Autism has been in the headlines recently because of controversy over Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's statements. But forgetting about Kennedy, autism is headline-worthy because of the huge increase in its incidence over the past two decades and its potential impact on not just the individual children but the health and strength of our country.
In the 1990s, a new definition of autism—ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder)—was universally adopted. Initially, the prevalence rate was pretty stable. In the year 2,000, with this broader definition and better diagnosis, the CDC estimated that one in 150 eight-year-olds in the U.S. had an autism spectrum disorder. (The reports always study eight-year-olds, so this data was for children born in 1992.)
But over the past two decades, prevalence rates of children diagnosed with ASD have grown at an alarming rate. By 2012 (children born in 2004), the CDC's estimate had risen to 1 in 68 eight-year-olds. The most recent data available is of children born in 2014 and examined in 2022. The prevalence rate, over a period of 10 years, had now increased to 1 in 31 children (more than doubling every 10 years).
What is Autism/ASD? It is a mental disorder caused by variations in the brain’s development. These disorders are characterized by difficulties in interacting with others—in social-emotional reciprocity, in nonverbal communicative behaviors, and in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships—as well as repetitive behaviors.
What do we know about the causes of autism/ASD? Prior to the 70s, autism was thought to be caused by bad parenting, “unloving mothers.” That theory has been thoroughly debunked.
Instead, research has shown that a number of genes are connected with autism. Further, a number of environmental factors before and during birth that influence early brain development, and thus increase the risk, have been identified. They include advanced parental age, maternal illness, maternal exposure to pesticides, and various other factors.
But these factors could not even begin to explain the rapid increase in the rate of autism/ASD. In looking briefly at several recent symposia on the subject, no new ideas were identified. There was just hope in identifying “modifiable risk factors” as we better understand why the prevalence of ASD has increased.
When I first read the definition of autism noted above, I had a “duh” moment. The definition, with the exception of repetitive behaviors, closely tracks what researchers are finding is the negative result of compulsive use of modern technology…the internet, computer games, smart phones, and social media.
We’ve all seen the phenomenon—people, not just young adults, being glued to their screens. The use of social media and other technology has become an addictive behavior.
I am not a scientist, but I knew from research I had done when writing my book, Raising a Happy Child, that “stress in the womb can affect a baby's temperament and neurobehavioral development. ‘Who you are and what you’re like when you are pregnant will affect who that baby is,’ says Janet DiPietro, a developmental psychologist at Johns Hopkins University. ‘Women's psychological functioning during pregnancy—their anxiety level, stress, personality—ultimately affects the temperament of their babies. It has to ... the baby is awash in all the chemicals produced by the mom.’” So it certainly seemed possible that a pregnant mother's obsessive compulsive social media addiction would have an impact on her baby.
The period of rapid ASD prevalence growth coincided with the period in which internet and social media use took off (in the late 1990s). We know from Pew Research Center data that when it first started tracking social media usage in 2005, the figure was 7%. Ten years previously, there was practically no social media, so the number would have been 0. During that same period, the prevalence of autism doubled.
Since then, internet and media usage have grown exponentially. The Pew study found that between 2005 and 2013, usage by adults increased from 7% to 62%. The increase leveled off after that, and the last reading was 65% in 2015. This survey, however, did not measure frequency or duration of use, which, from observation, appears to have increased significantly.
There’s one more point. The current research focuses on factors impacting ASD development before one is born. It considers no post-birth environmental factors. Yet research has shown that a child’s brain continues significant structural development at least until age 2, with further development continuing through adolescence.
It’s a very common sight these days to see even two- or three-year-olds staring at their little screens, watching a program or game while in their strollers, accompanying their parents at a restaurant, or elsewhere. It’s becoming the new pacifier. I cannot help but think that it will also have an impact on autism prevalence.
There is obviously a coincidence in the timing of the increase in both ASD prevalence and social media use. But to make a definitive statement about causality, more research is needed. Given the ubiquitous nature of obsessive social media use in our society today, I feel that testing this hypothesis is of utmost importance, even urgent, given its potential impact on not just children but our society. If more children are being born with ASD due even partially to this risk factor, then every pregnant woman should be given a health advisory to stay off social media during her pregnancy. This should be treated no differently than advice given to pregnant women to avoid other harmful behavior, whether it’s smoking, taking drugs, or eating fish from contaminated rivers. And the use of devices by toddlers should be restricted.
