Hugo Schwyzer

It has become almost axiomatic in American politics that one of the biggest divides among voters is that between the married and the unmarried, particularly women. The exit poll data from Tuesday’s election makes clear that if anything, this divide is growing.

Married People (both sexes):

McCain: 52%
Obama: 47%

Single People (both sexes):

Obama: 65%
McCain: 33%

That’s a pretty stunning gulf; McCain wins all marrieds by 5; Obama wins the single by a staggering 32 points. But wait, it gets better.

Married women without children (of any age):

McCain: 53%
Obama: 44%

Unmarried women without children:

Obama: 69%
McCain: 31%

That’s much broader than for men.

Unmarried men, no kids:

Obama: 56%
McCain: 41%

Married men, no kids:

McCain: 52%
Obama: 48%

What to make of this? Heterosexual marriage (it’s hard to tell from the exit polls whether legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts or California were included) tends to make its participants more conservative. Men are already more conservative in their politics than women, so the “conservatizing effect” is comparatively greater upon women. (Among all men, Obama beat McCain by 1 point, 49-48; among all women, Obama cruised to victory, 56-43. This year’s gender gap was 12 points.) No wonder conservatives are so eager to “protect” and “defend” traditional marriage — it’s a reliable vote-getter. Support among the single, particularly among single-women, is absolutely wretched for the GOP.

Of course, the youngest voters are less likely to be married, and in this election, the youth vote skewed heavily Democratic. But there’s more to it than that. While it might be true that women who are temperamentally more conservative are more likely to wed in the first place, it may also be true that the experience of marriage tends to move women to the right. Right before the disastrous 2004 election, Ruth Rosen wrote about the phenomenon in the Nation. Feministing picked up on that piece, and ran a post under which Katha Pollitt commented:

Women who belong to conservative demographics–white, not really poor, evangelical — are more likely to get married. They are older. They have more money and more property and worry more about things like keeping their taxes down. Years of listening to conservative husbands influences them–not right away, but over time (but perhaps that’s what they wanted, and that’s why they marry conservatives?). But sometimes the husband and wife become gradually conservative together as they become more prosperous. They move to a republican suburb and their social/business world becomes a conservative world. Having children can make a (white middle-class) woman more conservative for all kinds of reasons — she gets into rightwing social networks (like the christian daycare center, or going to church for the kids sake), she experiences the joy of babies and turns against abortion (or the horror of babies and goes anti-abortion to reward herself for being so responsible). She feels she never has quite enough money and doesn’t want to give any of it to poor people, she narrows her focus to her own kids — protecting them from sleaze, improving their schooling, not everybody’s schooling. There’s a funny kind of narcissism about those “security moms” — it’s like they think Osama is a burglar who is going to come to their house. They are too absorbed in fear to think about what is the best way to make america safe. so they fall back on the ultimate conservative husband/daddy — Bush. For them, perhaps, voting Dem was always a bit of a luxury, like charity, or based on some issue like abortion that no longer affects them.

Single women need the government safety net more. Married women have their husbands. By the time they figure out he may not be such a great safety net , or that that safety net has a hidden price tag (like staying married to him )they’ve already moved over into the Republican column.

Bold emphasis is mine. Though Pollitt is a bit snide, I think she’s essentially right. What’s remarkable is that the terrorism issue wasn’t on the table this year as it was in 2004; the so-called “security moms” have vanished from the electorate. But though Al-Qaeda is less of a fear, the married/unmarried split between Obama and McCain was as great, if not greater, than it was for Bush and Kerry.

I like being married very much. But as I think about marriage from a progressive and feminist perspective, I become clearer and clearer that we need to work harder to articulate the vision of marriage as a vehicle for personal growth rather than as the primary locus of economic security. There’s no question that, demographically, married women enjoy certain resources that unmarried women don’t. Conservatives use that as an argument for marriage. But the opposite is true from a feminist perspective: the more marriage is the source of financial stability, the more a woman (or, I suppose, a man) becomes dependent upon a relationship with another human being who may or may not prove to be trustworthy or reliable. All of us, particularly the poor, will be dependent upon something or someone to one degree or another. What distinguishes the left from the right is that the left is less enchanted by the ideal of family interdependence. Relying on a state which offers social protections is, all things considered, probably a better bet than hinging one’s hopes on even the best of spouses. Even faithful and loving husbands or wives get sick, die, or lose their jobs.

A strong welfare state which provides a reliable safety net (health care, housing assistance, accessible education) offers the economically vulnerable an opportunity to do something heretofore available only to the prosperous: the opportunity to marry based solely on desire. (Not just lust, of course, but the desire for the emotional benefits that they perceive will come from being wed.) More importantly, a strong social safety net offers the opportunity for the abused, the battered, or the stifled to leave violent or stagnant marriages. And surely, there are few more precious freedoms than the freedom to leave a relationship that is emotionally toxic, physically dangerous, or both.

Life is filled with risks. It is not the job of the state to protect us from every imaginable source of pain in our lives. At the same time, it is a progressive contention that it may well be the job of the state to offer the vulnerable the tools to survive and thrive without having to enter into a sexual or romantic relationship. Marriage isn’t a universal ideal, however, though its benefits ought to be available to all. It is one vehicle for personal growth, and one particularly satisfying source of comfort and emotional security for many. It is a time-honored and fine way, though surely not the only way, in which to have children and raise them into adults. Those who are married happily and experience greater prosperity as a result may imagine that everyone else ought to make the same decision — thus the far greater reluctance of married women to endorse more liberal social programs. But marriage is not for everyone, and not everyone ought to be compelled or even encouraged to find economic stability and emotional growth within its confines. And the stronger and more reliable our public social institutions, the greater the opportunity for the unmarried (by choice or by fate) to pursue prosperity and happiness.

I see little chance that the marriage gap will close anytime soon.