I recently wrote about a new report on family structure, which argued that some red states had a higher share of intact families (with children living with both of their parents) than many people realized. Nationwide, blue states still have a higher average share of intact families, because divorce tends to be lower in blue states. But because some red states have higher than average marriage rates and lower out-of-wedlock birthrates, the gap was relatively small.
Following the reaction to the report, one of the researchers — W. Bradford Wilcox, of the University of Virginia — decided to go one level deeper and analyze counties as well. (Because of census data limitations, the new analysis covers only the 470 largest counties, which together account for about two-thirds of the population.)
If anything, the county data makes red states look even better. And while the county data does not cover the entire country, it’s arguably more meaningful than the state-level data. The county data treats Austin, Tex., as part of blue America and Waukesha County, Wis., as part of red America — rather than the reverse.
With the county data, the overall blue-state advantage disappears: Teenagers are more likely to live with both of their parents in red counties than in blue. In the counties where Mitt Romney won at least 50 percent of the vote in 2012, 57.7 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds live with both parents. In counties where Mr. Romney won less, 54.5 percent do.
Some critics of the earlier state-level analysis argued that it did not sufficiently take account of race — and that race, not politics, was driving the differences. And it’s true that black and Latino families are more likely to have only one parent and also more likely to vote Democratic, which explains some of the red-blue gap at the county level. But the higher share of intact families in red counties doesn’t appear to stem only from race.
The new data shows that among counties with similar racial makeups, the red counties still had a higher share of intact families.
(In statistical terms: A linear regression on three factors — the percentage of a county that was white, the percentage that was black and the county’s 2012 vote — still found that the vote variable was a statistically significant predictor of the share of intact families. Every additional percentage point in Mr. Romney’s vote share, after controlling for race, correlated with an increase of 0.11 percentage points in the share of intact families.)
“The data suggest that marriage is more likely to ground and guide adult lives, including the entry into parenthood, in red America,” Mr. Wilcox writes in the new paper, published by the Institute for Family Studies. “The red advantage in marriage, in all likelihood, flows in part from higher levels of religious participation and normative support for marriage found in more politically conservative counties.”
He emphasizes that the red-county advantage is modest. The difference between 57.7 and 54.5 is obviously small, indicating that red and blue counties have far more in common than not. Blue counties also have their own advantages — above all, higher levels of education, which tend to lead to more family stability.
I asked two researchers who are often considered to be on the other side of the debate from Mr. Wilcox — Naomi Cahn of George Washington University and June Carbone of the University of Minnesota — what they thought of the new report. They said they had not yet seen the underlying data. But they observed that one of their original goals in their 2010 book, “Red Families v Blue Families,” was to overturn a conventional wisdom they thought was inaccurate: that liberal values — “sexual licentiousness, abortion and arugula,” as they put it in an email — were bad for families. In fact, they said, liberal values like women’s equality, later marriage, birth control and strong educations made families more stable.
They agreed with Mr. Wilcox that some red-state values also kept families intact, such as religion and community organizations, especially when a married couple attended the same church. But the red model has other disadvantages, they said: “Since early marriage and traditional gender roles tend to undercut education, it also makes more couples less able to compete.”
Above all, Ms. Cahn and Ms. Carbone added, they think the best solution for stronger families is a stronger economy, with better jobs.
Where does all this leave us? I continue to think that both the blue and red models have lessons.
The blue model highlights the importance of education, and it shows that the phrase “family values” has often been too narrowly construed — a point that seems especially relevant after the national legalization of same-sex marriages.
The red model highlights the importance of local cultures that celebrate marriage as an important part of most stable, prosperous families — rather than just another choice that’s no better or worse than any other. A lot of data suggests that children who grow up in intact families fare better on average than similar children who don’t.
I imagine we haven’t heard the last of the data on this subject. Here’s hoping that all of us, from liberals to conservatives, are willing to question our own initial instincts on the subject.