One More Pseudo-Intellectual Conservative
by tristero
Matthew Schmitz is a beneficiary of the New York Times's long-running affirmative action program for right wing pundits. Like David Brooks, Schmitz loves making absurd assertions from dubious generalizations. With the tedious prose of a Very Serious Person discussing Very Big Ideas, he begins:
In their book “Red Families v. Blue Families,” Naomi Cahn and June Carbone popularized the idea of “blue” and “red” family models. Blue families prize equality and companionship between spouses while putting a low value on childbearing. Red families tend to be inegalitarian or complementarian, viewing the man as the primary breadwinner and the mother as the primary caregiver. Early marriage and multiple children are typical.
Red families tend toward conservatism, and blue tend toward progressivism, but the models share an upper-class stress on respectability and a strong taboo against out-of-wedlock birth.
A third model can be found among working-class whites, blacks and Hispanics — let’s call it purple. In these families, bonds between mothers and children are prized above those between couples. Unstable relationships are the norm, and fathers quickly end up out of the picture.
The difference among these three family models explains three different reactions to Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Liberal professionals decried his sexism, which violated the prime value of the blue family model: equality. Elite evangelicals decried his infidelity, which ran counter to the red family model’s stress on fidelity.
I haven't read Cahn and Carbone's book but I doubt they are to blame for the numerous and very obvious problems with Schmitz's precis. Here's one: it's not only patently ridiculous to assert that "blue families" — aka liberals — put "a low value on childbearing," it's insulting.
But let's go on, because — incredibly — Schmitz claims that:
Baffling as it may be to elites, Mr. Trump embodies a real if imperfect model of family values. People familiar with the purple family model tend to view his alienation from his children’s mother as normal and his closeness to his children as exceptional and admirable. I saw this among my acquaintances in Nebraska.
Now, I'll bet dollars to donuts that none of Schmitz's "acquaintances in Nebraska" are blacks and hispanics. That's because " Trump's job approval sits at only 7% among black voters and 24% among Hispanic voters." In other words, two thirds of the "purple class" ethnic groups that Schmitz claims admire Trump's family values actually loathe Trump.
That means that among purple families, only the white working class support Trump — with the emphasis on white. We knew this and we also know that it's not class but racial identity that best determines Trump-loving. As Ta-Nehisi Coates pointed out:
According to Edison Research, Trump won whites making less than $50,000 by 20 points, whites making $50,000 to $99,999 by 28 points, and whites making $100,000 or more by 14 points. This shows that Trump assembled a broad white coalition that ran the gamut from Joe the Dishwasher to Joe the Plumber to Joe the Banker.
In other words, it's Trump's racism that attracts so many whites, regardless of class. It's certainly not his exceptional and admirable closeness to his children. And speaking of which...
This isn't closeness. And it sure isn't admirable. This is just plain creepy:
“Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father….”
“Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?”
