Tweet
Lets see if liberalism destroys families:
1) Social Security - old folk no longer need the kids, and the kids get to go off on their own. Sounds good for both perhaps until the kids start having children and the old folk aren't there to help raise them. "It takes a village" begins with a family clan, and trust me, old folk ain't looking forward to a rest home now that the government is taking care of them (or preserved their freedom according to the left).
2) Welfare - who could argue with that? Help the poor, no different than giving money to a charity. Uh oh, out of wedlock birthrates skyrocket because government has taken over the father's role as provider.
3) Women's "liberation" - Mommy wants a career, honey, so here's your nanny or child care expert. They'll watch you until school starts. Is this the origin of "Latchkey Kids?
4) High taxation - gotta have it to pay for all this progress. But thats okay, we now have millions of mommies with careers to help pay for it all. Of course, the high taxation "coerced" millions of mothers into employment to pay the father's high taxes. Now they need child care too, parenting is increasingly shared with paid strangers.
5) Divorce - I suspect rates have gone up too because of this breakdown in the family. It seems logical divorce rates would be lower in tightly knit family clans where relatives can ease married couples thru troubled times. Virtually all cultures understand the importance of the newlyweds going to join one side of the family and not off on their own.
Was all this a predictable result of liberalism?
I've tried to present what I think is the socially conservative set of arguments since they are under-represented here at Poly. The evidence is rather damning...
1) Social Security - old folk no longer need the kids, and the kids get to go off on their own. Sounds good for both perhaps until the kids start having children and the old folk aren't there to help raise them. "It takes a village" begins with a family clan, and trust me, old folk ain't looking forward to a rest home now that the government is taking care of them (or preserved their freedom according to the left).
2) Welfare - who could argue with that? Help the poor, no different than giving money to a charity. Uh oh, out of wedlock birthrates skyrocket because government has taken over the father's role as provider.
3) Women's "liberation" - Mommy wants a career, honey, so here's your nanny or child care expert. They'll watch you until school starts. Is this the origin of "Latchkey Kids?
4) High taxation - gotta have it to pay for all this progress. But thats okay, we now have millions of mommies with careers to help pay for it all. Of course, the high taxation "coerced" millions of mothers into employment to pay the father's high taxes. Now they need child care too, parenting is increasingly shared with paid strangers.
5) Divorce - I suspect rates have gone up too because of this breakdown in the family. It seems logical divorce rates would be lower in tightly knit family clans where relatives can ease married couples thru troubled times. Virtually all cultures understand the importance of the newlyweds going to join one side of the family and not off on their own.
Was all this a predictable result of liberalism?
I've tried to present what I think is the socially conservative set of arguments since they are under-represented here at Poly. The evidence is rather damning...
8/10
Comment