Why the need to pull a both-sides argument? Let’s be real. Conservative communities and schools tend to steer clear of partisan politics; leftist communities and schools go all in. Religiously affiliated orgs that mimic the Boy Scouts are not the same as an established national scouting program that goes full-on woke.
I work at a public school in what could be considered right-of-center area of DFW. Teachers are aggressively encouraged to keep their politics to ourselves. Conservatives and Christians follow this while the leftist teachers flagrantly share their politics and pick fights with their students. It was the same way when I was a student.
But yes, having kids definitely is politically coded. I think the leftist approach guarantees the collapsing birth rate. Meanwhile Christians and conservatives will continue having kids and keeping their sanity through sound parenting practices. Prepare for a much more conservative America in the coming generations.
Let's be honest--most schools are run by democrats, as are most teachers. That's why teachers are told to keep their politics to themselves in conservative areas and are encouraged to share political opinions in leftist areas, as you have noted above
Have not viewed the stats, but it seems that people are having fewer kids across the board. And who can name them. It’s expensive and difficult work. I know so many people who have no kids and no plans to have kids.
I live in a place where I am constantly exposed to voters from the other party. I have to say I am finding it harder and harder to accept. No conversation is possible without accepting the shibboleths that prove you are part of the herd. I push back on it when I feel pretty sure doing so doesn't risk the friendship, but I feel pretty sure less and less often as time goes by.
There were studies showing much less tolerance by the lefties than from the right-wingers. I would like the research repeated trying to exclude most of the bias of the scientists. It is possible to a large degree - if the researchers want it. Should the results be confirmed the conservatives must publish them and make use as much as possible. The alternative will be dangerous. If both sides are equally bad the research authors should be welcome to join other normal people in search for salvation.
"So what advice do I have for parents? If you can, try to find a school and a community that is diverse, welcoming, and apolitical. But you also have every right to prioritize your beliefs and your values. Your school should not be undermining your faith and your beliefs"
Bill Bishop (in his book) calls our political geographic separation The Big Sort. And it happens because of exactly the behavior encouraged here. Looking for a community and school that "doesn't undermine your faith and your beliefs" is a recipe for political segregation.
"Everything shouldn't be political" is only true for societies that share an overarching moral / cultural / theological framework that is near universally accepted. That framework narrows the Overton Window enormously, so political stakes are lower. The reason politics seem to have taken over everything in the last 60 years is that we (America and the West) lost that framework. Our politics got theologicalized; our arguments transitioned from means (how do we achieve something we all agree to be good?) to ends (what is good?). Democracy is really good at the former and really bad at the latter.
"Looking for a community and school that "doesn't undermine your faith and your beliefs" is a recipe for political segregation."
Political segregation is not the problem, it is the symptom. Without fixing the core issue (no framework), fighting against segregation by pushing our children into a mixing pot is not going to be fruitful, but it will cause a lot of problems for our children. In my opinion if we adults cannot sort out the framework problem, we should not use our children to mend the issues that we created for ourselves and for them.
I agree, but I see no evidence we adults are ready to sort out the framework problem. John Stuart Mill dethroned virtue as the highest good of society and replaced it with maximal individual autonomy. That's what Nietzsche meant when he said we'd "killed God". Most people think Nietzsche's comment was triumphant: "let's go party now that God is dead!" It's actually more like, "how will we live without God?"
We have yet to figure that out. Steven Pinker and Noah Harari keep killing trees to explain how they've done it, but despite people buying their books, no one seems entirely sold on their solutions. Pinker's is triumphant ("stop worrying and have another drink") and Harari's can be summarized as, "let's make a new one." Nietzsche expected a "might makes right" solution (the overman, who will establish moral rules by the force of his will). The first Overman we got was named Adolph.
I desperately hope our kids are able to do what we've failed at. There's some evidence some are starting to turn back toward virtue, but as a broad movement that could anchor society overall, I don't see it yet.
Any actual support outside of your own bias for this "observation"? Sounds like you just don't like democratic women voters and want to attribute silly behavior to them.
