- The Washington Times - Monday, October 23, 2006

Beltway lifestyle

“Washington, D.C., is a town that — day in and day out — is run by armies of women and men between the ages of 20 and 40 years of age. … They work stunningly long hours, battle stress every day, move around a lot, receive paychecks that barely cover the basic costs of their Beltway lives and frequently recover from all of this at night and on weekends through forms of relaxation other than prayer, Bible study and scrapbooking. The overwhelming majority of them, for reasons that should be obvious … are not married. …

“[I]t is probably hard, or at least harder, for the camp in the GOP that has an agenda focusing on faith and family to thrive in a city that, statistically, is dominated by single adults and workaholics. … Study any poll and you will see that people who are married and have children tend to be more socially conservative (and more active in organized religion) than people who are single or divorced, with few or no children. …

“Republicans are the people who have the most division in their elite ranks on the religious and moral issues. When it comes to abortion, gay rights and other similar issues, the GOP is the yin-yang party, while elite Democrats are marching to the same drummer, while chanting the same social-issues creed.”

— Terry Mattingly, writing on “Pink Elephants in the GOP Tent,” Thursday in Get Religion at www.getreligion.org

Young apathy

“Fortunately, young Americans won’t be turning out to vote en masse this year. They haven’t turned out in number for many years, but Democratic coveters of the ‘youth vote’ are now confident that this will be the year for youth to emerge as a force. …

“Beggars for the youth vote usually make an assumption that is strange to many of today’s young Americans. The assumption is that government is supremely important. …

“Who best to secure the future of big government than the crowd of youth, totally careless of whether government is conducted within the bounds of a constitution, blind to the fact that big government is utterly incompatible with the idea of America?”

— Hans Zeiger, writing “Stop the youth vote!” Thursday in WorldNetDaily at www.worldnetdaily.com

Too many of us?

“Welcome to America, pop. 300 million. …

“When America hit the 200 million mark in 1967, people were worried. Congress was worried. … President Richard Nixon would later write:

“‘One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.’

“And so the Rockefeller Commission was born, to ‘study the matter.’ Two years later, it delivered the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, which … announced that ‘no substantial benefits would result from continued growth of the nation’s population.’ …

“When the population bomb turned out to be the population cap gun, neo-Malthusians of various stripes had to regroup. There’s something quite reasonable and intuitive about worrying that we’re eventually going to run out of something, but once it became clear that it wasn’t food or space, it took awhile to settle on what we should worry about instead. Water is a contender, as is oil. Global warming is a pretty solid catchall.”

— Katherine Mangu-Ward, writing on “Mo’ Better People,” Tuesday in Reason Online at www.reason.com


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide