8 I CHRONICLESnmanuals, and books on every conceivablenhobby. You will not find, however,nanything but the niost popularnworks on any serious subject. What isnworse, librarians have a nasty habit ofnretiring good old books—instead ofnrebinding them—in order to makenroom for Jane Fonda tapes. Whenncomplaints are made, librarians takenrefuge either in democracy^^”We’renonly buying what people want”—ornfreedom of expression—“We have tonstock the Playboy Reader; you don’tnbelieve in censorship, do you?”nIt would be a comfort to believe thatna cadre of literate and decent peoplencould some day seize control of thennation’s libraries. Unfortunately, librariansnconstitute as entrenched anbureaucratic class as teachers whomnthey resemble in many ways: Committednto the managerial state that overpaysnthem, they react like scorpions tonany suggestions made from the outside.nThere is only one solution fornpublic libraries as there is for publicnschools: take away their—I should saynour—money. (Irvine’s paper, “ThenRise and Fall of the Video Store,” isnavailable from The Heartland Institute,n59 East Van Buren, #810, Chicago,nIL 60605.) (TF)nHarems have always been a sign ofnpower in the Middle East. Sultans andnsheiks with the most wives and concubinesnare usually in charge of thencountry’s political and economic fortunes.nIn contemporary America,nhowever, rich and powerful Americannmen do not keep harems, and most ofnus would prefer to keep it that way.nStill, in the rising number of youngnwomen “wedded” to the state, we mayndiscern the emergence of a sort ofngovernment “harem,” troubling for itsnsize and for the cultural and socialnrealignments it suggests.nNeither exotic nor erotic, the Americanngovernment’s “harem” does notnconsist of sultry beauties living in palatialnluxury but of impoverished singlenmothers who rely upon the state as ansurrogate “husband” and provider.nThe state is far from generous with itsnwelfare wives and may enact “workfare”nproposals requiring them to donharder things than belly dancing. Yetnthe number of the state’s wives keepsngrowing. Two reasons for the growth ofnthe state harem stand out. The first isndivorce.nIn recent decades, America has witnessedna cultural revolution in casualndivorce. A recent Harris poll reassurednus that of all American marriages innexistence only one in eight will end inndivorce. The trouble is that recentnmarriages have done far worse thannolder ones. A study for the Center fornPopulation Research predicts that overn40 percent of marital unions formed innthe 1980’s will end in divorce. And asnStanford researcher Lenore Weitzmannhas shown, one in seven divorcednwomen must rely upon the governmentnas a substitute provider, at leastntemporarily.nThe second and larger reason for thengrowth of the state’s harem is illegitimacy.nSince 1960, the number ofnchildren born out of wedlock has tripled,nsurging to flood tide among teennmothers. This jump in illegitimatenfertility is all the more dramatic in ansociety which has seen its overallnbirthrate plummet to well below replacementnlevels. In 1960 only 5 percentnof American births were illegitimate;ntoday the figure is 21 percent.nAmong the approximately three in fivenPOETRY OURNALnEdited by Jane Greer. Traditional poetic conventions used in vigorous,ncompelling new works. Heartening manifesto for SASE. $3.50/sample.nPlains Poetry Journal, P.O. Box 2337, Bismarck, ND 58502nnnunwed mothers who must turn to thenstate for support, the average period ofnwelfare dependence is over nine y8ai:s,naccording to a recent governmentnanalysis.nWhat we are seeing is the emergencenof the “mother-state-child family”nas a widespread social arrangement,ncompeting with—and to somendegree undermining—families basednon marriage. The growing number ofnsuch families dooms many children tonlives of grinding poverty, even as itnimposes an economic strain on parentsnwho must support their own children,nwhile at the same time paying taxes tonsujjport the state’s harem.nGovernment wives stand a goodnchance of never escaping from poverty.nRecent studies show that marriednpeople escape from poverty muchnmore often than singles but thatnwomen on welfare rarely attract husbands.nAnd because the daughters ofnwomen wedded to the state are twonand a half times as likely to participatenin premarital sex than the daughters ofnintact marriages, even more youngnwomen in the next generation willnlikely end up in this dismal harem.nSince a major component of thenproblem is unwed teenage mothers,nbringing teen marriage back may benthe easiest way to free young mothersnfrom welfare dependency. Indeed, in anrecent issue of The Public Interest,nMaris Vinovskis proposes that the governmentnbegin subsidizing teen marriagesnas a way to reduce the country’snwelfare crisis. Since three-fourths ofnwhite teen marriages (and one half ofnblack) survive at least 10 years, Vinovskisnthinks it makes sense for governmentnto “finance these young marriagesnwhile both parents continue theirneducation.”nEven if the government would makena good matchmaker—a highly dubiousnproposition—such a move wouldndisastrously increase government controlnof family life—which is the problemnto begin with. Far better if parents,nchurches, and local communities encouragednand economically supportednteen marriages. In any case, a teenagengirl who is going to have a baby willnprobably get married. The question is,nwho will be the groom: the father ofnher child or the polygamous state?n(BC)n