Sunday, June 5, 2016

Dan Quayle was right

Even the Washington Post admits it now:
On May 19, 1992, as the presidential campaign season was heating up, Vice President Dan Quayle delivered a family-values speech that came to define him nearly as much as his spelling talents. Speaking at the Commonwealth Club of California, he chided Murphy Brown — the fictional 40-something, divorced news anchor played by Candice Bergen on a CBS sitcom — for her decision to have a child outside of marriage.

“Bearing babies irresponsibly is simply wrong,” the vice president said. “Failing to support children one has fathered is wrong. We must be unequivocal about this. It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.”

Quayle’s argument — that Brown was sending the wrong message, that single parenthood should not be encouraged — erupted into a major campaign controversy. And just a few weeks before the ’92 vote, the show aired portions of his speech and had characters react to it.

“Perhaps it’s time for the vice president to expand his definition and recognize that, whether by choice or circumstance, families come in all shapes and sizes,” Bergen’s character said.

Her fictional colleague Frank, meanwhile, echoed some of the national reaction: “It’s Dan Quayle — forget about it!”

Twenty years later, Quayle’s words seem less controversial than prophetic. The number of single parents in America has increased dramatically: The proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from roughly 30 percent in 1992 to 41 percent in 2009. For women under age 30, more than half of babies are born out of wedlock. A lifestyle once associated with poverty has become mainstream. The only group of parents for whom marriage continues to be the norm is the college-educated.
The Left was, and is, and always will be, dyscivic and dyscivilizational. All those who scoffed at Dan Quayle and claimed he was a stupid lightweight will now be forced to deal with the humiliating reality that their intelligence didn't even rise to the level of his.

13 comments:

Trust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust said...

That's the Left for you. They always, with rare exception, attack the person, their intelligence and character, etc. We see great examples here... rather than explain why illegitimacy, abortion, cash/prizes for blowing up families, debtors prisons, and socialism are societal goods, they simply call us misogynists, homophobes, intolerant, etc.

I think that's part of Trump's appeal. Every Republican nominee for president the past 40 years been a "nice guy," and all were labeled egocentric evil mean bigoted, etc. None stood up for themselves and most tried to stay nice while getting their asses (and the country's) handed to them. Trump, despite his flaws, has the brass to fight back.

The Left is acting appalled that he sounds mean, but what they are really getting is a taste of their own medicine.

Timmy3 said...

The Left's attack on Quayle was political. They had the liberal and compassionate on their side. Quayle was a meanie as the typical Republican and Christians usually are. Quayle was right, but this suggests the Liberals recognized their attack on Quayle was a mistake. They aren't that dumb. Washington Post is just writing an article at a safe distance and proud of their achievement.

ray said...

"All those who scoffed at Dan Quayle and claimed he was a stupid lightweight will now be forced to deal with the humiliating reality that their intelligence didn't even rise to the level of his."


I'll put myself in that group. Didn't scoff, but neither did I understand or heed. Ignored him as another jiving politico. '92, just beginning my own disengagement from La Teat.

Note Quayle's citation of Murphy Brown -- television and media in general certainly were the main propaganda drivers of the feminist/Marxist revolution. It was carefully and deliberately done. Of course The Almighty People were far too sophisticated to be manipulated by the likes of Phil Donahue, Oprah, and liberated cutie Mary Richards. Because, how could sweet little Mary destroy a civilization? What are you, a misogynist?

Quayle was right, and most of the nation was rong rong rong. It's way past time to admit our error and correct it, fast. If the nation is not sufficiently humble to correct such clearly disastrous errors -- in this case willful deceit -- it doesn't deserve to exist.

Joshua Sinistar said...

The Quayle debacle should be both educational and informative. The Right listened to a real life public official and the Left followed behind a fictional character on a TV Show. You're not dealing with rational people. They live in a fantasy world where they cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality. That's the key to understanding them.

will said...

Yet, now I think men should get surrogate mothers to enable more single fathers. I often think it may be in the child's best interest to be guaranteed a lifetime with a father and secondary time with a mother.

Tom K. said...

I remember this speech and the hate that erupted after it. And it wasn't just against Dan Quayle, either. Anyone who dared to speak out in support of marriage before childbearing (like me) was attacked with the same level of hatred.

If only we had had New Media! If only Bush and Quayle '41 had been ShitLords! If only they had known how to FIGHT BACK!! They might have won re-election and Clinton would have probably won in '96 instead. Maybe been president on 9/11.

What if. . . counterfactuals. Always intriquing.

liberranter said...

If only Bush and Quayle '41 had been ShitLords! If only they had known how to FIGHT BACK!!

Very few of us could put our fingers on it at the time, but Bush the Elder was a stereotypical neocuckservative who wouldn't have "fought back" against the culture even if he had the ideological equivalent of nuclear weapons at his disposal to do so. He had more important fish to fry that didn't involve America or its societal best interests, which didn't give a pile of dried shit about.

Dan Quayle's ideological honesty and sincerity was a gaffe the Grotesque Old Pretenders couldn't afford, as it would alienate the cuckservative feminist contingent that was essential to the party base. I am willing to bet that even if Bush 41 had been (s)elected for a second term, Quayle would've eventually been replaced as VP.

CarpeOro said...

Meh. I remember the kerfuffle also. I loathed Murphy Brown and the leftism it backed. I also remember holding my nose and voting for Bush because Clinton was that much worse. But in the long run, I doubt Bush in a second term would have been any better for the country than his son was. I still can't forgive him for altruistically sacrificing Americans in Somalia.

Reflecting back, I wish I had been a more vocal supporter of Quayle. Red-pill charged lenses only let you do so much however.

Elocutioner said...

Once upon a time higher ed was a sure way OUT of poverty. The left subverted education and the culture and now women are pushed into useless degrees for crippling debt forcing them into perpetual employment. Many end up being single mothers. The worst part is I believe this was done on purpose.

ray said...

"Bush the Elder was a stereotypical neocuckservative who wouldn't have "fought back" against the culture even if he had the ideological equivalent of nuclear weapons at his disposal to do so. He had more important fish to fry that didn't involve America or its societal best interests, which didn't give a pile of dried shit about."


Sadly concur.

Bush One was globalist neocuck from getgo, and Junior merely extended those policies. All under pretense of conservatism. I used to get really pissed during the Jr. years b/c I knew that he knew. Whereas Obie arrived pre-cooked, so to speak, so the insult's less raw. Just toss in the micro for between nine and eleven minutes.

CB said...

Nearly every single woman commenting on that article is reciting some version of "well in my case...". Are women really this stupid that they simply can't comprehend broad issues and statistics, or is solipsism really that powerful with women that they can't see beyond their own mirrors?

Sm Fish said...

I took my daughter to the tulip festival in western Washington. We had spent a couple of hours looking at and photographing the flowers. She went back for a couple of more photos so I sat on a chair at the entrance to the field. A young mother and her son (3 ys old) walked by hand in hand. Looking at me expectantly he said, " Is our daddy waiting for us?" She said sadly, " No he is not."

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.