Thanks for supporting family values, but what about the family?If strong, intact, loving families are so important, why don’t politicians have them, too?
There is no doubt at all that both Barack Obama and John McCain talk about families in their speeches -- social security for families, health care for families, employment, education and many other things families need -- but do they talk about “the family”? Do they think about it? Do they realise how important it is for the health and prosperity of America to support the domestic unit founded on marriage and open to the generation of children? Not so as you’d notice, unfortunately. The United States is doing better than most Western nations when it comes to producing children, but the birth rate masks a disintegrating marriage culture that makes the future much less certain. By the time the last state has signed gay marriage into law, the troubles of the Iraq war may seem light by comparison with those of a generation who have no idea what marriage actually means. Silence about the family is ominous in a political leader. British opposition leader David Cameron has realised this and came out last weekend with one of the strongest statements on the subject that an Anglo leader has made for some time. Addressing the “relationship-guidance” charity Relate (the type of organisation that used to be called “marriage guidance” before the nation became resigned to cohabitation) he said Britain would never solve any of its big social problems “if we don’t help the best institution in our country -- the family -- to do the vital work it does: bring up children. What that help is… will be among the defining social reforms of the Conservative government.” Mr Cameron admitted that marriage was difficult territory for politicians -- “Our relationships break down and fail just like other people’s, arguably more so” -- but to make that an excuse for not addressing the issue of family breakdown was a “cop-out”. His own marriage (which has produced three children) appears quite secure, as does that of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. But that is often not the case with leading politicians today and marital chaos certainly does undermine what they might have to say on the subject of families. The outstanding example of that in Europe at present is the thrice-married President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, who seems to change wives as easily as he would his shirt, not waiting, however, to be quite off with the old before he is on with the new. In 2004 Mr Sarkozy published a book in which he argued for less secularism in the republic and a greater role for religious values in, say, the education of the young. It is difficult to tell from his personal life what effect he thinks this might have, least of all upon marriage and family life. So much for the right wing of the political spectrum. What about the left? How about a female head of state, given that women are supposed to bring something special to politics, so long dominated by men? South of the United States border, very far south indeed, we find Michelle Bachelet, President of Chile, the first woman in Latin America to reach such a position in a direct election. She did so, however, as a single mother with a failed marriage and a couple of other relationships behind her. A doctor, she had already served as health minister, in which capacity she approved sales of the morning after pill. The nearest she got to championing the family was to push for more generous childcare subsidies, which are not necessarily a pro-family thing. The Prime Minister of my country, New Zealand, is also a woman. It is common knowledge that Helen Clark only got around to marrying her partner of five years, Peter Davis, when she was running for parliament, and then only at the urging of her party (Labour). It is said that she cried throughout the ceremony, although she attributes that to a headache. She has been in parliament since 1981 and has been PM since 1999; Forbes magazine last year ranked her the 38th most powerful woman in the world. Ms Clark could have done a lot for the family, and it is true that in recent years her government has given child tax credits to working parents. But, oh dear, she thinks girls should be able to get abortions without telling their mothers and she has presided over the legalisation of prostitution and a civil union law which puts same-sex partners and de facto couples on virtually the same footing as those who are married. You will not catch her calling the family “the best institution in our country” -- at least, not without a great deal of ambiguity. Coming back to America, the final phase of the presidential election presents us with two apparently happily married candidates -- Barack Obama for the first time and John McCain for the second. In this respect Mr Obama, whose website says he is “especially proud of being a husband and father of two daughters”, has more credibility, but it seems unlikely he would use it to promote the family as such. He speaks of his “fight for working families” in the form of tax cuts and early childhood education, but he supports civil unions, opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and defends the abortion regime ushered in by Roe v Wade. Mr McCain, on the other hand, has a divorce behind him, and although his marriage to Cindy Lou Hensley in 1980 has lasted, it has some unusual features. She is 18 years younger than him, has a pre-nuptial agreement to preserve her family assets, and, according to one report, continues to live in Arizona while her husband is in Washington. By today’s standards, there is nothing damning in any of that, but it is not a profile that goes with a strong stand on family values. The choice for American voters is, however, better than it might have been. The two main also-rans offered little inspiration in the family values department. Hillary Clinton can be commended for standing by her man when Bill showed himself a thoroughly delinquent husband, but one gets the impression that career concerns have been uppermost in her marriage, and she is too much in the family planning camp to understand the kind of policies that would really renew family life. As for Rudy Guiliani, the least said about his domestic relationships, the better. Among the other original candidates there was some potential. But having good values is not enough to get you into the White House or the prime minister’s office. Whatever it takes, the world needs more of it. Carolyn Moynihan is Deputy Editor of MercatorNet. |
related articlesmorebythisauthorfree updates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (8)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
Of all the issues facing the two
American presidential candidates -- Iraq, the economy, health care, climate
change, immigration -- the one that is most crucial to the future of the United
States doesn’t even rate a mention on the Washington
Post’s Issues Tracker for election coverage, namely, the family.
