The Better Letter: Dating, Marriage, and Values
Ivy League women don't want to date Trump supporters.
I’m a big believer in marriage. People are better together than alone, at least generally. Marrying well, I think, is the biggest factor in one’s success and happiness. A good marriage is the best gift parents can give their children.
This week’s TBL looks at shared values and how they relate to dating and marriage. We are all complex matrices of opinions, beliefs, values, commitments, and experiences. When marital partners are generally on the same page in these areas, especially with respect to children, things simply work out better.
If you like The Better Letter, please subscribe, share it, and forward it widely. It’s free, there are no ads, and I never sell or give away email addresses.
Thank you for reading.
Dating, Marriage, and Values
Controversial University of London professor Eric Kaufman recently made a case for the idea that viewpoint neutrality should be legally mandated on account of “progressive authoritarianism.” I think the American political left – like the American political right – is increasingly authoritarian. I also think (and am confident I can demonstrate) that increasingly monolithic American institutions (e.g., academia, media, and more) would benefit dramatically from substantially more viewpoint diversity, disagreement, and deliberation.
Today, among establishment institutions – especially elite ones – classical Liberalism is increasingly a virtue honored only in the breach. Nothing signals elite status and virtue quite like falling over oneself to prove one’s “woke” bona fides.
However, as a conservative, I’m skeptical of government-enforced thought police and mandated political diversity. I prefer a free marketplace of ideas even though extremism is a frequent feature of monocultural spaces because dissent gives way to extremist affirmations of common values. “Cancel culture” is both stupid and dangerous (I’m looking at you, New York Times, among others), but I don’t think more government regulation is the answer.
None of that is what set social media ablaze in response to the article or what I’m (mostly) going to write about herein.
Kaufman’s lede is a survey finding that Ivy League women, by overwhelming majority, will not date Trump supporters.* Somehow, Kaufman concludes from that data that “young elite Americans” have a “predilection” for “progressive authoritarianism.”
No, really.
This assertion drew a predictable set of responses.
It seems obvious to me that liberals choosing not to date Trump supporters – the catalyst for Kaufman’s entire argument – isn’t some conspiracy to create a political monoculture. It seems much more likely to be a predictable response to the vulgar, cruel, lazy, and authoritarian movement Trump created. Men shouldn’t expect women to respond positively to their support of a politician accused of sexual misconduct by 26 different women.
In related news, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Ivy League women wouldn’t want to date the likes of Donald Trump, Jr., the QAnon Shaman, or Stephen Miller.
A more serious issue lurks here, however, concerning the nature of dating. We shouldn’t be surprised that some people only want to date people with shared values, especially if and when they see dating as a prelude to or try-out for marriage. Religious people have long held this view. Christians, for example, are told not to be “unequally yoked.” And, as politics is increasingly seen as a religion-substitute, the list of beliefs that might enter the “values” basket has broadened. It’s not like there isn’t precedent.
To the extent one thinks marriage is important, one should care about the values of potential partners because unions between spouses with strong shared values are more likely to succeed. And, despite a divorce rate that might suggest otherwise, there is good reason to think that Americans value marriage highly.
If you’ve seen one Hallmark Christmas movie, you’ve seen them all. This is not to say that you won’t watch them all. Christmas rom-coms are also available on Lifetime and Netflix, too (if not quite as satisfyingly), all of which adhere to clear rules and a certain general formula.
A Sad Single Woman has a good career in the city and a boyfriend everybody else knows is wrong for her. Despite her “perfect” life, she’s a bit sad, knows something isn’t right, and is lacking in Christmas spirit when she has to return to the small town where she grew up for the holidays. Upon arrival, SSW runs into someone she detests on sight but admits is really cute. He might be a disguised royal. Anyway, he is obviously perfect for her. Fate puts them together to run the town Christmas Tradition that is in real trouble….
Why don’t I just show you.
After the old boyfriend is (agreeably) dispatched, the inevitable misunderstanding with the new one resolved, and the small-town best friend convinces SSW to follow her heart, they discover together the true magic of the Season (and perhaps an engagement ring) under the mistletoe and live happily ever after as snow falls and credits roll.
True love may be the goal of every Hallmark Christmas movie, but marriage is the mechanism of choice for its long-term use.
In the weeks leading up to The Big Day, Hallmark regularly ranks as cable television’s most-watched entertainment network in primetime. Over 50 million people watch Hallmark Christmas movies each year, and they aren’t all women.
That’s a lot of folks on board the True Love Train and, by inference, the Marriage Train. Those Hallmark couples have shared values, too — which is a very good thing.
_______________
* Kaufman conflates “Trump supporters” with “conservatives.” Some of the women who refuse to date a Trump supporter might date a conservative in the “never Trump” camp, for example. Similarly, someone who voted for Trump reluctantly, perhaps as the lesser of two evils, might not be seen as a true supporter, and thus datable.
Totally Worth It
Subscriber Diane Peske had some interesting thoughts on last week’s TBL.
“I taught Catholic Faith Formation for seven years and waited until the moment it would have the most effect to shock my class with words out of a senior grandma: 'We are all a bunch of f***-ups.' Kind of puts us all in our place when we read Bible stories, scan our Twitter feeds, listen to the news, wait in grocery lines, drive in traffic, and the like. Being an old-fashioned Jesus People person from San Diego in the 70s I do my fair share of talking about God, about Jesus, about my experiences with living an authentic Christian faith. Maybe it was all my 3+ decades of living in a Christian Community but I hold no illusions about human nature and the propensity for selfishness and greed to overtake us all without a Center (hopefully Jesus Himself). Most surprising to me is that when I say this sentence to my senior friends these days - especially when they share something from their past they are embarrassed over - I wrap my arms around them - tell them my little phrase - tell them we are all miserable sinners who claw towards goodness, truth, and beauty alongside others...aided by God's mercy and grace.”
Perry Chesney did too.
“It occurred to me as I was reading today that when I have taught this stuff in the past and the inevitable ‘well what can we do about it’ question comes up, that it was a little easier to explain to people if you go backward just a bit and give a nod to Herbert Simon and his concept of ‘bounded rationality,’ the concept of heuristics and then ‘coded behavior.’ Some illusions we simply cannot unsee… even if the illusionist shows us the truth. And we are just wired to make a lot of bad decisions so we have to create ‘fail safes’ in order to overcome our foibles. (think sub-accounts in budgeting).”
Please contact me via rpseawright [at] gmail [dot] com or on Twitter (@rpseawright) and let me know what you like, what you don’t like, what you’d like to see changed, and what you’d add. Don’t forget to subscribe and share.
This is the best thing I saw or read this week. The most important. The best journalism. The most predictable. The most politically terrifying. The most militarily terrifying. The most diplomatically terrifying. The smartest. The most insane. The most impressive. The most chilling. The craziest (in a good way). The most sensible. The sharpest. The saddest. The sweetest. The most remarkable. The wobbliest. The most interesting. The most ridiculous. The most relaxing. The most patient. The nicest.
On February 5, 1777, George Washington ordered the entire Continental Army inoculated against smallpox to counter both the fear and the actual disease itself. For decades, active-duty military members have been required to get an annual flu shot — this requirement is rooted in World War I.
Of course, the easiest way to share TBL is simply to forward it to a few dozen of your closest friends.
Benediction
This week, let’s all “say a prayer for the Pretender” – which is every last lost one of us.
We’re all broken and looking to find our way home … or to be sought out and found. David Crowder provides this week’s benediction.
Thanks for reading.
Issue 73 (August 6, 2021)