It's the children, stupid.

The 1992 Clinton Campaign made famous the phrase, "It's the economy stupid". It was his theme for defeating President George Bush Sr.

I think a modified phrase, "It's the children stupid" applies to an analysis of the future well-being of our society.

I know folks on the left love to trumpet children to expand spending on social programs though many of the initiatives are often anti-children, e.g. pro-abortion policies and funding kill unborn children, birth control advocacy results in fewer children, and gay "marriage" intentionally denies what children need most - both their mom and their dad in their lives.

Ross Douthat conservative columnist with the New York Times has an interesting article on the declining birth rates in the US, "More Babies, Please."

First, the US's birth rate has geopolitical implications.

In the eternally recurring debates about whether some rival great power will knock the United States off its global perch, there has always been one excellent reason to bet on a second American century: We have more babies than the competition.

It’s a near-universal law that modernity reduces fertility. But compared with the swiftly aging nations of East Asia and Western Europe, the American birthrate has proved consistently resilient, hovering around the level required to keep a population stable or growing over the long run.

America’s demographic edge has a variety of sources: our famous religiosity, our vast interior and wide-open spaces (and the four-bedroom detached houses they make possible), our willingness to welcome immigrants (who tend to have higher birthrates than the native-born).

It implicates economic growth.

And it clearly is an edge. Today’s babies are tomorrow’s taxpayers and workers and entrepreneurs, and relatively youthful populations speed economic growth and keep spending commitments affordable. Thanks to our relative demographic dynamism, the America of 50 years hence may not only have more workers per retiree than countries like Japan and Germany, but also have more than emerging powers like China and Brazil.

 But now it's dropping dramatically.

If, that is, our dynamism persists. But that’s no longer a sure thing. American fertility plunged with the stock market in 2008, and it hasn’t recovered. Last week, the Pew Research Center reported that U.S. birthrates hit the lowest rate ever recorded in 2011, with just 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. (The rate was 71 per 1,000 in 1990.) For the first time in recent memory, Americans are having fewer babies than the French or British.

The plunge might be temporary. American fertility plummeted during the Great Depression, and more recent downturns have produced modest dips as well. This time, the birthrate has fallen fastest among foreign-born Americans, and particularly among Hispanics, who saw huge amounts of wealth evaporate with the housing bust. Many people may simply be postponing childbearing until better times return, and a few years of swift growth could produce a miniature baby boom.

 Immigrants won't fill the gap.

But deeper forces than the financial crisis may keep American fertility rates depressed. Foreign-born birthrates will probably gradually recover from their current nadir, but with fertility in decline across Mexico and Latin America, it isn’t clear that the United States can continue to rely heavily on immigrant birthrates to help drive population growth.

Among the native-born working class, meanwhile, there was a retreat from child rearing even before the Great Recession hit. For Americans without college degrees, economic instability and a shortage of marriageable men seem to be furthering two trends in tandem: more women are having children out of wedlock, and fewer are raising families at all.

 Then he discusses why it's happening.

Finally, there’s been a broader cultural shift away from a child-centric understanding of romance and marriage. In 1990, 65 percent of Americans told Pew that children were “very important” to a successful marriage; in 2007, just before the current baby bust, only 41 percent agreed. (That trend goes a long way toward explaining why gay marriage, which formally severs wedlock from sex differences and procreation, has gone from a nonstarter to a no-brainer for so many people.)

 What can be done to change it, by the government?  Some things but the problem goes much deeper.

Government’s power over fertility rates is limited, but not nonexistent. America has no real family policy to speak of at the moment, and the evidence from countries like Sweden and France suggests that reducing the ever-rising cost of having kids can help fertility rates rebound. Whether this means a more family-friendly tax code, a push for more flexible work hours, or an effort to reduce the cost of college, there’s clearly room for creative policy to make some difference.

  Then he points out that low birth rates are a symptom of -- decadence.

More broadly, a more secure economic foundation beneath working-class Americans would presumably help promote childbearing as well. Stable families are crucial to prosperity and mobility, but the reverse is also true, and policies that made it easier to climb the economic ladder would make it easier to raise a family as well.

