My wife’s cousin has posted up a Facebook post encouraging everyone to get out and vote on Tuesday for “pro-life and pro-family” candidates. In her effort to sway undecideds, she states that “evidence shows the the economy does markedly better under the leadership of candidates who score highly on pro-family and pro-life report cards”. My wife (always the stirrer of pots) has challenged her for a cite of this assertion, but she hasn’t responded yet.
So, dopers, what say ye?
You don’t even have to go back very far to prove that’s crap. Just look at the economy in the latter years of the George W. Bush presidency.
Let us get our terminology straight.
“Pro-Life” Usually equates to “anti-Abortion” in nearly all circumstances. The majority of people who use this term are categorically against a woman’s right to choose in any circumstance.
“Pro-Family” usually equates to one of two things that are not exclusive but not necessarily joined either: Anti-gay rights, or more commonly, conservative christian of any denomination.
Economically speaking, those type of people will overwhelmingly be found on the right politically. It wouldn’t surprise me to see that businesses are happier under such an administration, but I think that recent history has shown that economy as a whole is generally more prosperous under a more moderate leadership. The state of the economy after the Clinton years compared to the Bush administration as an example.
The economy pretty consistently does better under what passes for left wing administration in America.
Which economy? When the Repubs are in the rich pile up the dough . When the Dems are in the overall economy does better. If you are a billionaire, the Bush admin was great. Every outsourced job and tax break for outsourcing, goes into your pocket.
According to this that isn’t true.
I don’t understand how being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage would result in more economic growth either.
Sounds like the Mother of all Straw Man arguments.
Unless of course, you think
(1) free and unfettered flow of capital, labor and trade that seeks the highest returns
(2) secure intellectual and real property rights and
(3) the unbiased application of the rule of law
somehow correlate to “pro-life” and “pro-family”.
The first 3 are what’s necessary for a robust, innovative and growing economy. Hard to see how that has much to do with “pro-life” and “pro-family”.
Correct, where “what passes for left wing administration in America” is more simply called “center-right”. The center-right Clinton Administration enjoyed one of the most successful economies in American history. Centrist Obama is doing about as well as expected, would be much better if the center-rightists were more sure of themselves and stopped kowtowing to extreme-rightists.
“Evidence shows that candidates who score highly on pro-family and pro-life report cards prattle gibberish beginning ‘Evidence shows’ without actually having any evidence at all”. 
Actually, it’s true, though not for the reason the Facebooker thinks. See, they’re confused both about who’s good for the economy, and who’s pro-life and pro-family. Obama and Clinton are both more pro-life and pro-family than either Bush ever was. Contrary to what many folks think, pro-life also means not starting unnecessary wars, and not executing people (especially not without meaningful trials), and not cutting off support for the poor. Similarly pro-family does not mean prohibiting people from marrying, and does mean raising your kids well. And even if we do interpret “pro-life” to refer to abortion and abortion alone, the abortion rate was lower under Clinton than under Bush (largely because of the better economy under Clinton, since there was less financial pressure on single mothers).
If we assume (safely I think) that the “pro-life/pro-family” candidates, per the OP, are conservative values (I know that it is wrong to say liberals don’t have such values but I think we all know what this is about and that tracks to conservative/liberal politics) then her stance is provably untrue. I’d like to see what she is putting forward as evidence for that stance.
Here’s my evidence:
Great info everyone, keep them coming.
Just for the sake of amusement, I’ll tell you that her “source” for the original statement is David Barton.
Yes, the David Barton of Wallbuilders. :smack:
Barton’s already lied enough about the founding fathers and religion’s role in American history and government that I’d think he’d have lost all credibility to anyone who doesn’t listen to Glen Beck religiously.
I see no reason why it would be better.
Even if the claim were true, it would still only be at the level of “Whenever a president’s name begins with a vowel, there’s a major earthquake”.
Without a logic connecting the dots, making an electoral choice based on what may be a coincidence would be ridiculous.
Congress controls the purse strings of the nation. I know people like to think the president is responsible for good and bad economies, but I don’t see how. The key thing they do is appoint people to the fed, but there hasn’t been much difference between the two parties in this area for at least a generation.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it takes time for economic policy to affect the economy. I would time shift the data by at least a year when comparing how one party does when it controls Congress. And since it’s not that usual for one party to be in control of both houses at the same time, there is going to be a limited sample size.
Please explain the distinct trends pointed out in Post #10.
Also note Bartels controlled for the lag between presidencies in his work (IIRC he gave the one year switch you mention its due).
I was talking about where I would look for a causal relationship. Correlation isn’t causation.
You are right. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
We could be looking at something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and you could say correlation does not equal causation. Without a DNA test it might be a Duck Doppelganger from Mars.
In this case we have 60 years of data. The article I linked to even addresses your concern:
“But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.”
I have provided some data points. You can hand wave them away if you want but it’d be easier and more honest if you just said you got nothing.
The claim mentioned in the OP merely asserts a correlation, not a causation. Hence the claim is refuted by showing that the correlation asserted does not in fact exist; the opposite correlation exists.
Who’s economy? The rich? Most of the people who say they are pro-Life (that I know) don’t want to do much for the people who bear more children than they can afford to raise. Instead of asking for responsible parenthood they want the fertile egg called a child, then once it becomes one ,they seem to holler the loudest about welfare mothers etc.!
One can look to other countries (like the third world) and see how the families fare with several starving children! Pro-choice people are really more pro-life than the one’s who call themselves that! At least that is how I see it!!!