Politicians are famous for creating titles for programs or ideas that bear little resemblance to their namesake. Chief among these is the clamor about “family values.” The phrase is used as a feel-good label, slapped on a candidate like just another bumper sticker on the family station wagon. We hear that Candidate A stands for Family Values, yet we’re never really told just what those values are. This, of course, is how it’s intended to be. Left on our own to deduce what “family values” means, we tend to assume that the candidate’s views must be the same as ours. So the candidate gets credit for being friendly to families without ever having to define what that means. It’s a lot like “New and Improved” grocery items where the only improved element is the design on the package, and “new” refers to the smaller size.
The reason that this whole “family values” thing is so important though, is that a stabile, progressive society is dependent upon the family unit to turn out stable, progressive citizens. And in order to fulfill that expectation, the family must rely on society to provide the tools it needs to be successful. It is a symbiotic relationship that demands the best results even when it offers up less support.
If “family values” is going to be a benchmark from which to measure a candidate’s suitability, by reason there should be a definition of what those family values are. For that matter, there should be a firmer definition of what constitutes a family so far as the family values discussion applies, and what the goals of a family unit are. Once we know what we are talking about, we can more accurately estimate if a candidate truly does further the goals of families or whether they are just full of hot air.
So what exactly is this family whose values we are longing to support? The simplest definition of a “family” is probably the best one to use, but it is also the first thing people will disagree about. No matter. For purposes of clarity and by reason of Common Sense, a family consists of two committed adult parents and at least one child. Without a child, or children, you are only a couple, or even a single. It is with the addition of children that the family unit is formed. The exception to this definition would be the single-parent family, but despite studies and findings that may disagree, two parent families are both more practical and better suited to the purpose of families in general. That purpose is really quite simple: it is to raise the child(ren) to adulthood, having taught them to become a responsible, productive, and hopefully happy member of the society. If society is the total combination of individuals and their actions, then the family is our training ground.
In order for families to be successful, they must first be stable, both financially and emotionally. Like the foundation of a house, the parents are the base on which a family is built. So our first family value is stability. But we all know of the statistics showing half of all marriages end in divorce, and many of those marriages produced children. For that matter, how many of the politicians spouting about family values have been divorced? Don’t get me wrong here. I understand that there are great reasons for people to get divorced. Abuse and deceit are certainly among them. And I’ll readily concede that in these kinds of situations it is better that children don’t have to live in that environment. But how many divorces are just the result of people who married before they were ready, or people who decided that their own self-actualization is of greater value than their children’s well being? We hear plenty of talk about “strengthening marriage” that all boils down to making sure the parents are of opposite sex. A real show of strength would be to help reduce the number of divorces, especially when children are involved.
Families are expensive. Kids require a lot of food and education and health care. So another family value would involve embracing a system of health, education, and retirement reforms, such as those described in previous essays on Common Sense, that would alleviate some of the stress placed on parents who are caught between the costs of daily life and the need to treat a sick child or pay for school. Lowering these costs and improving the services would allow parents more time to spend with the children and less time slaving to pay the bills. And with more one-on-one time between parents and kids, cultural values like respect, honesty, and responsibility would have a better chance at being passed down from one generation to the next, having a positive effect of society as a whole.
Because children mimic what they see and hear, as cultural excesses become more prevalent it becomes more difficult for families to instill a sense of right and wrong in their children, especially in an environment where both parent are working long hours and are turning over the child rearing to video games, television, or the neighborhood hang-out. Especially damaging to society as a whole is the amount of gratuitous violence found in our art, music, and media. While I don’t advocate artistic censorship by the government, I wholly support selective censorship by parents, and in many cases, expect it. Yes, we all know that the world can be a violent place, and we all know that at some point we need to teach our children to be careful, but how many of us actually expect to be massacred at summer camp? How often does a satanic cult kidnap the neighbor’s new baby? And do our children really need this in their lives? As adults, we know these things are created for entertainment, but children don’t know the difference, and parents are often remiss in making sure they understand, or worse, expose them to things before they can really distinguish the difference between right and wrong. Reducing the amount of desensitizing violence we expose our kids to should be among our family values, preferably through parental education, but if necessary through legislation.
