Guest Post from Mattie: Is no news good news?

Tina Korbe's recent post "Poll: Tea Party Support on the decline?" on the Hotair Blogspot brings forth a current view of where supporters of the Tea Party are currently standing. Last September and in the 2010 elections, we heard a lot about the Tea Party and it seemed that a big movement had begun. However, recent polls show that the momentum of the Tea Party has begun to plateau. While 41% of Americans still agree with the Tea Party and it's stance within politics, the numbers have shifted in favor of those that oppose it (45%). Why is this? Have things significantly changed within the Tea Party and are Americans moving back to sticking with the mainstream political parties?

Korbe's argues that this is not the case, but rather, Tea Party activists have just not been in the news as of late.

“The Tea Party as the Tea Party hasn’t been particularly visible lately, even though the actions and words of certain individuals associated with the Tea Party still redound to the Tea Party’s credit or discredit.”

If you are not hot with the media, then what does that imply for the party's momentum? Will we see it begin to strike again with the upcoming election in November? Or will it begin to fade?

Furthermore, as the elections approach, will Tea Partiers get hyped for Mitt Romney? In class, we have talked about how important it will be for the Republican Party to get conservatives to really rally behind their candidate in order to compete with Obama. Will Tea Partiers lead the rally as they have many times spoken up against Obama? Will Romney struggle to receive their support, or will it be a given that the Tea Party will be in his corner? I personally think that it will be interesting to see that stance that they take as November is just around the corner. Between the Tea Party activists and the independent voters, it will be interesting to see where Americans side.

Shhh...nobody tell Joel Salatin

He'll be so mad he's likely to have a heart attack if he hears this.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land. Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

Frank Barry and I have a mutual friend (that teaches at App) whose (homeschooled) teenage sons run a portion of the family farm as an independent business, growing things and selling them at the Watauga Farmer's Market.  Apparently that will now be illegal.  The thought that a 15-year old kid might know how to manage money, how to organize productive activity, and how to take responsibility,  I can see how that might be threatening to a federal bureaucrat.

The regulation also says that groups like 4-H and FFA can no longer offer farm safety certification, replacing them with a Federal government course.  I can just imagine the bureaucrats discussing the issue:

"Hmm, let's see, who should we trust to teach farm safety?  A long-time farmer passionate enough to volunteer his time teaching children about farming, who's usually known the students for years, and who's children or grandchildren's lives may depend on what they learn?  Nah, we need a bureaucrat who works in an office with no accountability to any of the students, that's the ticket.   After all, if they take 4-H classes we don't get paid, and that's what really matters, right?

Linked at Instapundit, who comments:

I think the Labor Department would rather you hire illegal immigrants to do that work.

/rant

A Mathematician's take on Tradition and Culture

Be suspicious of linear extrapolation. It does not follow that because moderate exercise is good for you, extreme exercise is extremely good for you. Nor does it follow that because extreme alcohol consumption is harmful, moderate alcohol consumption is moderately harmful.

Start from a default assumption that something natural or traditional is probably OK. This should not be dogmatic, only a starting point. In statistical terms, it’s a prior distribution informed by historical experience. The more a claim is at odds with nature and tradition, the more evidence it requires. If someone says fresh fruit is bad for you, for example, they need to present more evidence than someone who says an newly synthesized chemical compound is harmful. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

From The Endeavor

Guest Post: Daniel on Marriage (or the lack thereof)

This is an interesting piece at Brookings talking about marriage in America in terms of falling incomes. While marriage has fallen across all strata of the economic system it has been hit by far the hardest among those with lower incomes. The argument is that with fewer resources to provide for a family, many poor men are essentially unmarriageable, leading poor women to remain single, and have more children out of wedlock.

The implications of this would of course be taken by some to be a call for the growing necessity for social programs, but this isn't where I'm trying to go with this. My focus, rather, is to suggest that the so called "collapse of the family", or of family values, or traditional morals, or whatever you want to call it, is really just not happening. There may be some shift in our cultural assumptions about gender roles and the necessity of marriage, and this would easily account for the small decrease in marriage rates seen across the economic spectrum, but by and large people still today, and will always in the future, intend to carry on monogamous relationships.

It need not even be morally motivated, rather, it is in our genetic heritage to wish these things for ourselves. But in situations where we might find ourselves with no marriageable material around, we may have no choice. Would you rather your daughters marry a poor man who possibly has a criminal record? Or would you rather them remain single? Of course we would hope they would have other options, and I'm sure they will. However, the dilemma remains - is it really worth getting married if you are neither committed to the other person nor gaining any material stability from the relationship? To preempt a possible romantic objection about me including material stability as a qualification for marriage: you probably aren't going to be committed, or even attracted, to someone you see as unmotivated, unproductive, and untalented, regardless of material stability.

There is much to be said about the situations leading to such poverty and delinquency, and the solutions are also convoluted, but I think this is pretty strong evidence that what many people are interpreting as a collapse of family values is really just a collapse of worthwhile candidates for marriage.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  I've added this graph from some Econ journal (I forget which) about marriage rates over time because I wanted to test the economic explanation on the Great Depression.

