G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Political pundits have been noting that white men are jazzed up about the up-coming mid-term election. Liberals are perplexed that a mostly white male led grassroots political movement would have sprung up as it did and would be as vociferous as it is. They interpret this enthusiasm as a manifestation of racism and misogyny. Instead of understanding that men are acting in their own economic best interests, pundits and progressives would rather paint us as irrational or bigoted; we’re seen as narrow-minded either way. But why wouldn’t a Tea Party or just a group of conservative-minded people get together to battle a President, a Party, and most importantly an ideology that doesn’t want their constituency? While Tea Partiers became activist early on in the Obama presidency, it seems that the fears that activated them come more to fruition with each speech, policy suggestion, and White House-backed economic analysis.
Chalk it up to playing to his base, but Barack Obama doesn’t care about men’s interests even when men are suffering most under this Mancession and even though an employed man has positive cascading effects on society. Because minority men – black men especially – are strictly loyal to Obama for obvious reasons (I don’t fault them for choosing race over substance given Obama’s cultural significance – not to mention that he has at least nominally pledged substantial reform solely for blacks) white men have had to focus on the economic misandry all by themselves.
Despite the fact that 69% of the jobs lost in this last recession have been men’s, and despite the fact that a whole generation of men are less-equipped to find employment due to the female-skewed college graduation rates (57% of college students are women) – which will in turn effect the next generation of men coming down the pipeline – Obama still prefers to focus on providing an insurance policy on womens’ jobs going forward.
The Council of Economic Advisers released this report yesterday titled “Jobs and Economic Security for America’s Women”. The meat of Obama’s position:
The President is committed to continuing to push for an economy that provides economic security and jobs for America’s women.
Notice the language used. Obama seeks to “provide” security and jobs rather than “create” the same. To him, providing jobs is a great thing, but unless we are all to become employed by the state (which would be fine to liberals but which would also be full-blown socialism) someone has to create private sector jobs at some point. The difference is important because a provision doesn’t lead to infinitely more provisions. Eventually funds run out. But a creation can create more creations etc.
According to professor Mark Perry, construction employment fell by 20% and manufacturing fell by 14% (with a male-skewed demographic of 88% and 71% respectively), health care and education industry employment (which is either directly or indirectly propped up by government spending) increased by 4% and is 74% female, and government sector jobs are held by 57% women and increased by 2.3%. Given that almost every job that President Obama has “provided” or “secured” has come from wealth transferred from private citizens to government and quasi-government agencies, those jobs came at the expense of other jobs or investable capital that could have lead to more jobs. For the income paid to those women who found gainful employment or kept their employment, a private sector business didn’t pull in revenue or a private sector employee didn’t receive income. Created jobs were foregone. The cash that was collected as income tax or the funds that were raised through debt-instruments which creates price inflation (which is a silent tax on everyone) would have had a much higher multiplicative effect on the work force than zero-sum gynocentric government jobs or other jobs that exist because of government funding. So when we think in terms of opportunity costs – as we should in order to glean a proper assessment of what we do have versus what we could have – President Obama actually destroyed jobs by focusing on getting women hired or not hired.
The report continues:
An increasing number of women are breadwinners for their families. In almost two-thirds of families led by single mothers or two parents, women are either the primary or co-breadwinner. In two-parent families, with the wage gap and the loss of jobs traditionally held by men in this economy, reliance on a woman’s income in their family budget is even greater…Since women are nearly 50 percent of the workforce, the recession’s economic impacts on women are even more consequential for the economy than they would have been in past recessions.
Here, today, the litmus test for focus on one group’s economic woes is their prevalence in the workforce. But this logic has never been applied at any stage in our government’s economic engineering. When men were breadwinners by a bigger margin nobody argued that, since men occupied an important place in the household, we should continue giving them resources by making them the top economic priority. Instead, quite the opposite attitude existed.
The White House report blatantly focuses on addressing womens’ employment even when that employment becomes important due to a male breadwinners’ drop in income. Rather than focus on getting that man back in to a job, we are compelled to focus on the woman’s economic situation. It is telling that Obama thinks that jobs held by women are the ones that allow this country to live up to the progressive Utopia that he and his liberal acolytes have subscribed to. To them, the best jobs are ones made for women; if those women are also able to reign over non-traditional households (i.e. single parent households or woman-as-breadwinner households) that is an added bonus. A job held by a man who is breadwinner to his wife and two children – all of whom are just as likely to be happy as any post-feminist career gal – is politically worthless to Barack Obama and Democrats. In short, Barack Obama’s goal – the same as that of every other progressive in this country – is to minimize the external costs of single parenthood, bad choices, or flat out unlucky circumstances so that women can have their cake and eat it too – in that fish without a bicycle sort of way. Obama’s values are his mothers.
President Obama has shown an initiative to not care about men’s issues. As such, there should be no surprise or perplexity that men a.) don’t want to vote for the man or the party that he leads and b.) turn out in droves to do what they can to make it harder for him to continue disregarding us by voting for conservatives in the mid-term election. The old cliché is “Dance with the one who brought you”; it’s inverse would be “Don’t Dance with the one who didn’t bring you”. Men aren’t dancing with Democrats this go ’round.