It’s becoming increasingly intolerable to practice mental health care in a blue state, where I could be investigated by the state board for using biologically correct pronouns, refusing to supply a letter of recommendation for genital surgery on a young adult, or by notifying parents of an adolescent’s gender transition. New legislation in WA would force all counties to adhere to state public health guidance— which ensured some of the longest school and business closures in the country, strictest masking mandates, and other policies that have largely been proven ineffective— and leaving little room for disagreement or debate. I simply don’t trust the state to make evidence-based decisions anymore. They are upholding activist ideology as policy, and the enforcement feels authoritarian— like when they required a vaccine passport to go to a restaurant, or demand I entertain the gender confusion of an 8 year old child.
There’s a high school in Portland, Oregon where 85% of 8th graders are functionally illiterate and the houses cost over half a million dollars. Tell me more about the millions of parents in America who don’t notice that their 8th grader can barely read.
Society is stressed to the extremes by groups of the elite as their ideology fight has spread to our level. As society gets more extreme, people get divided.
If there is no basic agreement about what is good and what is bad, then people will fight. If elementary words do not mean the same to people, there is no communication, the fight will get nastier. It is natural that people will try to shield themselves from those that they find extreme, in this society this is the natural survival strategy. People that live among people with whom they agree about what is good and what is bad, these people are lucky.
I believe 50 years ago there was a mainstream opinion about what is good and what is bad. It might not have been absolutely correct, but for the majority of the people that mainstream opinion meant little stress, better relationships, and as a result more openness. In today's world openness is not a smart choice IMO.
Also worth mentioning that each of today's divisive and extreme ideologies are probably less correct than the mainstream opinion was 50 years ago. When a society is divided, there is no compromise, no normalization, everything is about the fight to win.
How to raise children in this world? The situation is less then ideal, and TBH I do not know the answer. As I also have children, I am really worried about all of this. The ideology fight of the elite should not be my fight, this is one of the things that I try to keep in mind.
Reading this reminded me why the main dividing line in politics today is education level. Don has helped drive this trend as the parties switched places. Non-college voters have fled the Democratic Party to become Republicans, and college educated voters have fled the Republican Party to become Democrats, both driven by cultural and populist issues.
Dr. Sax seems destined to live a life of frustration as he pines for a return to a period long past.
I have been a family photographer for 17 years. I have witnessed over this time the disintegration of behavior the author describes. Parents are unwilling to exercise authority over their children. Children are given a screen at the first sign of distress. Very young children are less interested in interacting with their parents than a screen. I structure my shoots to be fun and interactive, but that is becoming less and less the reality.
Another difference is number of children. Conservatives are 3+. Liberals are 1-2.
When you have 3+ kids discipline is a necessity rather than a nice to have. Kids have to learn they can’t have it their way all the time because they literally can’t.
And yeah the screens. Liberals are all in on giving kids screens. Conservatives say no.
//Back then, I could tell you about parents who were left-of-center, ACLU-card-carrying liberals who were also strict, authoritative parents. Not anymore. Today, left-of-center parents are more likely to be permissive, and permissive parents are more likely to be left-of-center. //
I find that a hyper-partisan assertion. It has not been lost on young children of Trump supporters that their parent's hero is a thrice married adulterous man and whose junior high school sons are well aware of Stormy Daniels and Melania's "spicy" photo spreads.
In my youth, it was conservative parents and teachers who would have been the quickest to discipline us for using derogatory words towards others, particularly towards girls, the disabled, or just insulting names to other students. Today, conservative parents have to fight against the practice of conservative political leaders and media personalities if they want their children to not practice these vices.
My husband noticed that in our experience as Orthodox Jews, our synagogues are stratified by religious observance, which means that often there is a nice level of diversity for both political views and economic status.