Finally, we should reform our family laws to better assure that innocent children are not punished for the wrongs of their parents. We should stop empowering government agencies to disrupt family life unless verifiable abuse has occurred. We should resist any attempts at laws that would discriminate against two committed parents of the same sex from adopting or otherwise providing a stable, loving environment for a child. And in cases of divorce, we should insist upon amicability between parents and a civil dissolution coupled with continued financial and emotional support schedules.
These are the things that we should expect from any politician who says that they stand for family values. We should ask them how they’ve applied these goals to their own families, and examine their record to see if their actions back up their words. You may have noticed that none of these family values focused on religion. The reason for that is simple. At its most basic level, religion is not a social value or need, but rather an individual one. And while I would never deny that religion espouses many of the same ideals of behavior that secularists cherish, the immense permutations of religious belief and doctrine would virtually guarantee that no consensus would ever be met with regards to “family values.” So religion is out the window, at least when it comes to the political and practical definition of “family values.”
The next time you hear a politician talk to you about family values, take a moment to ask them what they mean. Odds are you won’t get a specific response. But you’ll probably get a lot of gobbledygook about gay marriage and zero-tolerance. Families are the building blocks of any society, both of its social fabric and its economic stability. Supporting families, then, is naturally in the best interest of society. It is not enough to just do the best you can within your own family. You must also make sure
that those elected officials who claim to support you, who claim to believe as you believe, who claim to be looking out for your interests, are really doing all those things, and not just wearing a friendly label, hoping you’ll never ask what it means.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005 at 7:55 am and is filed under Common Sense, education, Government, Life, Politics, Reform, society.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Those same politicians are usually proponents of abortion. That way we can just kill the family.
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Ken, this is a great post, and I’m linking up to a post I put on my blog earlier today.
I like two questions you pose herein: 1) Who’s definition of family are we talking about is important, and 2) let’s asks those posing with the label, “Family Values” what they truly mean, but more so, let’s examine their actions in light of their espoused values to test whether there is correspondence.
Indeed, children do learn what they live, which includes all grown politicians who in turn reflect the learning they were subjected to as children.
As the frist person to comment on my post today asks, simply, “why can’t it be simply about love?” Well, unfortunately, the politicos have turned what should be an otherwise substantial and solid building block for our society and communities into a political tool for (re)election.
I have oft times stated that (in a “modest proposal” sort of way) that if we require licensing for all sorts of things (driving, cars, guns, etc…),perhaps the time is right to pass a law that insists that potential parents pass a test (wide ranging on all issues from quality of personal relationship with spouse to fiscal stablity) and get a permit to have children, instead of the simple method we have now – as in, foolish enough to have unprotected sex when you are not even in a committeed relationsip, for example. Anyway, there is no way our country would support such a fanatical notion as licensing parents.
Instead, it should be about a loving, caring couple (no matter the gender) of consenting adults who care greatly about another human being to raise a child in a positive, loving and supporting home environment.
Politicians who play the family values card in a means to foist themselves on our lifestyles and as a political ploy to get elected should be placed in a time out, indefinately (or at least until their actions correspond to a positive and inclusive definition rather than an exclusive and descriminatory one)!
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 am
Aren’t family values just common sense good positive standards to live by? “Family” is because it’s up to the family to pass them along. What is so difficult about that in politics? Why do politicians want to turn it into an economic term and stuff?
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:33 am
We already know what they mean by family values. You are taking them too literally here. Family values mean that you don’t like homosexuals and, possibly, that you would like to have your religion made mandatory.
I don’t think politicians care about the family values you are talking about. Hell, I don’t think half the people that like to hear politicians say that care about the family values you are talking about.
As far as I go, I agree with you about the things that are necessary to promote actual family values. But, I would prefer that it stayed in the realm of the family unit and not in any legislation.