Comments (8)
Pat S said...Not that this absolves him of a divorce, but the McCain’s have adopted at least once. That should put a mark in the pro-family street cred column…
United States | Saturday, 14 June 2008 at 9:06 pm
Nwachukwu said...Nice one, Carolyn. Some Africans still practice polygamy,while the West insists on serial monogamy, with many variations. Either way, its the family that suffers, especially the kids. High time politicians take a definite stand on this issue. We hope so....
-- | Saturday, 14 June 2008 at 9:17 pm
Rea Kosuke said...“By the time the last state has signed gay marriage into law, the troubles of the Iraq war may seem light by comparison with those of a generation who have no idea what marriage actually means.”
Ok…
Ok. I had to read it a few times to make sure I understood.
So we’re clear, religious extremists openly killing the men and women in uniform overseas who are -protecting our freedom- is a ‘light’ trouble, when compared to two women becoming a married couple.
Is that supposed to be a massive exaggeration, or do you -really- believe that?
The younger generation is not going to be confused, unless of course the ‘pro-(heterosexual)-family’ lobbies are the ones confusing them. Otherwise, they’ll recognize marriage in the form it was always meant to represent; the union of two loving, monogamous people, recognized by the United State Government and therefore given certain privileges not allotted to single individuals.
I support the Iraq War, as I support same-sex marriage; I’m voting McCain this coming fall, because he seems unlikely to outright attack gay rights, but won’t leave the citizens of Iraq to the insurgents we’re trying to free them from.
Regardless, when the last state signs same-sex marriage into law, I’m pretty sure we’re not going to be ducking from improvised explosive devices from religious extremists.
Or, that is to say, I really hope that isn’t the case. Religious extremists don’t only live in Iraq, I’m afraid.
Until next time, adieu.
United States | Sunday, 15 June 2008 at 2:17 pm
Charles Nixon said...Thank you, Carolyn.
Nwachukwu, I don’t think politicians ever take a definite stand on anything, do they?
Charles+
Canada | Monday, 16 June 2008 at 10:50 am
Nike Ramos said...The Philippines is not spared from this public display of dysfunctional families making it appear ‘normal’. A new Health bill is seeking to be passed in congress to allow public access to family planning population programs and contraceptives, pro-abortion, teenage right to sex and right to report parents’ opposition and a lot more anti-family issues in the guise of reducing poverty and women’s rights. Oh Boy!! What will our legislators think of next?
Philippines | Monday, 16 June 2008 at 5:18 pm
Anne said...The human body itself reveals the truth. Just looking at the female and the male bodies shows how they are meant for each other. They are meant to come together, as one, hopefully in a marital bond. This union provides the possibility of bringing forth new life. This is the family unit. The family unit is the building block of society. This is the proper order.
Same-sex relationships are dis-ordered. They are proven to be unhealthy medically and psycologically. People who suffer from same-sex attraction deserve love and respect, as everyone does. Yet, they also deserve being told that there are groups out there who want to help them put things back in order. Groups like Courage.
Out of control courts and immoral laws are not what we deserve.
United States | Wednesday, 18 June 2008 at 12:57 pm
Darren Hall said...re: Rea Kosuke`s post; How can marriage “always” have been meant to represent two loving, monogamous “people”?
Marriage has always represented a man and a woman caring for and raising the child they produced. There is no logical or natural way to compare that particular relationship with two men or two women who, for whatever reason, eroticize thier friendship. Homosexual relationships merit absolutely NO legal or social recognition what so ever.
The post before mine, by Anne, is totally correct.
-- | Sunday, 22 June 2008 at 6:40 am
Camille said...I think the point of the article fell apart in the last paragraphs. At first I was reading about proposed policies directed to the family itself, but when it got to the McCain part, I think the article has become more about the personal situation of the candidate and has drawn conclusions solely from that.
Although there is a connection between family background and political motivations, it is not necessarily a definite cause-effect phenomenon. And this inconsistency would not help readers who do not know much about international politics like me to have a clear picture in this area.
I agree with your points but I think there should be consistency with the lead and the head to fulfill expectations and to make the article more of an objective piece rather than an opinion.
Philippines | Monday, 25 August 2008 at 1:33 pm
Page 1 of 1 :
New comment