The growing gap in mental health concerns observed between kids from socially progressive versus conservative families is becoming an active topic of debate. Rates of depression and anxiety are increasing more rapidly among kids from progressive families. Hypotheses put forth to explain the differences include parenting style as evidenced by the time kids spend on their phones and devices daily (progressive kids are more likely to spend > 3 hours/day online) as well as the sheer volume of news they consume online. I'd also wonder about differences in extracurriculars/socialization (conservative kids are more likely to spend more time with peers/adults in church culture). I'd also wonder if kids from socially conservative families benefit from being exposed to a more diverse group of people because of the politization of the educational system by the teachers unions and the experience of college.
Speaking as a child psychiatrist who practiced on the East Side of Cleveland for 35 years, (sadly), if Dr. Sax were growing up in Shaker Heights today it's highly unlikely he'd encounter other kids or grownups with a perspective different from his mother's, supporting his point in this article.
Now please weave another factor into your conceptual tapestry; the wicked problem of child abuse.
A parent's duty is to protect the child, whilst also training that child to protect himself or herself. Discipline must be calibrated to the potential outcomes of the errant behaviors.
So we have CPS, an agency staffed by humans, with all of the attendant incompetence and corruption that this entails.
Along with CPS, we have jurists, with all of attendant biases, incompetence, heedlessness and corruption that goes along with lawyers given power over the lives of others.
Because of the way that CPS and the juvenile offender and custody system is structured, we have yet another "the process is part of the punishment" paradigm.
This is the core of how parenting became politicized. The party affiliations aren't irrelevant, but they're sidereal to the root cause of endemic delinquency.
It's a wicked problem, defined as "an intractable problem, every proposed solution to which, creates additional intractable problems."
Why the need to pull a both-sides argument? Let’s be real. Conservative communities and schools tend to steer clear of partisan politics; leftist communities and schools go all in. Religiously affiliated orgs that mimic the Boy Scouts are not the same as an established national scouting program that goes full-on woke.
I work at a public school in what could be considered right-of-center area of DFW. Teachers are aggressively encouraged to keep their politics to ourselves. Conservatives and Christians follow this while the leftist teachers flagrantly share their politics and pick fights with their students. It was the same way when I was a student.
But yes, having kids definitely is politically coded. I think the leftist approach guarantees the collapsing birth rate. Meanwhile Christians and conservatives will continue having kids and keeping their sanity through sound parenting practices. Prepare for a much more conservative America in the coming generations.
Let's be honest--most schools are run by democrats, as are most teachers. That's why teachers are told to keep their politics to themselves in conservative areas and are encouraged to share political opinions in leftist areas, as you have noted above
Have not viewed the stats, but it seems that people are having fewer kids across the board. And who can name them. It’s expensive and difficult work. I know so many people who have no kids and no plans to have kids.
Leftist ladies have about a half a kid lower fertility rate than conservative ladies
IIRC, fertility rates in the red states are also below replacement value. So that population is still shrinking. Just not as quickly.
Does that make you feel a little better, lib?
Yeah. It does.
I live in a place where I am constantly exposed to voters from the other party. I have to say I am finding it harder and harder to accept. No conversation is possible without accepting the shibboleths that prove you are part of the herd. I push back on it when I feel pretty sure doing so doesn't risk the friendship, but I feel pretty sure less and less often as time goes by.
There were studies showing much less tolerance by the lefties than from the right-wingers. I would like the research repeated trying to exclude most of the bias of the scientists. It is possible to a large degree - if the researchers want it. Should the results be confirmed the conservatives must publish them and make use as much as possible. The alternative will be dangerous. If both sides are equally bad the research authors should be welcome to join other normal people in search for salvation.
"So what advice do I have for parents? If you can, try to find a school and a community that is diverse, welcoming, and apolitical. But you also have every right to prioritize your beliefs and your values. Your school should not be undermining your faith and your beliefs"
Bill Bishop (in his book) calls our political geographic separation The Big Sort. And it happens because of exactly the behavior encouraged here. Looking for a community and school that "doesn't undermine your faith and your beliefs" is a recipe for political segregation.
