« Candidates Clash! | Main | The Hook Up Culture »
February 22, 2007
Anti-Family Liberals
I want to meet some anti-family liberals. I really do. Because you read NRO, and it's clear that a sizable and powerful percentage of liberals believe that children shouldn't have fathers, and familial stability is utterly unimportant, and single parent households are the optimal family structure, and out-of-wedlock births are totally sweet. And yet, and yet, and yet...I've never met any of those liberals. I know a lot of liberals -- like Obama here -- who get cred for specifically rejecting such positions, but I don't know any who hold them. And that's beginning to make me feel unloved, much like a child without a father.
Update: The American Spectator gives it a shot, but ends up proving my point. They name a radical feminist and one of the co-chairs of the Democratic Socialists of America. Now, I have great respect for both the writers named -- Ehrenreich especially -- but they're not liberals, at least as the term is commonly understood. Somebody show me Debbie Stabenow deriding the nuclear family, however, and I'll change my tune.
February 22, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Does wanting to avoid Thanksgiving dinners make me an anti-family liberal? Otherwise I think most liberals want policies in place that make it easier for families at all income levels and for there to be enough flexibility within the system to ensure that no one is left out due to unfortunate circumstances, usually outside their control.
Posted by: Hawise | Feb 22, 2007 11:27:01 AM
Obviously, and Ezra knows this, the GOP uses those phrases because their policies don't actually help families, they're just for show.
Posted by: American Citizen | Feb 22, 2007 11:42:44 AM
K-LO thinks Obama is "refreshing," now does she? Move over, Mitt...
Something important to remember here is that the family unit--the two parent household--is basically at the very core of conservative ideology. It's not a rhetorical flourish, it's rhetorically exalted. So a lot of liberals, while not necessarily opposed to "family stability" per se, don't put the emphasis on it that conservatives desire. Liberals also tend to shy away from directly addressing underlying social issues (the high divorce rate, out-of-wedlock births, etc.) through policy, because that's seen as something that's beyond the scope of government.
It's not true to suggest that liberals don't care about the breakdown of the traditional family. But there is indeed a real and substantive difference between the conservative and liberal position on those matters. One might analogize it the liberal emphasis on solving poverty, and the conservative inclination to mouth platitudes on poverty while not actually doing anything about it.
Anyways. I have indeed meet quite a few people who don't believe in either children or family. Not sure if I would call them liberals, though--more like libertarian hedonists.
Posted by: Korha | Feb 22, 2007 11:50:56 AM
OK, just for the record--I'm a big, honking social liberal. Yay gay marriage and all that, love Dan Savage, etc etc. That said, here's their case:
It's not that liberals actively want out-of-wedlock births. But which side in the culture war championed easier divorce laws in the '60s and '70s? Which side champions gay adoption? Which side champions acceptance of gays generally (remember, to these people, gays can never be married)? Which side is generally pretty tolerant of adolescent sexual experimentation (see e.g. the previous marriage thread)? In short, as they see it, liberals have shown a continual willingness to sacrifice the goal of "helping marriage" for other goals (not hating gays, helping women in abusive relationships, or so on). And you can talk all you want about poverty programs and sex ed, but they're conservatives--they disagree with all that stuff.
I'm not saying they're right--but it's pretty easy to understand how they make their case, given their disgusting worldview.
Posted by: Dan Miller | Feb 22, 2007 11:59:21 AM
I consider my belief that homosexuals should have the same rights as anybody, including marriage, to be a strongly pro-marriage and pro-family stance. Wanting to make sure that homosexuals have the right to adopt, thereby reducing the backlog of kids awaiting adoption is pro-family.
Does the fact that I'm home with the kids make me pro-family, or am I anti-family because I'm their father.
These people aren't pro-family, they're pro-do-what-I-want.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 22, 2007 12:07:08 PM
I guess I'm pretty neutral on out-of-wedlock kids. Many people I know seem to get married only after they have started raising children. Even the grandmothers doon't seem to mind if the couple seems stable (out-of-wedlock fine, single/abandoned mother bad).
A woman I know was married and divorced 3 times, then had a child without marrying the father. They have lived together w/o benefit of clergy for longer than any (all?) of her previous marriages. I think people understand that marriage != stable child rearing unit.
Posted by: M. Peachbush | Feb 22, 2007 12:32:37 PM
In short, as they see it, liberals have shown a continual willingness to sacrifice the goal of "helping marriage" for other goals (not hating gays, helping women in abusive relationships, or so on).
I'm certainly more liberal than most, but I don't consider promoting marriage to be a particularly worthwhile endeavor-- good marriages are a great thing, but middling-to-awful ones are probably as common anyway, and why pretend that cheerleading the institution without any realistic context actually benefits society? We all know that for conservatives it's all about the formalities, the structures, moving people into assigned roles as much as possible to quash irritating rebellions, and so forth, but liberals simply don't see the world and institutions that way and thus can't be depended on to uncritically promote, well, anything. Nuance is the rule because we're talking about people, actual three-dimensional characters instead of masses of extras meant to establish an impressive setting for viewers' benefit.
