Having had the “kicked out” idea discredited, it turns out that the real point is, “they might not have kicked their husbands out, as per Mrs. Schlafly’s words, but they have made choices which have resulted in unwed motherhood and want us to pay for them.”

    Now the villains are unwed mothers. Why not, everyone knows they are sluts, right? Of course, a substantial majority of them are teenaged children under eighteen, a group well known for savvy political strategy even if they are not old enough to vote. Does that make this assertion stupid yet?

    How about this: Only half of unwed mothers are on welfare. When you include the majority of them that are under eighteen and thus don’t vote, you have a pretty slim voting block supporting the socialist president.

    Since the goal is to just keep saying derogatory stuff, I don’t suppose that matters. I do suppose it adds some more evil people to the Phyllis Shafly club.

  32. I love how you righties just morph the argument any old way to keep your unfair argument alive. Having had the “kicked out” idea discredited, it turns out that the real point is, “they might not have kicked their husbands out, as per Mrs. Schlafly’s words, but they have made choices which have resulted in unwed motherhood and want us to pay for them.”

    Now the villains are unwed mothers. Why not, everyone knows they are sluts, right? Of course, a substantial majority of them are teenaged children under eighteen, a group well known for savvy political strategy even if they are not old enough to vote. Does that make this assertion stupid yet?

    How about this: Only half of unwed mothers are on welfare. When you include the majority of them that are under eighteen and thus don’t vote, you have a pretty slim voting block supporting the socialist president.

    Since the goal is to just keep saying derogatory stuff, I don’t suppose that matters. I do suppose it adds some more evil people to the Phyllis Shafly club.

  39. The whole thing is based on the desire to pick a single factoid from a more complex set of information and then us it to support some insane conclusion and ideas. Wingnuttery

  40. The whole thing is based on the desire to pick a single factoid from a more complex set of information and then us it to support some insane conclusion and ideas. Wingnuttery

  41. I am an unmarried woman. I did not “kick my husband out”: I never had one. I did not make choices that led to unwed motherhood: I have no kids. Nor do I rely on government handouts.

    Not all unmarried women are divorced. Not all unmarried women are mothers. Get a clue.

  42. I am an unmarried woman. I did not “kick my husband out”: I never had one. I did not make choices that led to unwed motherhood: I have no kids. Nor do I rely on government handouts.

    Not all unmarried women are divorced. Not all unmarried women are mothers. Get a clue.

  43. TQ: oh, so now that your side got decimated after trying to say that single women don’t need government handouts, you’re going to “deliberate political strategy”.

    Look, you brain trust: 16-year-old tramps with kids eventually turn into voting-age tramps with kids and without their parents to help them out. There’s a reason why the left is deeply invested in turning 16-year-olds into whores, because the ADULTS are making a new voting bloc for themselves.

    It’s pretty easy to not be on welfare or dirt poor: keep your knees together until you get married, or, if you have no self-control and act like an animal during mating season, at least keep ’em shut until you get out of college.

    By the way, if you ever want to know why single mothers are not angels come to earth but rather total fuck-ups, go read Ann Coulter’s ridiculously well-researched, fact-based book. The long and short of it is that being born to married parents is the best thing you can do in your life, and being born to a mom who got knocked up and didn’t marry the baby daddy puts you in for a life of poverty, crime, and under-education.

  44. TQ: oh, so now that your side got decimated after trying to say that single women don’t need government handouts, you’re going to “deliberate political strategy”.

    Look, you brain trust: 16-year-old tramps with kids eventually turn into voting-age tramps with kids and without their parents to help them out. There’s a reason why the left is deeply invested in turning 16-year-olds into whores, because the ADULTS are making a new voting bloc for themselves.

    It’s pretty easy to not be on welfare or dirt poor: keep your knees together until you get married, or, if you have no self-control and act like an animal during mating season, at least keep ’em shut until you get out of college.

