Lou Dobbs, Erick Erickson Attempt to Dominate Megyn Kelly; Fail

Discussing a new factoid that 40% of mothers were now the primary breadwinners in their families, Erick Erickson commented that the situation was bad for children.

Which isn't all that objectionable.

But then he went a little Anchorman and opined that nature intended men to dominate women in the family sphere -- and that's Science.

So I ignored this story hoping it would go away because it's just going to cause a lot of shouting and RINO vs. True Con fighting.

But Megyn Kelly has upset my plans and forced me to mention it.

I have three observations, which don't really explain anything. They're just explanations.

First: One of the biggest problems with social conservatism as far as politics -- as far as the politics of the thing, mind you, not the truth -- is that the hedonistic message is live for yourself, live for today, and social conservatives are constantly being big buzzkills by saying, "Let's remember the children, huh?"

If you look at the abortion debate, or the social conservatives' arguments that people should have little to no sex outside of marriage, what is that about? The leftist media always casts this as "trying to control people's lives," and I suppose it is, but what is it really about?

It's about children. Sex outside of marriage will lead, inevitably, to two things:

1. Pregnancies terminated by abortions.

2. Pregnancies carried through to term with a child now born into a single-parent family.

A cavalier, loose attitude about sex is just buttered pickles for everyone... except the actual victims of it, which is children either born into poor circumstances or fetuses/babies (however you term it) aborted before they can even have those poor circumstances.

Now, as a political matter, as a message for a populace which is increasingly lazy and narcissistic, which is the politically winning message? And which becomes the Square, Nagging, Buzzkill message?

I think this argument illustrates the ever-present tension that exists between personal fulfillment and what's best for children.

Second: As you can see from Megyn Kelly's hostile reaction -- why, she almost seems like a Smelly Pirate Hooker here in her anger about Erickson's "Science (TM)"-- no one really wants to hear outsiders criticizing his or her personal choices.

And there's really no way to cast Erickson's argument as anything other than a criticism of Megyn Kelly's choices -- though he tries to soften it up and fudge it up, he is, or at least was, saying that Megyn Kelly was short-changing her kid by continuing to work.

There's no way to fudge that. It's what he said. Megyn Kelly refuses to permit him to fudge it. There's no way that you can lay down the marker that "Women who work are doing a disservice to their children" and then think a working mother is going to be mollified by a "Well if that works for you..." fudge.

Third: One problem I have with this: If you're going to lay down that marker, then don't run away from it when challenged by Megyn Kelly. I mean, if you believe that, then stand up for it and declare it proudly. If it was true when Megyn Kelly wasn't around to hector you, it remains true when she is around to hector you.

I mean, if this was important enough to say, then it's important enough to say when under fire. If it's not important enough to say, maybe it wasn't important enough to say the first time.

Just a thought.

I think, as a general matter, it is very easy and emotionally rewarding to criticize other people, which is why all human beings, since the beginning of human speech, have spent such a large amount of their time doing so (and some people, like myself, have chosen criticizing others as a career!).

Eh, I don't know. I don't know what to make of it all. I'm not going to settle the argument this afternoon so I won't bother trying.

posted by Ace at 03:00 PM

| Access Comments