Beneath these policy debates, though, lie cultural forces that no legislator can really hope to change. The retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion — a decadence that first arose in the West but now haunts rich societies around the globe. It’s a spirit that privileges the present over the future, chooses stagnation over innovation, prefers what already exists over what might be. It embraces the comforts and pleasures of modernity, while shrugging off the basic sacrifices that built our civilization in the first place.

Such decadence need not be permanent, but neither can it be undone by political willpower alone. It can only be reversed by the slow accumulation of individual choices, which is how all social and cultural recoveries are ultimately made. 

 Strong words but it's important we face these developments square on.

Democrat leaders in Congress put health care on hold.

As a result of the Brown election in Massachusetts, Democrat leaders in Congress are putting health care on hold. According the New York Times,

With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying that they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” he said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.” He added, “There is no rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.

Mr. Reid said that he and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, were working to map out a way to complete a health care overhaul in coming months. “There are a number of options being discussed,” Mr. Reid said, emphasizing “procedural aspects” of the issue.

At the same time, two centrist Democratic senators who are up for re-election this year, Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas and Evan Bayh of Indiana, said that they would resist efforts to muscle through a health care bill using a parliamentary tactic called budget reconciliation, which seemed to be the simplest way to advance the measure.

The White House has said in recent days that it would support that approach.

Some Democrats said that they did not expect any action on health care legislation until late February at earliest, perhaps after Congress returns from a weeklong recess. But the Democrats stand to lose momentum, and every day closer to the November election that the issue remains unresolved may reduce the chances of passing a far-reaching bill.

The gear-shift by Democrats underscored how the health care effort had been derailed by the Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election last week, which effectively denied Democrats the 60th vote they need to be sure of overcoming a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Originally, Mr. Reid wanted to finish a bill early last August.

Considering all the time and political capital put into health care up to this point, there's nothing to show for it but a lot of significant frustration. I suspect this will only further demoralize President Obama's most ardent supporters.

Moral Leadership in the Obama's White House?

Here's a blogpost about President Obama's director of OMB, Peter Orszag. Apparently, he became engaged to ABC financial reporter only a few weeks after his former girlfriend, Claire Milonas, gave birth to their child.

Here's part of the New York Times account of the story.

Likewise, some in the Milonas camp suggest that Mr. Orszag had promised to marry her, but then met Ms. Golodryga; the Orszag people say that Ms. Milonas wanted to get married, but Peter did not, at least to Claire.

“We were in a committed relationship until the spring of 2009,” Mr. Orszag and Ms. Milonas said in a joint statement Wednesday (spurred by the Post article). “In November, Claire gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. Although we are no longer together, we are both thrilled she is happy and healthy, and we would hope that everyone would respect their privacy.”

What I found so postmodern and self centered about Orszag and his former girlfriend is that while they're no longer together they're both thrilled that she's happy. No mention of the child's prospects for happiness.

An unique church ministry -- making movies like "Fireproof"

Churches have a wide variety of initiatives for reaching out to people. One of the more unique ministries is making low budget but successful movies. Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia is doing just that. A church with 500 members has just released it's third movie, "Fireproof". It cost $500,000 to make and after two weekends in less than a 1000 theaters across the country has already grossed $12.5 million in revenues.

Apparently, the whole church is involved in making the movie. The latest effort, "Fireproof" is about a wonderful fireman who isn't such a wonderful husband. In fact, his wife is ready to get a divorce. He resolves to do all he can to save his marriage and in the process realizes he can't do it on his own. He's needs a relationship with Christ to change him so he in turn can be the husband he needs to be.

In some ways, it's a throwback to the days of black and white pictures in the 30s, 40s and early 50s. The focus on relationships and content without a lot of frills. The language is clean, no sex and a minimal amount of violence.

It certainly isn't a big budget Hollywood movie with lots of special effects. Yet it's very moving in places and definitely gets its point across about the importance of marriage and what needs to be done to keep them together when so many fall along the wayside.

It's the sort of movie a sizable segment of people in the nation are looking for. It's interesting how new technology is making this sort of movie a possibility.

I thought comments by the NY Times and LA Times were interesting. Certainly not glowing, but neither totally dismissive. The NY Times called it, "a decent attempt to combing faith and storytelling that will certainly register with its target audience." While the LA Times said it was "a mainstream relationship flick."