The CDC, or other appropriate agency, should gather information on the computer/social media habits of mothers during pregnancy. That data needs to include not just how many sites she visits (as was the case with the Pew data), but the frequency and duration of her visits. Since it does not appear that such data would be able to be retrieved through the CDC’s ADDM data gathering system, a survey would most likely have to be employed. Data on toddlers’/young children’s exposure to computer games/programs also needs to be gathered.
I became interested in this issue because a close friend has custody of a grandchild who has ASD. Several years ago, my friend asked me, because I had written the book, Raising a Happy Child, if I had any ideas on what might help his interactions with the child. And so I began my research and analysis. I have also experienced firsthand the impact of ASD on a child, having worked with many children with the disorder as part of my work helping at-risk and special needs kids in elementary schools.
This hypothesis may be unorthodox, but it is no laughing matter.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
A deep look at how "All in the Family" remains a striking mirror of American politics, class tensions, and cultural manipulation—proving its relevance decades later.
All in This American Family
There are a few shows that have aged as eerily well as All in the Family.
It’s not just that it’s still funny and has the feel not of a sit-com, but of unpretentious, working-class theatre. It’s that, decades later, it remains one of the clearest windows into the American psyche. Archie Bunker’s living room has been, as it were, a small stage on which the country has been working through the same contradictions, anxieties, and unresolved traumas that still shape our politics today. The manipulation of the working class, the pitting of neighbor against neighbor, the scapegoating of the vulnerable, the quiet cruelties baked into everyday life—all of it is still here with us. We like to reassure ourselves that we’ve progressed since the early 1970s, but watching the show now forces an unsettling recognition: The structural forces that shaped Archie’s world have barely budged. The same tactics of distraction and division deployed by elites back then are still deployed now, except more efficiently, more sleekly.
Archie himself is the perfect vessel for this continuity. He is bigoted, blustery, reactive, but he is also wounded, anxious, and constantly misled by forces above and beyond him. Norman Lear created Archie not as a monster to be hated (Lear’s genius was to make Archie lovable despite his loathsome stands), but as a man trapped by the political economy of his era: A union worker who feels his country slipping away, yet cannot see the hands that are actually moving it. His anger leaks sideways, onto immigrants, women, “hippies,” and anyone with less power than he has. The real villains—the wealthy, the connected, the manufacturers of grievance—remain safely and comfortably offscreen. That’s part of the show’s key insight: It reveals how elites thrive by making sure working people turn their frustrations against each other rather than upward.
Edith, often dismissed as naive or scatterbrained, functions as the show’s quiet moral center. Her compassion exposes the emotional void in Archie’s worldview and, in doing so, highlights the costs of the divisions that powerful interests cultivate. Meanwhile, Mike the “Meathead” represents a generation trying to break free from those divisions but often trapped in its own loud self-righteousness. Their clashes are not just family arguments but collisions between competing visions of America’s future. And those visions, tellingly, have yet to resolve themselves.
The political context of the show only sharpens its relevance. Premiering in 1971, All in the Family emerged during the Nixon years, when the “Silent Majority” strategy was weaponizing racial resentment, cultural panic, and working-class anxiety to cement power. Archie was a fictional embodiment of the very demographic Nixon sought to mobilize and manipulate. The show exposed, often bluntly, how economic insecurity was being rerouted into cultural hostility. Watching the show today, it’s impossible to miss how closely that logic mirrors the present, from right-wing media ecosystems to politicians who openly rely on stoking grievances rather than addressing root causes.
What makes the show unsettling today is that its satire feels less like a relic and more like a mirror. The demagogic impulses it spotlighted have simply found new platforms. The working-class anger it dramatized has been harvested by political operatives who, like their 1970s predecessors, depend on division to maintain power. The very cultural debates that fueled Archie’s tirades — about immigration, gender roles, race, and national identity—are still being used as tools to distract from wealth concentration and political manipulation.
If anything, the divisions are sharper now because the mechanisms of manipulation are more sophisticated, for much has been learned by The Machine. The same emotional raw material Lear mined for comedy is now algorithmically optimized for outrage. The same social fractures that played out around Archie’s kitchen table now play out on a scale he couldn’t have imagined. But the underlying dynamics haven’t changed at all.
That is why All in the Family feels so contemporary. The country Lear dissected never healed or meaningfully evolved: It simply changed wardrobe. The tensions, prejudices, and insecurities remain, not because individuals failed to grow but because the economic and political forces that thrive on division have only become more entrenched. Until we confront the political economy that kept Archie and Michael locked in an endless loop of circular bickering, the show will remain painfully relevant for another fifty years.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.