    By the way, if you ever want to know why single mothers are not angels come to earth but rather total fuck-ups, go read Ann Coulter’s ridiculously well-researched, fact-based book. The long and short of it is that being born to married parents is the best thing you can do in your life, and being born to a mom who got knocked up and didn’t marry the baby daddy puts you in for a life of poverty, crime, and under-education.

  45. By the way, in case anyone can’t tell from my snittiness on this subject, I’m the child of parents whose own parents made them march their young, expecting-child butts down the aisle. It was the best thing for all three people involved, but that tends to happen when people act like adults rather than spoiled children who have had too much cake and soda at a party.

  46. By the way, in case anyone can’t tell from my snittiness on this subject, I’m the child of parents whose own parents made them march their young, expecting-child butts down the aisle. It was the best thing for all three people involved, but that tends to happen when people act like adults rather than spoiled children who have had too much cake and soda at a party.

  47. I would be interested to see the source of the stat that 60-80% of divorces are initiated by woman.

    “40% of woman choose to give birth out of wedlock” is also an interesting stat, that lacks any support.

    My guess is that those stats are made up to fit Ms. Luca’s personal opinions or life experience.

    Also, Ms. Luca does not account for the woman who are widows or never married, which according to the following link is 24%

    According to this link, with 2004 data ( http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_per_of_wom_who_nev_mar-percent-women-who-never-married ) 24% of woman, never marry, so they have never kicked out their husbands.

    Rhetoric like Schlafly’s is not only inaccurate but also tone deaf to the many reasons why a woman might not have a husband.

  48. I would be interested to see the source of the stat that 60-80% of divorces are initiated by woman.

    “40% of woman choose to give birth out of wedlock” is also an interesting stat, that lacks any support.

    My guess is that those stats are made up to fit Ms. Luca’s personal opinions or life experience.

    Also, Ms. Luca does not account for the woman who are widows or never married, which according to the following link is 24%

    According to this link, with 2004 data ( http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_per_of_wom_who_nev_mar-percent-women-who-never-married ) 24% of woman, never marry, so they have never kicked out their husbands.

    Rhetoric like Schlafly’s is not only inaccurate but also tone deaf to the many reasons why a woman might not have a husband.

  49. It doesn’t ring true for me that “all the other errors of feminism flow from this one fundamental error, a counterfactual insistence on the equality of the sexes.” Vive la différence, but I think the “one fundamental error” flows from something more profound.

    For starters, it isn’t feminism per se but the postmodern version of it that highjacked earlier waves of feminism that we’re talking about. As Linda Kimball explained in her American Thinker essay “Cultural Marxism” a couple of years back, it’s one of a multitude of single-issue isms that arose from the ashes of the New Left in the last decades of the 20th century. http://bit.ly/aVjImy

    In that light the “one fundamental error” at the heart of postmodern feminism would be Marxism’s counterintuitive utopian view of a socially engineerable human nature vs. the conservative view — understood by the Founding Fathers — that, in VDS’s words, “human nature is predictable and thus tragic.” http://bit.ly/beyFIY

    Pomo feminists’ insistence on the equality of the sexes in that light would be simply an instance of a more general fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Or am I splitting hairs?

  50. It doesn’t ring true for me that “all the other errors of feminism flow from this one fundamental error, a counterfactual insistence on the equality of the sexes.” Vive la différence, but I think the “one fundamental error” flows from something more profound.

    For starters, it isn’t feminism per se but the postmodern version of it that highjacked earlier waves of feminism that we’re talking about. As Linda Kimball explained in her American Thinker essay “Cultural Marxism” a couple of years back, it’s one of a multitude of single-issue isms that arose from the ashes of the New Left in the last decades of the 20th century. http://bit.ly/aVjImy

    In that light the “one fundamental error” at the heart of postmodern feminism would be Marxism’s counterintuitive utopian view of a socially engineerable human nature vs. the conservative view — understood by the Founding Fathers — that, in VDS’s words, “human nature is predictable and thus tragic.” http://bit.ly/beyFIY

    Pomo feminists’ insistence on the equality of the sexes in that light would be simply an instance of a more general fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Or am I splitting hairs?

Comments are closed.