I like the church's mission statement for its movie initiative. "Sherwood Pictures was birthed with the purpose of engaging the culture in a format that is understood."

The purpose of "Fireproof" isn't to make money but to impact people's lives by inviting them to a relationship with God and in the case of "Fireproof" help them address problems in their marriages. I encourage you to see the movie.

"Fireproof", pro-marriage, pro-faith movie exceeds expectations on first weekend at theaters.

The movie, "Fireproof" a Christian, pro-marriage movie opened as the 4th best grossing movie over the weekend, bringing in $6.5 million. It's the 2nd best grossing movie of the year which was shown in less than 1,000 theaters.

What's unique about "Fireproof" is it was produced by a church and cost less than $1 million to produce. It's about a firefighter who's great at his job but terrible at his marriage. The story line ia about how he restores his marriage by acting on the principles found in the Bible.

They say the acting is uneven, I suppose because it's so low budget, yet the message comes across. I thought the response from LA Times and NY Times was interesting.

"I was hoping and praying for at least a Top 10 opening," said Bob Waliszewski, director of Focus on the Family's Plugged In magazine and Web site. "I'm very excited to see it's No. 4.

"It does send a message that there's still pent-up demand for good, wholesome family entertainment."

Even the mainstream media have been forced to add their accolades. The New York Times called Fireproof "a decent attempt to combine faith and storytelling that will certainly register with its target audience."

The Los Angeles Times went so far as to call it "a mainstream relationship flick."

Steven Isaac, who reviewed the movie for Plugged In, said anyone "in the middle of ugly emotions driven by marital neglect, apathy and want, will surely be compelled by Fireproof to … break out the survival gear right away, putting into practice some of the principles they've just seen brought to life."

I think what's interesting is with the advent of new technology, the movie industry's cost of entry has dropped dramatically. I think the only way to overcome to so much of the garbage in the Hollywood is to supercede it by producing good, appealing movies outside of Hollywood. This will not only attract customers but cause Hollywood to sit up and take notice.

Surrogacy Agreements: Selling babies, designer babies and rent-a-wombs

I came across an interesting New York Times story by Judith Warner entitled, "Outsourced wombs." It describes the use of women in India to carry to term babies for wealthy US couples and women. The author feels very uncomfortable about the practice but just isn't sure why. That's understandable if there isn't an universal moral framework in the world which governs human actions and relationships.

She raises the specter of Huxley's "Brave New World" and the dehumanization of the practice. That's just what surrogacy is for all concerned. For the birth mother who's "used" to bring into the world the "designer" baby. The intended parents who can have the baby of their choice without all the hassles of child birth. The sperm or egg donors who can sell their genetic material for money and simply walk away with no responsibility for the "product" er baby resulting. And of course the baby who is treated as a commodity exchanged for money as part of an arm's length business agreement.

The practice tweaks the moral sensibilities of lots of people and rightfully so. The practice is an affront to the design and purpose of the Creator for parents, children, and families. As Chuck Colson says:

"...we cannot get away from the law written on our hearts, which tells us that the Creator has an intentional design for our families that benefits and protects men, women, and children. And when we deliberately try to circumvent that design, the frightening truth is that we end up using people; men for their sperm, women for their eggs or their body parts. And sadly, we even use the resulting children for our own gratification.. that every human life has value and dignity--not because we can use that life to satisfy a need or desire, but because the Creator of all life made us in His image and values us beyond all comprehension."

Colson points to the moral framework Christianity brings to the discussion.

Interestingly, the practice is frowned upon in Europe, of all places, where surrogacy is outright banned or severely restricted.

The issue will be coming to Minnesota in the 2008 legislative session where the Minnesota Bar Association is working on a bill to legalize the practice.

Star Tribune's circulation for last six months continues to plunge

The circulation of major newspapers continues to decline. For the six month time period ending September 2007, the 538 daily newspapers nationwide witnessed a 2.5% drop in newspaper circulation. Of the top 25 newspapers only 4 experienced gains in circulation. For 638 newspapers with Sunday editions, the average drop was 3.5%.

