Liberalism Destroys Families?

[Provost Harrison]

Now you have two earners you generally need two incomes to raise a family, one would not be enough. If I had a missus who earned the same amount as I did, we'd be loaded...however that is not the case. I certainly wouldn't fancy trying to raise a family on my income alone - it would be damn hard work...

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Liberalism Destroys Families?

Originally posted by Berzerker
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).

Let's see, if a couple has their kids when they're 20 to 25, and their kids have kids at the same age how old are the grandparents? I think you'll find that most people become grandparents between 40 and 55, well before they're old enough for Social Security. Among the people in my practice grandparents are very often the primary caretakers for the kids because the parents have to work 3+ jobs to make ends meet because the good paying jobs all went to China. Maybe if employers and the government didn't have such a libertarian attitude in this country people would be paid enough that they could look after their own kids.

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.

I think that our over-sexed, me-first, self-centered culture is more likely at fault. The average teen boy generally isn't thinking "Aw heck, if we screw up let the government pay for it" when he seduces Sally, they don't think that far in advance. He's thinking about how all the other young bucks have mucho notches in their sex pistols and he neds to work over time to catch up. Ditto with the girls. Maybe if we didn''t have such a libertarian attitude about sex in this country the out of wedlock rate wouldn't be so high.

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?

So libertarianism isn't for women too? My, my, my.

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.

No, the vast majority of women work not because they want careers, unless you consider flipping burgers a "career", nor did they do so because of hubbies high taxes - the job that paid enough to but Dad into a tax bracket went overseas years ago. They went to work because they want a chance to live like everybody else - 2 cars, 2000+ feet of living space, a TV in every room. etc., etc.

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.

In tightly knit clans the adult children remain essentially children until the parents are close to death. Think about Prince Charles. Divorce is high in this country because our culture so highly values individualism. Unfortunately the obverse side of that coin is often one person in the pairing sucking up mountains of abuse just to maintain the marriage.

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...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Now you have two earners you generally need two incomes to raise a family, one would not be enough. If I had a missus who earned the same amount as I did, we'd be loaded...however that is not the case. I certainly wouldn't fancy trying to raise a family on my income alone - it would be damn hard work...

Which is precisely my point.

People don't want to do what's best for their children because it would be too difficult.

Not knowing your specific situation, I'm just commenting on attitudes in general. Perhaps you only make $8k a year - I don't know.

[JohnT]

They went to work because they want a chance to live like everybody else - 2 cars, 2000+ feet of living space, a TV in every room. etc., etc.

In comparison, we have but 1 car, a small 1,500 sq. ft. house, and our newest TV was purchased in 1999.

It's called being frugal. And it's not difficult.

[Drake Tungsten]

Let's see, if a couple has their kids when they're 20 to 25

You really think people these days have kids from 20 to 25? I'm 25 years old and know of only one person in my peer group who has any children...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Let's see, if a couple has their kids when they're 20 to 25

You really think people these days have kids from 20 to 25? I'm 25 years old and know of only one person in my peer group who has any children...

You ain't from around here, are you?

[Drake Tungsten]

No, I'm from the center of liberal values that is Nebraska...

[Gibsie]

6) By freeing homosexuals to be with whomever they choose, liberals contribute to the breakdown of countless marriages, whereas in the good old days gays would have merely had clandestine homosexual relationships and stay in the loveless miserable marriages so loved by right-wingers.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, I'm from the center of liberal values that is Nebraska...

How far did you get in school?

OTOH Nebraska is so sparsely populated that it takes years just to find an eligible female.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Let's see, if a couple has their kids when they're 20 to 25

You really think people these days have kids from 20 to 25? I'm 25 years old and know of only one person in my peer group who has any children...

I know a lot of people who had kids ~20

now the group that I hang out with, who are the physicsts and the like, aren't having kids anywhere near 25

Jon Miller

[Dr Strangelove]

I know lots of people who had kids between the ages of 13 and 17. They definitely ain't physicists. Physicists are a distinct minority.

[Jon Miller]

yeah.. me to

my highschool had the highest pregnancy rates in oregon often in the 90s..

Jon Miller

[Dr Strangelove]

You have high schools in Oregon? What's it like?

[Sandman]

Yes, life is so much better in those places without welfare, women's rights, taxes and divorce. Places where the family is king. Places like Kurdistan, India and Nigeria.

[Ned]

Why all this anti-family crap. Stable families are the ideal and goal for a good reason. Policy choices should be made to promote stable families to the extent we can. This does not mean that we should not try to help the poor or to ban divorce or to end social security. Where did that come from? Al Franken's view of the Republican Party?