Rick Santorum’s Family Provocation
Oct 17th, 2011 | 14 responses
WASHINGTON — Lost in the hubbub over Herman Cain’s love affair with the number nine during last week’s Republican debate were some compelling observations by Rick Santorum about “the breakdown of the American family” and its relationship to poverty. His comments deserved more attention than a wacky tax plan or Newt Gingrich’s proposal to jail two Democratic foes.
“You want to look at the poverty rate among families that have … a husband and wife working in them?” Santorum asked. “It’s 5 percent today. A family that’s headed by one person? It’s 30 percent today. We need to do something.”
Noting that “the word ‘home’ in Greek is the basis of the word ‘economy,’” the former Pennsylvania senator argued for “a policy that supports families, that encourages marriage, that has fathers take responsibility for their children.” He added: “You can’t have a wealthy society if the family breaks down.”
Santorum is broadly right. According to Columbia University’s National Center for Children in Poverty, in the 2005-09 period, 5 percent of married family households were poor at some point within a given year, compared with 28.8 percent of single-parent households. For 2010, the figures were 8.4 percent and 39.6 percent.
Interestingly, one politician who agrees with Santorum is named Barack Obama. “We know that children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty,” the president said at a Father’s Day event last year. “They’re more likely to drop out of school. They’re more likely to wind up in prison. They’re more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. … They’re more likely to become teenage parents themselves.” Growing up without a father, he added, “leaves a hole in a child’s life that no government can fill.”
Before we ask what is to be done, what we shouldn’t do is blame gays and lesbians for disrupting the heterosexual family. We straight people have done a fine job of this all by ourselves.
Santorum takes a somewhat different view. He has argued that if same-sex marriage becomes the norm, “marriage then becomes, to some degree, meaningless.” This I don’t understand. Neither my marriage nor Santorum’s is rendered “meaningless” because a gay or lesbian couple decides to make a lifelong commitment.
On the contrary. Jonathan Rauch, a friend and one of the ablest champions of gay marriage, has argued that the demand for gay marriage could be seen as a conservative turn within the gay community, involving as it did a “communitarian and family-minded” emphasis on “civic responsibilities.”
Beyond the gay marriage battle, we need a bargain: liberals should acknowledge, as Obama has, that strengthening the family is vital to economic justice. Conservatives should acknowledge that economic justice is vital to strengthening families.
For example: Our national policies on sick leave and family leave are among the most anti-family in the developed world. When faced with a choice between the needs of the family and the needs of employers, we nearly always tilt toward employers. Western European nations, influenced by both pro-family Christian Democrats and pro-labor Social Democrats, have done far more to make work compatible with family life.
Conservatives often say that tax policies should be more helpful to families raising children. I agree. But this can’t be yet another excuse for cutting taxes on the wealthy. New tax benefits for families with kids have to be concentrated on those in the middle and the bottom of the income structure, where modest amounts additional relief could go a long way.
The impact of the single-parent family on the well-being of children has sometimes been an explosive matter because it is often discussed in relation to the African-American community. Obama himself has made this explicit link. And young black men do face a crisis. Rather than avoid the issue (a temptation for liberals) or pretend that public policy can do little about it (a temptation for conservatives), we need to make their plight a high national priority. Scholars such as Harry Holzer and Peter Edelman have suggested a variety of work and education policies that could improve the economic situation of young men who are poor. This, in turn, could enhance the chances of family formation, which has been deteriorating among poorer whites as well.
It does not demean the heroic work of dedicated single mothers to say that two-parent families have a better shot at prosperity. So I’m glad Santorum brought up the issue. But let’s focus on practical ways to make the family stronger. Using pro-family slogans to divide us against each other won’t do much for any sort of family.
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. (c) 2011, Washington Post Writers Group
14 Responses to “Rick Santorum’s Family Provocation”
Hmm…makes you wonder if these is more about having two incomes vs only one… or maybe the ability to split parenting responsibilities between two parents.
A lot of ways to slice and dice it.
I believe families were stronger and that better parenting took place when one parent stayed at home, but as we know, this is mostly a lost option. One income isn’t enough to make ends meet.
Santorum does NOT care about poverty levels. His statements should not be the basis for any conversation.
[...] Rick Santorum’s Family Provocation (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
It’s not the demise of the family that has eroded our economy, it is the theft of the economy that has brought demise to the family.
Finally, something we can agree on, at least in principle.
The problem is, of course, how do you encourage two-parent families without hurting the existing families that aren’t? Kids raised without both parents are unlikely to stick with their partner long enough to raise their kids. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle, and like most things, it’s far easier to break down the family than to build it back up.
@Allen
The family was breaking down in the 60s and 70s, curing a relatively good economy, while it remained reasonably intact during the Great Depression. I don’t see any evidence that a bad economy directly assaults the family.
The numbers speak for themselves. If you get a high school education, and don’t have a baby or get married before you are twenty your chances of staying out of the “poor” category are increased bigtime.
We also need to get people off the dole and quit paying young unmarried women to have more babies.
“I don’t see any evidence that a bad economy directly assaults the family.”
You’re kidding right? More bad jokes.
No JS, I’m asking for evidence that a bad economy breaks up families.
Prof-
So we both can agree upon what then, that we don’t agree? Your two associated posts are contradictory and confusing.
Republicans could care less about families IMO. They are interested in creating a Corporate Republic on the backs of anyone they can subdue. Many Democrats are the same way, they’re easily recognizable with their Blue Dog Label scrawled across their guilty faces. Blue Dogs are the Democrat party’s own obstruction while the Tea Party is the copy-cat cancer within the GOP. Eliminate those two spoilers and America will be healthy again.
Prof, money problems is a major cause of married stress and divorce. How that correlates back to a bad economy is a bit tough to tell because there is for sure a time lag between stress and divorce.
That being said…bad economy = no jobs = financial stress for everyone
But the fact that financial stress is a major cause of divorce is taught in most prep courses for future preachers.
@JSpencer, money is, without a doubt, the largest cause of marital stress and divorce.
That being said, it is, I argue, the Government Dole, that is the largest destructor of families. It was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, himself a hard-line liberal, who pointed out that the Great Society, and, to some extent the New Deal, that disincentivized people to remain married. Our policies now reward irresponsible family planning, and single parenthood.
I’m actually a fan of gov’t involvement in resource management and believe a strong central govt leads to a strong nation. However I think marriage is one area the govt needs to stay the hell out of. I can think of few things as private and important as the decision to keep a marriage going or to end it. How govt policy could possibly get involved in such a decision to its benefit is utterly beyond my ability to fathom. Yea, people make bad decisions and many marriages end up on the rocks, but I don’t think we will ever be at the point where this country becomes a better place because elected officials somehow got involved in such a personal process.
Irresponsible family planning and single motherhood are not a product of govt policy, they are a product of irresponsible people and abstinence only sex education. No one decides to not marry or end a marriage because of govt policy. They do it or dont based on whether they want to get married.