Posted by: latts | Feb 22, 2007 12:47:56 PM
> But which side in the culture war championed
> easier divorce laws in the '60s and '70s?
IIRC it was country-club Republicans. Why?
> Which side champions gay adoption?
I admit to only anecdotal evidence, but the gay couples I know who have children tend to fall along the same social-political spectrum as hetero couples with children, which is generally somewhat more conservative than they were in the early 20s.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Feb 22, 2007 1:02:16 PM
Andrew Sullivan is on a somewhat related tack...from a post yesterday:
"Personal responsibility is also one of them. When I think of a gay person who lives responsibly, saves his or her money, goes to church, contributes to charity and settles down in a stable relationship, I think: conservative. When such a couple wants to get married, I think: conservative. When such a person decides to serve his country in the military, I think: conservative."
Really...wtf is that about?
Posted by: Mike P | Feb 22, 2007 1:03:42 PM
We all know that for conservatives it's all about the formalities, the structures, moving people into assigned roles as much as possible to quash irritating rebellions, and so forth, but liberals simply don't see the world and institutions that way and thus can't be depended on to uncritically promote, well, anything. Nuance is the rule because we're talking about people, actual three-dimensional characters instead of masses of extras meant to establish an impressive setting for viewers' benefit.
Well, I don't know this, and it seems to me a good example of something that many liberals accept rather naively and uncritically. The conservative idea behind promoting marriage per se is that the average marriage is better than the average alternative sexual relationship, both for the partners and society. I think that's probably true. But if we subtle, sophisticated liberals can show it isn't true, we might still want to promote good marriages.
Mike, Sullivan is explaining how some aspects of gay rights, such as same-sex marriage and gays in the military, are expressive of conservative ideals: pro-marriage, pro-militaty, etc.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 22, 2007 1:19:44 PM
"> But which side in the culture war championed
> easier divorce laws in the '60s and '70s?
IIRC it was country-club Republicans. Why?"
The country-club Republicans aren't really the ones we're talking about. Falwell accuses liberals of being anti-family; generally, Chris Shays does not.
Posted by: Dan Miller | Feb 22, 2007 1:26:26 PM
And that's beginning to make me feel unloved, much like a child without a father.
Don't you mean a child with a father? Yay single-parent households!
Posted by: Fnor | Feb 22, 2007 1:29:29 PM
In any case, I don't see how marriages held together by social pressure in the face of abuse, adultery or just plain lack of affection were ever helpful to anyone, least of all the children caught in the crossfires. (Disclaimer: I am myself a child of divorced parents, who had the sense to know when to stop pretending.) A bad marriage is worse than no marriage, *especially* when children are involved.
If someone thinks there are fewer *healthy, functioning* marriages now then in some idyllic golden age, let them provide facts to back up that opinion. It seems to me that all that has happened is that we no longer paper over the cracks of failed marriages, we admit their failure and allow the people involved to move on (and maybe find someone else who is a better fit). I don't see that as a "breakdown" in the slightest.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 22, 2007 1:38:11 PM
"I consider my belief that homosexuals should have the same rights as anybody, including marriage, to be a strongly pro-marriage and pro-family stance."
Right--but they don't. If you want them to stop making that argument, you'll need to start speaking their language. Frankly, I don't think it really matters--we're winning the gay marriage debate, as slow and painful as the process is. But just insisting that we are too pro-family--just look at our support for gay marriage and welfare!--won't convince the hardcore.
Posted by: Dan Miller | Feb 22, 2007 1:38:55 PM
The whole thing is about wooing middle class whites by exploiting their anxiety about urban-black "single mothers" and tying it to the Democratic party. I'm sure you recognize that it's not in good faith.
Posted by: Sam L. | Feb 22, 2007 1:39:53 PM
> The country-club Republicans aren't really
> the ones we're talking about. Falwell
> accuses liberals of being anti-family;
> generally, Chris Shays does not.
I am aware of what the narratives are that have been embedded into our political conversation, but I was talking about how the current situation actually came about. And to the best of my recollection the real driving force behind the "liberalization" (really relaxation) of divorce laws in the 1965-1975 time period was country club Republicans (primarily men, but a surprising number of women) who wanted to legalize their trophy wives and mistresses.
I realize this will never be talked about or admitted in the traditional media.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Feb 22, 2007 1:51:37 PM
I don't know what you define as a "healthy, functioning marriage," but clearly, society has an interest in promoting marriage, the two parent household, and in-wedlock children. I mean that's not disputable.
