The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Cherchez la Femme
I had long been under the impression that one reason modern developed societies have more gubmnt intervention is that there is a positive income elasticity of demand for gubmnt-provided insurance [i.e. as we become wealthier, we politically demand that the gubmnt look after us more, especially regarding unanticipated negative events].
It turns out there is a strong, alternative explanation. According to John Lott, gubmnt intervention in the economy really took off after women were given the right to vote. His analysis is presented in an article in the Journal of Political Economy, and is summarized in his recent book, Freedomnomics:
There is a close relationship between marital status and women's voting patterns — generally, as divorce rates have increased, women have become more liberal. Over the course of women's lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending. But for married women this gap is only one-third as large, and married women with children become even more conservative. But divorced women with children suddenly become 75 percent mor likely to vote for Democrats than single men. [pp. 164-5]
[and from the footnote to the above quotation] Interestingly, men raising children on their own are only three percent more likely to vote Democratic than single men without children.
Of course, given some recent trends among Republicans in the US (and Conservatives in Canada), it is no longer absolutely clear that Democrats (or Liberals in Canada) are the only interventionists out there.
Posted by EclectEcon on September 27, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Left-Wing Interventionism:
Cherchez la Femme:
In other words, if a woman keeps on the straight & narrow, marries a decent man, has children and cares for them as they grow up, she is likely to be conservative in her life outlook and vote accordingly.
Whereas if she is sleeping around, involved with drugs and worthless men, uneducated and irreligious, she'll vote for a left of center party.
So if a single man wants to marry a good woman, he should involve himself in conservative politics. If he'd rather be involved with a loose woman of no morals. . .
Your life choices made simple.
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-27 5:49:29 AM
obc talks like an Islamist.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-09-27 7:18:16 AM
As Water Williams has maintained, to avoid poverty:
1. Stay away from illegal drugs and excessive alcohol
2. Stay in school.
3. Get a job or two.
4. Marry a good woman
5. Have some children
- IN THAT ORDER!! !
Change that order, and you have no one to blame but yourself for your poverty,
Posted by: obc | 2007-09-27 8:03:04 AM
Women fought hard for freedoms and now vote for the government to take them away through liberal intervention in their lives. What was the point?
The little girls who want big daddy government to take care of them should have just stayed in the kitchen...
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-09-27 9:18:12 AM
It may have been just a throw away line, but when and where did "women fought hard for freedoms..."?
The women's sufferage issue involved some marches with placards, etc. but were there any actual "hard fought" battles? Same with the present day feminist movement. I'd say it was all absolutely NOTHING in comparison with black people in the civil rights movement in America or any other rebellion against actual governmental tyranny (as oppossed to entirely phony "women's issues" - like getting a abortion).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-09-27 3:08:39 PM
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-09-28 12:27:52 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.