 Some interesting trends there.

Guest Post: Ian on Amendment 1

 The college democrats and college republicans at Duke have united to stand against Amendment 1 (article here). I am happy that the two parties can come together and agree. I am proud that the young Representatives of our two parties are doing what the adults can not. The statement that was released was interesting for a number of reasons.

The justification for the standing against Amendment 1 is religious freedom and small government. It is stated "because marriage is a deeply personal and spiritual commitment, conferring marriage should be the responsibility of faith communities, families and free organizations of private citizens, not the responsibility of the government". This line shows a libertarian support for marriage equality, the government has no role. In fact it is a religious institution that is responsible for marriage.

There is no mention of any specific religion. I enjoy the following line "families are treated equally, regardless of their status in a religious marriage". A family is not defined by marriage. This is the opposite of how many social conservatives use as reasoning against same sex marriage. They use faith as a reason to stand against amendment 1, "No faith community should ever be required to marry a couple in violation of their conscience." This is clear separation of church and state. Church is not imposing it's views on government and government is not imposing itself on church. This is an argument against Amendment 1 that never mentions any individuals personal stance on same sex marriage. Finally, "it interferes with religious freedom by further entangling the government with religious marriage"

Duke graduate Ron Paul would be proud of this statement.

Guest Post Maddie on the VP choice

Last week in class, we talked about possible Vice Presidential candidates that Romney might choose. Interestingly, Marco Rubio, a potential candidate, went public in a CNN interview saying he will not be filling those shoes. In Tina Korbe's April 14th post on Hotair, she discusses some interesting ideas that came from the recent CNN interview with the Florida Senator. Perhaps, he does not think that Romney will be able to claim the victory over Obama and therefore, would rather wait to support, or be apart of, a winning ticket. With Rubio being young in his career, I think that this decision might be a very intelligent political move. No politician ever wants to jump the gun and ruin their chance for a long and lasting career. Furthermore, I do not think that Rubio is alone in this thought. There are many other rumored, potential VP candidates that might also need to make the same call. Who might else fall into this category?

Further, in Korbe's blog post, she brings to light another great point. In the CNN interview, Rubio points out that the by just adding a Hispanic to the presidential ticket, does not necessarily mean that that particular ticket will support "their own". While the minority votes are most of the time up for grabs, he asserts that this method will not work. Rather, he explains that the way to garner the support of Hispanics is through economic policies and stances. Korbe's made a great point saying:

"Republicans and Democrats alike fall into the trap of thinking that voters are reducible to a single characteristic — their gender, their race, their income. How long will it take polls to adopt the personalistic norm — to begin to see people not as a means to an end (i.e. a means to their own election) and instead as people, to whom the proper response is love in its fullest sense of wanting what is right and best?"

In light of our discussions on diversity in class, I thought it would be interesting to solicit feedback on Rubio's remarks. We discussed the need for Romney to choose wisely and perhaps go with a minority and not the traditional white man. However, Rubio and Korbe's make a strong assertion that going with the minority is not the right approach, but rather a change in policy is the way to go. Isn't this the way that both parties should be rallying support anyhow? When and how did this shift begin? Was it even more apparent when McCain chose Palin as his vice presidential candidate? It is clear, now more than ever, that we need to get our voting priorities straight and begin to vote according to policy. After all, it is government policy that will determine the fate of our beloved country, not necessarily gender or race.

Forgetfulness

Since people may want to comment more after seeing their scores yesterday, I thought I should post more in hopes you'll find something interesting among the dross.  

This is something I enjoyed reading recently called "forgetfulness."    It isn't about politics, not really, the full essay has more to say about the flaws in evangelical theology than it does about politics.  At heart, though, it's really about the attitude with which agrarians look at the world.  It was still in my mind when I wrote the first question on this week's CYB.

I’m struck at the vanity of those impious folks infatuated with their ability to improve the situation without having first served a long apprenticeship under the tutelage of the old. Proudly ignorant—they believe freedom from apprenticeship guarantees spontaneity, relevance, creativity—they enforce forgetfulness.

...

Rationalism detests catholicity, hates its patterns and rhythms, loathes its embarrassed insistence on a long obedience and formation over a complete life. How much better is enthusiasm (!) coupled with a new technique (!!) so as to make something relevant (!!!).

...

And so we Old Believers are assaulted by the vain, the haughty; those who do not think it noble to tend the graves of the long-departed, repair venerable walls, or enrich the ancient soil. They sell their inheritance cheap, and cheapen what they will pass on.

...

We live always in dependence on those who’ve trod before us to make straight paths. And now we forget, and many among us—many who lead us—insist we forget, so that we may be free to forge ahead. Never fear, they know what to do, we are told, for they have a new plan. And the generosity of the dead—the constant nourishing of the present through the gifts still provided—is brushed aside. Thoughtlessly, carelessly, as a matter of no import, as forgetfulness is enforced.

I suppose this would fit almost as well with our old friends the Traditional Conservatives, too.

Full essay at The Front Porch Conservative