Clutching at hamster-straw?

Skimming the FRC website I have not visited in a very long time, I am amused by their article Abstinence is a no-brainer.

If your teenagers are having sex, a group of neurologists say they need to have their head examined! At Ohio State University, researchers have sex on the brain. It's part of a new study on the mental effects of early intimacy. ... "Having a sexual experience... early in life," says John Morris, "is not without consequence." Ohio State found that the group of animals that didn't wait to mate had higher levels of anxiety, depression, mood swings, changes in their brains--even smaller reproductive tissues. ... If this study's any indication, neuroscience could turn the entire debate on its head!

There is, however, one slight flaw in the conclusions the FRC draws from this research.

Obviously, the team says, you have to be careful about comparing hamsters to humans.

I think that may be a bit of an understatement. Hamsters don't even live in the primate social group structure - if Perkins believes this research should be in any way applied to humans, he is either a moron or a liar. Or both.

A rather silly Ken Blackwell column attributes the current economic difficulties to not enough people getting married. In support of this he presents not arguments, but stereotypes.

Economic conservatives need to recognize that stable married families having children are what drive economic growth.

Consider these examples of economic and social activity. Harry is a rock star. Or soon will be. Harry sleeps in his girlfriend's basement. He does a little dope. At night he is the lead singer in the band he has formed. He is softspoken and respectful of his elders. Harry's parents shower love on Harry's daughter by his girlfriend.

Jim is a young husband in the same city. He and his wife have three children under 3. Jim has to work long hours as a lawyer, but he does so willingly. For now, he rents. But he has bought a van.

Harry's daughter is supported by his girlfriend's family and by his own parents. Jim's three children are provided for by Jim.

Does it matter to America whether the rising generation follows the Jim model or the Harry model?

Stereotypes are powerful things, when used or abused with skill. This is a good example. Blackwell is playing to the views his target audience will share, and amplifying them. In this view of the world, there are two fundamental types of people: Hard-working men working to support their family, and lazy dopeheads living off of the work of others. It lines up nicely with the way in which dedicated conservatives like to imagine liberals: Selfish leeches who just want money for no work.

Notice that no-where does he actually draw any solid connection though. He doesn't explain how Harry getting married will get him a job, or how breeding faster will fix the economy. Indeed, some aspects of the characters have no bearing at all on economic issues - does it really matter that Jim is soft-spoken and respectful to his elders?

I'm not criticising Blackwell's skill - as a piece of propaganda, this is excellently written. Like all effective propaganda, it skips straight past reason and goes straight for the predispositions of the audience - exploiting their existing tendency to see their own social ideals as in every way superior, and devients as a danger to society. Blackwell is a loathesome, manipulative piece of scum, but he knows how to write.