(Hat tip to my friend BTX3 for notifying me of the article written by the friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas)
In the article Justice Sears documents the low rate of marriage in some communities and relates it to the consequence of social class. She notes that "higher classes" are beginning to see their rates of marriage atrophy in recent days. She suggests that the institutions that surround them begin to reach out to them as a means of fomenting a stronger inclination to marry and in support of stronger, more enduring marriages.
From the article:
Wilcox's study finds that over the last 30 years, among what the report calls "Middle Americans" (the 58% of moderately educated Americans who have a high school degree), the proportion of children born outside of marriage skyrocketed from 13% to 44% while the portion of adults in an intact first marriage dropped from 73% to 45%.
Meanwhile, among financially well-off Americans (the 30% who have a college degree or higher), the proportion of children born outside of marriage climbed only slightly from 2% to 6%, the divorce rate dropped from 15% to 11%, and intact first marriages dropped from 73% to 56%.
In sum, the relationships of Middle Americans increasingly resemble those of the poor, while marriages among upscale Americans are getting better in many respects.
This is important because, as Wilcox notes, the social science evidence today is indisputable: Children who grow up in intact, married families are significantly more likely to graduate from high school, find work and enjoy a stable family life, compared with their peers who grow up in broken families.I ultimately agree with Justice Sears regarding the importance of INSTITUTIONS that are in contact with people to set the tone for their values and behavior. Anyone who reads this blog and its sister blog (With The Black Community) will note my continuing references to the key function of institutions in shaping a people - their thoughts, behaviors and values. In as much as these institutions are controlled by "favorable people" of our own choosing it might be high time for a reappraisal of that which we prefer and how it all aligns with our permanent interests.
The class-based marriage gap is also an injustice because most Americans still seem to desire a happy marriage. Wilcox found that the vast majority of Americans of all classes still say marriage is "very important" or "one of the most important things" to them.
As I reread Justice Sears' column before I went to press I noted that it was not she who "nationalized" the problems with "lower income marriage". Instead BTX3, from whom I got the article from did so with his analysis of Sears' words. She pointed to the institutions that surround people, he appointed this as a national problem.
In my analysis the attempt to make low marriage rates or failing public schools into a "national problem" is an attempt by those who's past activism has put them in charge of these institutions to obfuscate beyond their present ESTABLISHMENT position, thus allowing them to struggle some more. This shows them to be "permanent chasers" while rather inept managers. Unable to use these "Human Resource Development & Control" institutions to produce the outcomes that all who desire a higher standard of living toward that place.
By "nationalizing" the issue a carrot is created by which "their loss is America's loss". If America is to be competitive internationally, they say then America must change its ways. Of course this is an implicit reference for America to stop its discrimination in resource allocation, its protectionism of 'private property' that was received through ill-gotten gains by an unjust system.
Why don't we appraise past interventions in which "money" and "methodology" was offered as suggestions for change? We see that when the resources are accompanied with restrictions, suggestions (or cultural mores) a rebuke is often heard: "Give up the money and mind your own business. You all have your own problems that you need to deal with before poking into our problems".
Thus the concept of "nationalized entitlement" is fortified. America is asked to "let no man fail". This is his birthright. Regardless of what he does to insure his own failure - America will not allow him to fall below a certain guaranteed threshold.
I reject this as a notion that is mutually exclusive to societal freedom and the non-Serfdom state.
Instead, with sufficient control over the key institutions in the community having been won through a grand struggle - these institutions at the periphery must be the agents of social control. Their policies promoted by the local majority. HOWEVER, these policies that are accepted by this congregation and yet being in line with this national GOAL - should be adopted and jettisoned based upon their EFFECTIVENESS in delivering upon these stated goals.
Failing to apply such pruning and grafting shows a people who are more committed to their ideological dogma than they are the favorable end that they seek.
America is an aggregation of the productivity, thoughts and actions of more than 310M people, clustered into various communities. It is a "bottom up" flow rather than a "command and control" centralized enforcement.
What better way to prove one's "equal valuation" of another human being of their own kind than to engage in a long term relationship with them for the sake of achieving community stabilization and the perpetuation of the species and culture?
Surely if the period of "Slavery" lives as residue in our lives today - what WE are doing today will be living in the people 150 years from now. If there ever was a time for "disruptive change" to take place, thus trapping damage from the past from jumping the "generational synapse" - this is it.