"Everything shouldn't be political" is only true for societies that share an overarching moral / cultural / theological framework that is near universally accepted. That framework narrows the Overton Window enormously, so political stakes are lower. The reason politics seem to have taken over everything in the last 60 years is that we (America and the West) lost that framework. Our politics got theologicalized; our arguments transitioned from means (how do we achieve something we all agree to be good?) to ends (what is good?). Democracy is really good at the former and really bad at the latter.
I like this comment a lot, but one remark:
"Looking for a community and school that "doesn't undermine your faith and your beliefs" is a recipe for political segregation."
Political segregation is not the problem, it is the symptom. Without fixing the core issue (no framework), fighting against segregation by pushing our children into a mixing pot is not going to be fruitful, but it will cause a lot of problems for our children. In my opinion if we adults cannot sort out the framework problem, we should not use our children to mend the issues that we created for ourselves and for them.
I agree, but I see no evidence we adults are ready to sort out the framework problem. John Stuart Mill dethroned virtue as the highest good of society and replaced it with maximal individual autonomy. That's what Nietzsche meant when he said we'd "killed God". Most people think Nietzsche's comment was triumphant: "let's go party now that God is dead!" It's actually more like, "how will we live without God?"
We have yet to figure that out. Steven Pinker and Noah Harari keep killing trees to explain how they've done it, but despite people buying their books, no one seems entirely sold on their solutions. Pinker's is triumphant ("stop worrying and have another drink") and Harari's can be summarized as, "let's make a new one." Nietzsche expected a "might makes right" solution (the overman, who will establish moral rules by the force of his will). The first Overman we got was named Adolph.
I desperately hope our kids are able to do what we've failed at. There's some evidence some are starting to turn back toward virtue, but as a broad movement that could anchor society overall, I don't see it yet.
Any actual support outside of your own bias for this "observation"? Sounds like you just don't like democratic women voters and want to attribute silly behavior to them.
Agree, this article reads as a handful of carefully selected antecedents to support a preselected narrative.
- a Christian, liberal, Eagle Scout and strict parent of two kids
Or we could just quit pretending that we are one country. The longer we do that the more the odds on CW2 go up.
If LGBTQ-indoctrinating your kids is a higher priority than having them learn how to read or reason - then you've already "chosen a side".
It’s becoming increasingly intolerable to practice mental health care in a blue state, where I could be investigated by the state board for using biologically correct pronouns, refusing to supply a letter of recommendation for genital surgery on a young adult, or by notifying parents of an adolescent’s gender transition. New legislation in WA would force all counties to adhere to state public health guidance— which ensured some of the longest school and business closures in the country, strictest masking mandates, and other policies that have largely been proven ineffective— and leaving little room for disagreement or debate. I simply don’t trust the state to make evidence-based decisions anymore. They are upholding activist ideology as policy, and the enforcement feels authoritarian— like when they required a vaccine passport to go to a restaurant, or demand I entertain the gender confusion of an 8 year old child.
//...notifying parents of an adolescent’s gender transition.///
Tell me more about these parents who have not noticed on their own child's gender transition.
There’s a high school in Portland, Oregon where 85% of 8th graders are functionally illiterate and the houses cost over half a million dollars. Tell me more about the millions of parents in America who don’t notice that their 8th grader can barely read.
There is a term for Americans who speak English but can't read and write. It's called "the South".
Society is stressed to the extremes by groups of the elite as their ideology fight has spread to our level. As society gets more extreme, people get divided.
If there is no basic agreement about what is good and what is bad, then people will fight. If elementary words do not mean the same to people, there is no communication, the fight will get nastier. It is natural that people will try to shield themselves from those that they find extreme, in this society this is the natural survival strategy. People that live among people with whom they agree about what is good and what is bad, these people are lucky.
I believe 50 years ago there was a mainstream opinion about what is good and what is bad. It might not have been absolutely correct, but for the majority of the people that mainstream opinion meant little stress, better relationships, and as a result more openness. In today's world openness is not a smart choice IMO.