June 23rd, 2005 at 6:56 am
You are as about as inconsistent as a person could be. You begin by stating that you believe that societies need to somehow have family values, but you resent politicians who make it a part of their messages. I have actually corresponded with politicians to inquire about their beliefs and have never felt them to shy-away from firm beliefs in right and wrong. Whether we like it or not, this country and every other has always ‘legislated’ morality. We just happen to live in a time with so much access to media and opinions that more people are more cognizant of the different ideas about what should be legislated. It seems you resent that because we live in a time where the majority of the people say ‘no’ to gay marriage. Yet those same people that you and several of your commenters ostracize also have no problems with gay unions. Funny how in the 90’s no one was screaming at the top of their lungs about how ‘in-tolerant’ those Christians and red states were when organized gay and lesbian groups claimed that they ‘just wanted equality — not marriage, because marriage is a religious thing. I guess the average citizen and taxpayer is just supposed to shut-up and sit-down because the enlightened self-appointed cognoscenti like yourself have a blog and feel compelled to tell us how wrong we are. Yours is common sense — all else is flotsam and jetsam. Right?
There’s now a man in custody who has kept records of more than 36,000 boys that he has sexually molested over the years. Most people would agree that he is a beast. However, how many people such as yourself consider the ramifications of his exploits on those children as they grow older and become adults. Almost none of them will ever be able to even share their pain, much less seek counseling and treatment. And much more than a few will go on to live lives of homosexuality and sexual deviation. But that doesn’t matter to good folks with common sense who have a blog. They can just stick their collective heads in the sand and go on believing that every discussion about issues facing the family are about establishing a theocracy in the United States.
I defy you or anyone else to provide one credible link to where a current politician (or since 2000) has stated that he/she supports legislation to one form or religion or another in these United States.
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Hey Ken;
Love those rants by people who can’t even adopt a screen name…
I loved this post. For me, it’s one of your best. I think the process for getting married should be more rigorous. The Catholic’s have pre-marital counseling — it’s quite involved, and some couples come out of it understanding they aren’t ready. Others, like my brother, come out of it with a depth of understanding of their future spouse that broadens the base the marriage is built on.
Hard to fathom making a lifetime commitment on a whim.
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:46 pm
I’ev always been amused by the “family-values” phrase, too, since there is probably no such thing as an “average” family. And, as most people will attest, it’s not easy to find a so-called “normal” family either! When I was growing up, families were blended, extended, step-, foster-, Mom in one town and Dad in another, etc.
But on a more serious note, I have seen the term “family values” used primarily as a manipulative political marketing tool, and very effectively. My observation has been (since the 80’s) that the phrase is presented as a warm fuzzy psycholgical trigger that is deliberatly absent of a specific definition, so that when a politician says “family values” they know that every listener will attach their own subjective definition to it while assuming that everyone else is thinking the same thing as them. In this way, they are all under the assumption that everyone is in agreement, even though few, if any, of them have ever discussed what “family values” really are. It’s like the old fable about the blind men and the elephant – they all think they know what an elephant is, but they each maintain a totally different perception. Those political and religious leaders who use the phrase know this, and use it to their advantage.
June 23rd, 2005 at 4:24 pm
I’m reminded of the tub of sour cream that is labeled “Low Fat”. Seems all they did was whip a bunch of air into the substance so the purchaser was buying half the weight, therefore half the fat, at double the price of course.
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Ken,
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman, period. That will ensure humanity goes on. Family is a normal extension of a man and woman being one for pro creation.
Bringing gays into the picture with their ever expanding sexual diseases etc., is unnatural as it is a chosen lifestyle that was tried once before in society, and was obliterated by God.
Is that what you’re condoning society tries again?
June 23rd, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Dear Ottman,
What do you propose to do with the heterosexuals with thier ever expanding sexual deseases, etc…Last I checked STDs have no boundaries pertaining to whom you choose to have sex with.
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Ken
Very thorough and well thought out post. I’ll read it again as you were able to make some very good points which you manage to get across in a non-partisan, non-political way. I’ve added a link to you post
CoolAqua
http://www.coolaqua.blogs.com
June 24th, 2005 at 5:04 am
(responses)
Waybar- So if I get this right, you’re saying that the politicians who support abortion rights are also the politicians who cheer loudly for “family values?” I think that’s a reversal of popular concensus, where the conservatives (opponents of abortion) are the ones clammoring about “family values.” In truth, they both do it, and rather disingenuously too.
Thanks for dropping by.