In the case of the Star Tribune, the situation was much worse. It's daily circulation declined 6.5% to 335,443 and Sunday circulation was down 4.3% to 570,443. The Pioneer Press' circulation was flat, up .1% for both dailies and Sunday - 184,474 and 245,930 respectively.

I'm sure the overall circulation is down because of the advent of Internet and the increase of other media sources. I wonder how much of it is due to the overwhelming liberal bias which has characterized the mainstream media. If that's an important factor, then it's understandable that the Star Tribune's decline was even greater because it has certainly been one of the more liberal newspapers in the country.

Along those lines, the two most prominent liberal newspapers nationally - NY Times and Washington Post - saw their circulations drop more than the national average. The New York Times daily circulation dropped 4.51% to 1,03,828 and Washington Post saw a drop of 3.2% to 635,087. Their Sunday circulation declines were also greater than the national average.

Is there really an "evangelical crack" up in the works?

"The evangelical crackup" is the title of a lengthy story in the New York Times Magazine. The title is a bit more provocative than the actual article which does note some interesting happenings in the evangelical political universe.

I don't see an evangelical crackup because there's not a monolithic evangelical entity out there, in politics or elsewhere. Evangelicalism is more of a movement than an institution and that's true regarding political/public square engagement as much as evangelism.

I think there are some interesting developments in evangelical circles. The most promising one is the broader cultural engagement by evangelicals. An exclusive focus on politics by evangelicals is a mistake in my estimation and would mirror the error of the Left which views politics as the answer to society's problems. I applaud broader, personal social engagement because that's what Christians should be doing. Government by it's nature is ill-equipped to address the pressing social problems of the day. (This is borne out by the fact that the percent of people living in poverty hasn't improved since Johnson's "War on Poverty" began in the early 1960s. I think one could make the case that it has in some respects made matters worse, e.g. usurped the role of private charities and persons and created programs which encouraged people to develop bad patterns of behavior such as out of wedlock births, and the like.) That's why it's absolutely critical that evangelicals are personally involved in addressing poverty, AIDS, and other social problems.

I think the media tries to find the spokesman for evangelicals e.g. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and it just doesn't work because of its diffused nature. I think the influence the media places on power or influence of particular evangelical leaders is generally overstated. Those viewed as leaders may voice the concerns of large numbers of evangelicals but they don't dictate what people will do.

I don't see evangelicalism as diminishing in influence with the passing of some of the prominent evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy. I think evangelicals have moved from a protest movement, e.g. Falwell and the Moral Majority in the 70s and 80s to a movement where individuals are personally engaged in the process by running for office, serving on staffs, being law clerks and judges. I think this is true not just for the public square but other areas as well.

I do think the war has changed the political calculus across the board, at least for a few years. (Though that could change if the situation changes for the better in Iraq.) It's drawn out the pacifist thinking of some and disillusioned others but I don't think it's changes the fundamentals of political involvement. I saw a poll recently which showed younger evangelicals are less likely to identify as Republicans but not less likely to identify themselves as conservative and are more pro-life than older evangelicals.

The media which deals in sound bites vainly tries to fit evangelicals into a neat little box. It generally doesn't work, because they're dealing with a movement not a monolithic institution.

New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson

from Citizenlink

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

Majority only will support a presidential candidate who shares their values.

A New York Times/CBS News poll shows white, evangelical Republicans agree with Dr. James Dobson.
Nearly 60 percent of those who plan to vote in the primaries said they could not support a candidate they didn't agree with on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Eighty-six percent said presidential candidates should be judged on both their political record and their personal life.

Dr. Dobson has taken a beating in the media for promising to vote only for a candidate who shares his basic values, even if that means supporting a third-party candidate.

Last week, he wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times to clarify his position: "Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed."

Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, a Texas-based group that has a network of 5,000 pastors willing to mobilize their churches to vote, said evangelicals are not bluffing.

“I am not going to cast a sacred vote granted to me by the blood of millions of God-fearing Americans who died on the fields of battle for freedom, for a candidate who says it’s OK to kill the unborn,” he told The Times. “I just can’t.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION Read Dr. Dobson's op-ed that ran in The New York Times last week.