Now you might talk about the negative aspects of those social pressures or whatever, and indeed the liberals have largely won that debate over the last couple decades. But then to go on and say that divorce is not actually a problem "in the slightest"? That's a pretty huge leap.
Regardless of whether or not there are fewer "healthy, functioning marriages" now than in the past, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, etc. are still serious social problems. That's a fact. The question obviously then is what society should do about it (if anything, as some liberals might argue).
Posted by: Korha | Feb 22, 2007 1:56:03 PM
I don't see that as a "breakdown" in the slightest.
Why isn't it both no longer papering over failed marriages and also a partial breakdown of marriage? Some of the marriages saved by external pressures have undoubtedly turned out to be better than the divorces probably would have been. It isn't all one-sided.
The whole thing is about wooing middle class whites by exploiting their anxiety about urban-black "single mothers" and tying it to the Democratic party. I'm sure you recognize that it's not in good faith.
Phooey.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 22, 2007 2:01:10 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you Ezra along with Adele Stan, a few months ago in TAPPED argue that you favored getting the government out of the marriage game completely, a position advanced as well by Michael Kinsley? So isn't it a fair criticism that you all (liberals all) at the very least want to reduce the favored status of marriage in public life and therefore are in fact, anti-marriage and anti-family or at least not as pro-marriage and pro-family as others?
Posted by: Scott | Feb 22, 2007 2:09:44 PM
Barbara Ehrenreich isn't a liberal? I'm genuinely curious--why not?
Posted by: Korha | Feb 22, 2007 3:14:34 PM
Huh? I think of myself as a very proud liberal, and yellow dog Democrat. In what commonly understood sense is Barbara Ehrenreich not a liberal? Because she's not a Democrat?
Posted by: jerry | Feb 22, 2007 3:19:57 PM
OK, your post fails to mention that THREE women are discussed; one of which you cite, Barbara Ehrenreich, is a pretty mainstream feminist, hardly radical (except to Bush, but then, so is Lawyer Barbie as far as he's concerned). Catherine Mackinnon and Vivian Gornick are the other two.
Twisty at Iblamethepatriarchy.com is a radical feminist, if you really need a yardstick.
Posted by: emjaybee | Feb 22, 2007 5:02:39 PM
I might be as close as you get. And I call myself a libertarian.
I'm white, male, 34, a professional. I'm bad at relationships. I don't want children, in fact, I dislike them for being noisy and poorly behaved. I moved far away from my family, because they are disfunctional. I am, too, but Ima tryin'.
That said, I don't hate kids, or families, or what have you. I'm glad others are doing the heavy lifting there I'm not willing to do.
Oh, I'm athiest, too.
Does that count?
Posted by: fishbane | Feb 22, 2007 7:18:51 PM
emjaybee, the link on the word "co-chair" leads to the Wiki entry on Barbara Ehrenreich (whom I love!); I assume Catherine Mackinnon is the radical feminist (could be wrong as I have not heard of Vivan Gornick) that Ezra is talking about.
Posted by: Isabel | Feb 22, 2007 7:28:49 PM
I don't think anyone is "opposed" to the notion of the intact traditional nuclear family; but the point is, most people don't, really, have one these days; the problem with the conservative line is not what it's in favor of, it's what it's trying to be opposed to: that is, single parents, non-traditional families and other alternative arrangements.
This isn't about who instituted no-fault divorce, but it is about the society that accepts, generally, that people can decide to end a marriage for their own reasons at their own time, and we cannot force, nor should we encourage problem marriages "for the kids" or to prove a point. There is an issue here, and the reality that liberals have decided - surely as a result of the women's movement, if not other factors - to accept that we should not moralize against or punish those whose lives do not conform to some broad-brush societal expectation.
I'm all for two parent families, I think Moms, Dads, as many people as possible to help raise a kid, are all good. I wish my Dad wasn't such an alcoholic that my Mom had to essentially force a legal separation for our health and safety. I'm sure she wished, often, that she had the man she loved there to support her. But wishing will not make it so; and moralizing that it's bad to have women raise kids on their own does a disservice to the hard work my Mother and others did and do to raise their kids in less than ideal circumstances. It's fine to have ideals; it's problematic to force those ideals only as how we shall all live, and to denigrate those who do not. And that, not the notion that "liberals are anti-family" is what's wrong with the conservative approach.
I'm sorry, because I feel strongly about this and it cuts into something very personal. But I find it appalling that conservatives are allowed to continually denigrate single parents and their kids as failures, criminals and worse, and that liberals have to somehow "prove" that their not "anti-family" by mouthing similar platitudes about preferring two parent families. What we need to be promoting is adequate day care, legal and financial support for caregivers and other non-"traditional" arrangements, and the general notion that all of us try, in our different ways to be good family members and help those around us. Enough with this "liberals are anti-family" nonsense. Why must we agree that things like this need to be fought on their terms?
Posted by: weboy | Feb 22, 2007 8:01:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