Windspike- Thanks again for the link up.
In the movie Parenthood, one of my favorite lines in delivered by Keanu Reeves’ character when he says much the same thing: “You need a license to drive, to vote…hell even to catch a fish. But they’ll let any a#%hole be a father.”
Children need stability to reach better success, and while they will often create their own when necessary, it’s always better if they have loving parents to help them.
Green-Eyed Lady- Yes, as a matter of fact, they are. But the pol’s can make that harder or easier to do based on laws and programs they pass or repeal. Ours is a complex world, and though parents are still the best to pass on and instill social values and personal beliefs, they have a hard time doing so when they’re having to work long hours for little pay and nary a benefit.
They need to quit talking about how much they feel for us and take actions that prove it.
Ashley- Too ture, that just as many regular folks are paying lip service to these ideals. But can you blame them? They’ve lost their Common Sense, been lulled into a “me first” mentality, and can’t see the harm they’re perpetuating on the future of society.
What we teach our kids, how we teach our kids, are family tasks to a large degree.
Legislation just needs to recognize that there is more to life than wealth production and mindless consumption and craft plans to help people focus on raising good citizens as a valuable part of life and society.
Nice to hear from you again.
Anonymous #1- While I always enjoy dissenting opinions and look carefully in them for validity, your words would have more impact if you chose to support them with an identity. If you aren’t strong enough in your own convictions to assign your name to your thoughts, how can you expect anyone else to validate them?
That said, you’ve missed the whole point. My complaint is the shallow and hypocritical use of the “family values” argument by politicians and how their votes, programs, and acts don’t support their talk. Or worse yet, when their talk deals more with who isn’t a family than with how to help families succeed.
Plenty of non-religious people get married. Should their unions not bear the title of marriage either? Is faith in a god necessary for marriage to exist? Or is marriage just a descriptive term, tied to religious faith for some, and legal recourse for others? And yes, I do reject belief systems that ostracize someone simply because they are homosexual. And as many religions are ambiguous at best on matters of tolerance, I have a hard time with them as well.
But do I eschew other’s beliefs? Not so long as they don’t try to turn them into discriminatory legislation. And before you go getting your panties in a bunch, I don’t extend tolerance to criminal acts, child rapists, or other such beasts, so save that argument for someone else.
Anyone care to take up the Anonymous Challenge?
Jet- I often find anonymous comments come from people not entirely sure of what they are thinking or feeling, but they do offer good insight into the minds of complete tunnel vision.
I don’t know that marriage need be more rigorous to start, but perhaps much more so to end once children have been brought into the picture. True, prudence would caution people to be sure before they marry, but for the childless, marriage need not be a lifelong commitment. Sometimes things truly don’t work out.
But with the addition of children, the personal pettiness of the parents should be subjugated for the sake of a stable environment in which the kids will learn and grow.
ShaeNC- Even in the “old days” blended families were the norm. Of course there was more social respect in general, and privacy regarding family matters, but a community strived to make children more important than profits.
Yes- their hypocrisy is apparent to all who see them with open eyes. We need to help open more eyes.
Prying1- And tastes better too! Thanks for leaving a word or three.
OTTMAN- And here we go again! I’m not sure if your virulent hatred of homosexuals is due to rigid, intolerant religious dogma, an unpleasant occurerence, or some deep seated personal phobia, but it’s really starting to get tiresome. I enjoy your participation as a counterpoint, but your obvoiusly uneducated propaganda regarding homosexuals only marginalizes any good point you might have made, which, sadly in this case, there wasn’t even one.
Windspike- Pay no attention to OTTMAN when he(she?) starts spewing this blather. Real facts are irrevelant to OTTMAN where homosexuality is concerned. OTTMAN is sort of becoming that old, crazy relative muttering in the corner during family holiday gatherings, at least whenever the topic even tangentially touches on homosexuality.
Cool Aqua- Non-partisan and non-political…I do try when I can.
Thanks for the link up. Come back again.
June 24th, 2005 at 10:17 am
What a great conversation and post.
In addition to your points, and others’ here; I believe some of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of family values being practiced, and shared in the households of America are the super-high tax burdens and low wages the average person is tasked with today. Mom and dad have to work such long, hard hours just to pay the bills and sock away some college money for the children that it is no wonder these values are in danger in our society today.
