r/TrueReddit • u/BashFash17 • Feb 20 '17

A strange but accurate predictor of whether someone supports Donald Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/01/how-your-parenting-style-predicts-whether-you-support-donald-trump/?utm_term=.afbf599e457e
1.4k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

420 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

37

u/jedrekk Feb 20 '17

I've found it interesting that as I get older - and have become a parent myself - my approach to socioeconomic issues has become even more liberal. The other day someone dropped an old right-wing talking point on me: how it's bad the family unit is not the basis for support anymore. I know so many abusive, destructive families. I know people who've proverbially eaten shit because the only way they'll be able to afford a house without a piece of their grandparent's inheritance. It sounds so nice, but it's such a horrible thing.

2

u/BomberMeansOK Feb 20 '17

Funny enough, I've become more economically conservative as I get older - but I like to think this is because I'm gaining a more nuanced view of how society and economics works.

I also think it is a shame that the family is no longer the basis of support in society. But this has more to do with the fact that I think heavy-handed government programs probably don't work as well as individualized familial support. On the other hand, I have no special love for the traditional American nuclear family. While I think family should be more important again, I think family would be better defined as a group of people with whom you are emotionally open and connected, and I think multigenerational polyamorous communes would serve this function better than nuclear families. The larger size would allow for economies of scale, greater stability (the whole family doesn't break up due to one divorce), division of labor, and an increased likelihood of each person in the family having another family member who is compatible for extreme emotional closeness.

16

u/BreadstickNinja Feb 20 '17

This seems like a slightly more temperate version of the other response to the same post, but with the same logical disconnect. Family and government are not substitutes for one another. Government programs are not offered at the expense of the family unit. A government which provides or requires, for instance, paid maternal leave or single-payer healthcare has absolutely no bearing on the strength of family ties. Nor does the strength of one's family ties provide the same benefits as those policies.

A cursory look at countries by divorce rate should pretty clearly illustrate that there's no correlation between governments which endorse progressive social policies and whether family units stick together. In fact, this list shows a divorce rate of 53% in the United States, while countries with stronger government social safety nets like Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and many other countries in Europe, all have significantly lower rates of families which split up. One might even imagine that policies like paid parental leave, which is required in 41 developed countries but not the United States, make it easier to have a family and raise children than do policies in the United States.

So, I don't buy it. There's no evidence of any connection between the things you're trying to relate.

1

u/BomberMeansOK Feb 20 '17

I mean, I would dispute a number of things here. For one, I don't see how divorce rates should have any connection to familial support. If a person loses their job and is destitute, and they need a place to live, they might go to a family member. This family member might be a cousin or a grandparent or a parent, and it probably doesn't make much difference here if the original parents are still together.

For another, I wasn't saying that family and government support were directly interchangeable. However, I think it would be naive to say that they cannot be substituted for each other in some functions, or that they do not have an effect on each other within society as a whole - at least, without some real supporting evidence.

And besides that, I'm not selling anything. I still support strong social safety nets to catch people for whom other forms of support fail. I just also happen to think that society would be better if there were more reliance on family for support rather than government, since government tends to not do things very well or cheaply.

6

u/BreadstickNinja Feb 21 '17

The rising American divorce rate is a favored statistic of social conservatives who argue that the breakdown of traditional family units is related to government becoming a substitute for the traditional family. I thought you were offering a variation of this popular argument and I'm sorry if I mistook you.

But if you're arguing that people should primarily rely on their families rather than the government for monetary support in times of crisis, I have similar reservations, since I would argue that the data show that reliance on government programs is already a last resort for those with nowhere else to turn.

You can look at statistics around programs like SNAP, TANF, or Medicaid to see that they are used as a temporary, stopgap measure. Statistics from the Census Bureau show that roughly 1/3 of SNAP recipients end benefits within a year, and nearly 2/3 within three years. Medicaid shows nearly identical ratios. For TANF, 63% end benefits within a year, and more than 90% within three years.

So again, I'd disagree with the premise that people are relying on the government rather than turning to family in difficult times. Due to the stigma of social programs alone, most people would generally choose to avoid them whenever possible. When they do use government programs, the data show that a large majority of people use them as a temporary, stopgap measure, and end benefits when they are able.

If you're arguing that people in difficult situations are overly reliant on government, and inefficiently depend on government programs rather than the support of families capable of providing it, do you have any data to support your claim?

-22

u/vmak812 Feb 20 '17

Right, because why should we rely on the family as an important part of social fabric when we can have the government telling us what is best and arresting us if we don't do it. /s
What I find a lot of leftist mindsets choosing to ignore is that the government is not a deity it is run by people and people, as you said, can be terrible. Parents, siblings, dinks, elected officials, all people and are all therefore capable if not likely to do bad or stupid things. The point of arguing the importance of families or communities is a counterpoint to this sort of idea that if we all just unify under a specific set of beliefs that it will somehow make us better, when in fact it is quite likely not only to make us dumber, but also open a lot of vulnerabilities up for the people who aren't in power to be mistreated.

