This is an interesting argument and difficult to refute. Prohibition was one of the first major consequences of women’s expanding political power in the early 20th Century. Since women’s suffrage, the government has expanded beyond all recognition. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but that seems rather unlikely.

The issues on which women tend to vote usually involve calls for more government intervention: Drunk driving. Sexual harassment. Affirmative action for women. Education. Sex crimes. Health care. Stopping violence in the home or elsewhere. “Fixing” any of these issues always requires more government. More rules. More programs. More enforcement. More micromanagement. Less privacy. Less autonomy.

The government is women’s new husband and father. It is their provider, protector and enforcer. Women, relishing the independence this gives them from men, forget it makes us all slaves to the government.

Good pick up on my use of ellipses…but here they are actually innocuous. They replace “social confusion.”

Two things:

(1) I haven’t checked your Cleveland quote out, but I can tell you that ellipses make me nervous when someone (particularly lawyers like you and me) uses them to support their argument.

(2) I agree with the hand-holding nature of women, but the problems with government in our particular state don’t seem to me to be based on an over-reaching, morally superior government: instead, it is the eternal and infernal porking of our budget, acquiesced to in the name of political expediency by virtually every single legislator. I do agree that the pork is frequently dressed in “mommy” clothing- e.g., education funding, but pork it remains. Who benefits? Big construction, big developers, district and school administrators, government contractors. And of course, we all know who doesn’t- the kids.