Am I suggesting that the grossly wealthy should pay taxes at higher rates and the greedy corporations need to be forced to practice a little bit more “corporate socialism”? You bet.
If mom and dad are always at work, trying to make ends meet, who is to pass on family values to the children? No wonder there is such an absence of family values in the homes of Americans today.
June 24th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
I wonder if the meaning of family values have gotten lost within society somewhere by some fault of a breakdown in child rearing, or has the government had more of a hand in destroying the family than promoting these values they talk about.
I believe it is true that politicians use the catch phrase because they know Mothers and fathers want to hear that a politician is conserned about getting on tract morally. Unfortunately I don’t think they, in reality give a rats ass.
As for marriage, it did originate as a religious ceremony. Somewhere down the line the governmet has gotten control of it. Unfortunately too, somewhere it has lost its sanctity.
These factors of long hours, small pay, both parents working has done its toll on all of this. But what if women never started competing with men and took carreers? Alot of women in the work force make much more than the men who work under them and they with husbands also working well paying jobs. Men then working lower ranking jobs and causing their wives to have to work. It could be a vicious cycle. Alot changed from the “womens movement” to now Including family structure, latchkey children, exramarital affairs, divorce ect. Not that these things never happened before, but it seemed things excellerated.
Still, I think its up to parents to have a core of values set for their family no matter what is happening in legislation, others around them, what “type” of family stucture they have. Sorry my comment is so lengthy.
June 25th, 2005 at 2:28 am
I defy you or anyone else to provide one credible link to where a current politician (or since 2000) has stated that he/she supports legislation to one form or religion or another in these United States.
Judge Roy Moore. What do I win?
Yes, loved ones are important. But who you love is between you and whoever it is you love-I have no right to judge your relationships, and would not want you judging mine. As we all know too well, “Family Values” is Jesusistan speak for a homogenous society of alike-lookers and alike-thinkers. People can try to deny the truth of that all they want to, but it’s the truth.
Most people probably know the relationship of certain high-profile “Family Values” groups and white supremacists. If you aren’t aware of it yet, just do yourself a little googling on Tony Perkins.
June 25th, 2005 at 5:27 am
I agree with Ashley on this one. Family Values means to be against the “labeled” traditional family. In other words, against gay and lesbian families and christians.
June 25th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
As I tried to state above, I believe family values is just that, values yours or my family have set reguardless of Government or what the people next door are doing. It is really no one elses business. That’s why it’s not really any politicians place to set that stadard or to pass legislation based on their own moral stadards.
June 26th, 2005 at 5:20 am
Ken,
I have not attacked you personally, but you have attacked me and my comments, without any basis or facts on what I’ve said. Name calling is beneath you isn’t it? At least I thought it was.
FACT: I never said I hated anyone. YOU have ASSumed it because of your own lack of acceptance toward those with opinions that contrast with your own.
Do you think of yourself as an “intellectual” ?
My experience with those types who think they’re so smart, is that they talk far too much trying to sound smart, but say little of anything that has any value in the real world.
Most self-appointed intellectuals are really quite dumb as they have zero common sense to balance themselves with, preferring to rely on their feelings over actual facts.
Your ASSumptions about me were quite revealing in just that way, and also completely wrong, proving to me that your blog name is a fallacy. An example would be your labeling me as “uneducated,” showing you to be a person of arrogance, which most of the “intellectual” types certainly are.
I’ve enjoyed reading some your posts on here, but since you feel I’m not worthy, I won’t waste our time any longer because you’re in a class all by yourselfish.
Good luck in your world.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:32 am
(responses)
GTL- Yes- financial concerns do play a large part in the decline of time they can spend with the kids, thus limiting the opportunities to pass on valuable lessons. We shouldn’t have to legislate decency and common sense, but we know that corporations care about profit first and foremost, and are too near-sighted to realize that they are burning out their own customer base, slowly but surely by encouraging and demanding a lifestyle that places emphasis on greed over good.
Green-Eyed Lady- I think that these things do combine to create an erosion of culture.