Also worth mentioning that each of today's divisive and extreme ideologies are probably less correct than the mainstream opinion was 50 years ago. When a society is divided, there is no compromise, no normalization, everything is about the fight to win.
How to raise children in this world? The situation is less then ideal, and TBH I do not know the answer. As I also have children, I am really worried about all of this. The ideology fight of the elite should not be my fight, this is one of the things that I try to keep in mind.
Reading this reminded me why the main dividing line in politics today is education level. Don has helped drive this trend as the parties switched places. Non-college voters have fled the Democratic Party to become Republicans, and college educated voters have fled the Republican Party to become Democrats, both driven by cultural and populist issues.
Dr. Sax seems destined to live a life of frustration as he pines for a return to a period long past.
I have been a family photographer for 17 years. I have witnessed over this time the disintegration of behavior the author describes. Parents are unwilling to exercise authority over their children. Children are given a screen at the first sign of distress. Very young children are less interested in interacting with their parents than a screen. I structure my shoots to be fun and interactive, but that is becoming less and less the reality.
Another difference is number of children. Conservatives are 3+. Liberals are 1-2.
When you have 3+ kids discipline is a necessity rather than a nice to have. Kids have to learn they can’t have it their way all the time because they literally can’t.
And yeah the screens. Liberals are all in on giving kids screens. Conservatives say no.
“Their kids are now more likely to be defiant and disrespectful.” Like our current President and very poor role model Republican Donald J. Trump.
They've all been bad going back to LBJ.
//Back then, I could tell you about parents who were left-of-center, ACLU-card-carrying liberals who were also strict, authoritative parents. Not anymore. Today, left-of-center parents are more likely to be permissive, and permissive parents are more likely to be left-of-center. //
I find that a hyper-partisan assertion. It has not been lost on young children of Trump supporters that their parent's hero is a thrice married adulterous man and whose junior high school sons are well aware of Stormy Daniels and Melania's "spicy" photo spreads.
In my youth, it was conservative parents and teachers who would have been the quickest to discipline us for using derogatory words towards others, particularly towards girls, the disabled, or just insulting names to other students. Today, conservative parents have to fight against the practice of conservative political leaders and media personalities if they want their children to not practice these vices.
My husband noticed that in our experience as Orthodox Jews, our synagogues are stratified by religious observance, which means that often there is a nice level of diversity for both political views and economic status.
The growing gap in mental health concerns observed between kids from socially progressive versus conservative families is becoming an active topic of debate. Rates of depression and anxiety are increasing more rapidly among kids from progressive families. Hypotheses put forth to explain the differences include parenting style as evidenced by the time kids spend on their phones and devices daily (progressive kids are more likely to spend > 3 hours/day online) as well as the sheer volume of news they consume online. I'd also wonder about differences in extracurriculars/socialization (conservative kids are more likely to spend more time with peers/adults in church culture). I'd also wonder if kids from socially conservative families benefit from being exposed to a more diverse group of people because of the politization of the educational system by the teachers unions and the experience of college.
Speaking as a child psychiatrist who practiced on the East Side of Cleveland for 35 years, (sadly), if Dr. Sax were growing up in Shaker Heights today it's highly unlikely he'd encounter other kids or grownups with a perspective different from his mother's, supporting his point in this article.
Great essay, Doc.
Now please weave another factor into your conceptual tapestry; the wicked problem of child abuse.
A parent's duty is to protect the child, whilst also training that child to protect himself or herself. Discipline must be calibrated to the potential outcomes of the errant behaviors.
So we have CPS, an agency staffed by humans, with all of the attendant incompetence and corruption that this entails.
Along with CPS, we have jurists, with all of attendant biases, incompetence, heedlessness and corruption that goes along with lawyers given power over the lives of others.
Because of the way that CPS and the juvenile offender and custody system is structured, we have yet another "the process is part of the punishment" paradigm.
This is the core of how parenting became politicized. The party affiliations aren't irrelevant, but they're sidereal to the root cause of endemic delinquency.
It's a wicked problem, defined as "an intractable problem, every proposed solution to which, creates additional intractable problems."