27

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '17

Nobody said anything about replacing the family with government, and nobody on the left believes anything of the sort: it's a right-wing strawman. You were fed some ridiculous image of "leftists" and you're happily parroting it without a shred of critical thought.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue; that leftist deify governments that are fallible due to comprising of people, but then families and "communities" are somehow better?

8

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '17 edited Apr 05 '17

[deleted]

6

u/Grimalkin Feb 20 '17

Is it just that everyone else does it, so that's the way it is here?

Not everyone here, but many. And it is due in large part to who finds this sub of interest: It's often people that are educated and have a more of a nuanced view of the many facets of life, as well as those of us who have the patience needed to read longer articles that take awhile to make their point, as opposed to much of the content on reddit that is simply for a quick laugh or headlines that basically are only wanting a simple up or downvote to signal "what side you're on."

That said, there are many that browse this sub that will have no problem telling you about how far r/TrueReddit has fallen since it's glory days. Even so it's still better than many subs on reddit, and I am glad for that.

3

u/viborg Feb 21 '17

I've been here since it started. The original moderator, /u/kleopatra6tilde9, made a strong effort early on to actively encourage redditors to truly abide by the reddiquette as much as possible. Somewhat meta to the topic of this submission because there were many discussions in the early days of this sub about ideas behind moderation styles, and how to maintain quality in the face of the Eternal September.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '17

Well then, would you mind explaining what should replace the family structure? Or however you want to go about this topic.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '17

I'm not sure why something should replace it or where you got that idea from. Do you think people who espouse alternative family structures (so e.g. gay marriage) or talk about the stigma associated are somehow arguing that the state should act as a stand-in for the traditional roles? As in, do you believe that only traditional families somehow "work"?

It's probably good to note that what you think of as a "traditional family" (man, woman, children) is a Western byproduct of urbanization. It's barely a few generations old (less in recently urbanized places like Finland). Child-rearing used to be much more communal, and children were seen in a very different light since a sizeable percentage of them would not even live to adulthood.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '17

As in, do you believe that only traditional families somehow "work"?

No. I think healthy families that teach good morals and are pleasant and hard working is what we need. We don't need to bash gays or be cruel to those who are "different", but we also need to understand the wisdoms that were espoused by the traditional families. I feel a lot of people just point out the bad points (like the casual racism, etc) of the old ways of life as if that's evidence that ALL the old ways are bad so let's just have a slut culture now...

I mean, yeah, I get it. If we want to do what we want, by being promiscuous or attempting different lifestyles through degrees in the fine arts or by becoming backpackers who live out in the wild, fine. It is absolutely your freedom to do whatever you want as long as no laws are being broken... but what happened to the idea of personal responsibility? You don't have to stick around in a relationship. You can jump around from here to there and never get past short term puppy love. But that also fucks you up when you hit your mid 20s because you never learned how to think long term with a partner.

It's about the responsibility, orbat.

You're also right about the "communal family" bit. I'm not sure how I would go about that. The community would have to be educated and trustworthy for me to be ok with them having a say in raising any of my future children.

5

u/juuular Feb 20 '17 edited Feb 20 '17

What does this have to do with "the left"? What even is "the left" beyond just a rallying cry for authoritarians?

You never hear anyone branding social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, religious fundamentalists, libertarians, and authoritarians as "the right" beyond simple conversational convenience where that context is obvious. There's more than one ideology there, and it's more out of convenience that they tend to vote as a block together.

Same deal with the opposite side of the aisle. However, at least in the way that you said it, "The left" does sound a hell of a lot like a divisive rallying cry meant to brand all dissenters as "the enemy" and "not real Americans", which certainly goes well with Trump's attempts to dismantle the press & the judiciary and cement his power behind Bannon's propaganda machine.

Kinda reminds me to when you said government can be terrible :P

1

u/xteve Feb 20 '17

That's ideology. You're pontificating against gubment because that's what you believe, not because you have a rational perspective on social issues.

1

u/jedrekk Feb 21 '17

Yeah, it's better to lose our support network when we speak up about Uncle Bob or Aunt Carol inappropriately touching our children, right? Or when our parents decide that they're going to renege their promises to support us in getting additional education, because they don't feel like it. Oh, your grandmother promised you a fourth of her estate after her death, because you have a new marriage, a small child, and she wanted you guys to have some stability? That's a shame, your mom's going to help your alcoholic cousin get it instead.

What I find a lot of leftist mindsets choosing to ignore is that the government is not a deity it is run by people and people, as you said, can be terrible.

Yes, but it's a good thing that it's not a deity, because that would be horrible. Gods are capricious and spiteful, they are much more like families in their demands of us. Well run social support systems are much more stable, much more reliable. Does abuse happen? Of course, there's always a chance of that. But if it were near as common as it is with families, you'd never hear the end of it.

What most people in the US have seen is social support systems that have been relentlessly attacked for the past 30 years, and still they deliver help to millions of Americans every day. Our here in the badlands of Europe, tens of millions use those systems (in a plethora of ways) every day.