As for marriage, the species managed to propigate long before religious unions were created, but the concept of “holy union” is of obvious religious origin. However, this is just a label on an action, as is the word marriage itself. Call it whatever you want, just allow everyone the same benefits of a union, support their families equally, instead of making their lives full of prejudice and turmoil.
And yes, the “women’s lib” movement may have been an over-reaction to so many years of inequality. If there is a down side, it could be the radical shift in the family that has riden alongside the successes of women in the workplace. A positive would be the greater amount of involvement from fathers, but this is still a relatively small number overall. Balance is what is needed at some point, and returning to a one-earner family basis would be a great start…but how?
Good comment(s).
Jolly- Congratulations. You win an Anonymous prize, delivered personally by anonymous. Please let us know what you’ve won…
Family values, as espoused by religious zealotry is just as you say. Common Sense family values espouse equality, respect, and honesty, among others, as applied to all our neighbors.
Angel_emt_2559- Yes, this is the hypocrisy of the politician. Pandering and elitist at its worst.
OTTMAN- Actually, plenty of folks don’t agree with everything I say, but your own consistent attacks on homosexuals leads me to believe that you have some underlying hatred towards them, or fear of them.
Also, what factual evidence do you have that supports your theory that homosexuals are the cause of/ largest carrier-spreader of their “ever expanding sexual diseases” beyond your own Sunday sermons and religious intolerance? This is simply spreading pulpit propaganda without educated back-up, therefore the label “uneducated.”
You’ve accused me before of using feelings over facts. If all of your “facts” are as emotionless and reality based as your “facts” about homosexuals, then it’s no wonder you are confused.
Stay away if you choose, but I don’t feel our rebuttals are a waste of time. I have a feeling you’ll be back anyhow.
June 28th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
I am very impressed by your responses to each post. Thank you!
June 28th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
(response)
Waybar- No problem. I think that if folks are going to go to the effort to participate in the conversation, the least I can do is respond. And while I may miss some new comments on older posts, i do try to catch them all.
Hope to hear from you again.
June 30th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Welcome to communism folks.
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Isn’t it amazing that just a decade ago we were talking about the dysfunctional family, now it’s “family values.”
There is a large amount of factors that create the family atmosphere today. However, the family attitude is up to the leaders in the family. And, in my opinion that family attitude makes or breaks the family.
The family attitude can likely be boiled down to the value one places on life. If the family leader has a low value on his/her life, then it echoes into the cavernous minds of the other family members. And likely that family leader learned how to devalue life from his/her experiences growing up in such a devalued family or from other social outlets that devalue life.
Think about the last time you stood up for a downtrodden, bullied person. Or the last time you smiled at someone and wished them a good day, truthfully.
Our society has a grand way to maintain devalued lives and ultimately devalued families. Family values start when we start valuing humans, regardless of political or religious affiliation or moral stance.
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:18 am
(responses)
Uncooperative- Communism? If you mean that everyone should share the same set of values and that the state’s agents should constantly remind us of those values not through their actions but through empty words, then we must have arrived a while back. Thanks for the comment.
Jen- Nice to have a new comment on an older post. Thanks for digging back into the vault.
How true that a dominant personality shapes the aspects of family life as surely as erosion shapes the Grand Canyon. And, keeping with the analogy, destructive forces that continue through time creat deep and lasting scars.
But I can truthfully say that I smile at and greet others who are unknown to meet each and every day. It just feels rude to walk by someone on an otherwise empty sidewalk without acknowledging their presence. Apparently, others feel this way too, as I often get the same in response. But when you have a sidewalk filled with throngs of people, we tend to make ourselves invisible. An odd thing, I think.
Thanks for the thoughts!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:15 am
Ken Grandlund,
I was looking at your blog post, this post,
about Family .
You can now place a link to
your website on our website for free. See:
http://www.quickregister.net/infowizards
We get over 18,000 visitors per day.
Many search under Family .
We have a special category for Family
in our search engine friendly directory.
Your listing will be spidered by the search
engines under Family .
We hope you find this to be a
good opportunity for some free
advertising.
Good luck,
John,
http://www.quickregister.net
Free Search Engine Submission Service.