By the iron hinge of Al Gore’s lockbox! Lots of liberal readers are telling me why Bush’s economic policies deserve no credit for improving social trends. I am completely open to such arguments in that I’ve never really bought the linkage in the first place and I’ve never been one to believe that presidents “run” the economy in the second place. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that you can’t say the social improvements of the 1990s stemmed from Clinton’s economic policies and then say that the social improvements of the 2000s aren’t the result of Bush’s — at least not without offering a lot more evidence and explanation. Anyway, an interesting email from a reader:

You: “And if so, how come the divorce rate (and other cultural indicators) continues to improve?” Me: The reason is largely demographic and independent of marginal changes in policies or economic growth rates. The median age of the country is something like 37. Baby boomers are beginning to retire. An older population means less violent crime, fewer abortions, lower divorce rates. It also will mean more people attending church. In a sense, because of the demographic tailwind, the next twenty years should have been the last best opportunity for conservative reform in America. The Bush presidency may have cost the right that opportunity. If you look at the generations that follow the baby boom, the country is moving left on many social issues (gay marriage, etc.)