From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: On the Hunt for Elusive Family Values
Summary: The politicians are jerking around the religious people.
Keywords: values, television, families, goals, `Woof!'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey (was Glassboro State College)
Disclaimer: Brandy never knew who his father was, and he ended up a functional,
            if lethally carnivorous, member of my family.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:35:50 GMT


There have been numerous articles about `family values', what it means, what
politicians might do to `promote' family values, and what effects modern
cultural entertainment have.  I've spent some time researching this topic, and
present some thoughts for your consideration:

a) Dan Quayle opened his mouth without knowing whereof he spoke.

Mr Quayle admitted that he did not watch `Murphy Brown', but claimed he knew
enough about it to make his comments.  I took advantage of summertime reruns
to see what Murphy Brown had been doing.  They've had numerous situations in
which the fictional Ms Brown speaks about her worry over whether she's doing
the right thing.  On one show, she told colleagues that she thinks being a
single working mother wouldn't be too hard -- and they all laughed.  At her
baby shower, one of the guests said she was going to bring the most useful
present of all, but it's hard to wrap a husband.

The producers and writers of the TV show haven't made it a morality play in
which Ms Brown suffers horribly for her sins -- but they also haven't made
single motherhood look like an easy and attractive option without headaches.


b) Dan Quayle couldn't care less about what's on TV or the movies.

When was the first time the Vice President spoke about family values?  What's
the first thing you remember him saying about sexual immorality or violence?

While he's been in office, Carla on Cheers had a baby out of wedlock -- what
did he say?  Also on Cheers, Sam & Rebecca planned to have a baby without
getting married, and several subplots were devoted to the story over an entire
season -- what did Dan Quayle say about that?

In the little movie that introduced Dan Quayle at the Republican National
Convention, he said that Hollywood should stop glorifying violence -- but on
the podium at the convention was Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Mr Schwarzenegger has
killed more people in his movies than all the Americans soldiers who died in
Operation Desert Storm.  Did Dan Quayle say anything to complain?
Entertainment at the RNC included Tanya Tucker, who has had two children out
of wedlock, who sings songs that positively portray sexual immorality, and who
publicly ridiculed Mr Quayle after his comments about Murphy Brown.  Were
there any complaints from the Defender of Family Values?  Nope.

The Vice President knows that his electoral base includes conservative
Christians, and so he says things that will appeal to them.  But his actions,
and those of the RNC, are inconsistent with a claim of opposing entertainers
who glamorise sexual immorality and violence.


c) The politicians have no consistent idea what they mean by `family values'.

I've read and listened to numerous interviews to understand what the issue of
`family values' is supposed to be about.  The only coherent picture I can
assemble makes no sense in the context that they have used `family values'.

They seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: they can't just say that "family
values means a traditional family structure", because there are many families
in that structure which are abusive and which produce screwed-up people.  So
they must have more in mind that just traditional family structures.

To get around this, they've talked about the strong emotional ties which help
people live good lives and stay out of trouble.  George Bush said that he
meant `reading to kids'.  But now they're on the other horn: they've made the
issue an absurdity.  Most gay parents approve of reading to kids, and I'm sure
Bill Clinton does too.  These good results can come from NON-traditional
families just as they come from traditional ones.  To the extent that the
politicians are willing to say how "family values" benefit society, ALL
politicians agree that these are good benefits, and that families which
produce these benefits should be encouraged.


d) Proponents of `family values' argue from statistics without recognising
   the problems.

Some proponents of family values will say that particular arrangements are
usually unstable or unworkable: but that says nothing about whether a given
family is going to match this larger pattern in terms of falling apart.  They
should either come up with a better argument, or argue for a weaker claim:
that is, that Family Form Foo often has problems and so should be discouraged
(but not outlawed).

 --

I am a fairly conservative evangelical Christian, and I think that popular
entertainment leaves much to be desired.  I believe that sex outside of a
committed lifetime relationship is immoral, and that intentionally having
kids out of wedlock is unwise in almost all circumstances.

But at the same time, I am unhappy at the thought that some politician wants
to tell me how I should run my religion.  I'm a Christian, and I answer to
God.  The US government has no special infallibility or authority to interpret
Scripture, and I want legislation out of my church.  If they have the right
to run OTHER people's religion, they will have the right to run MINE.  To keep
the politicians out of my religious life, I must fight to keep them out of
EVERYBODY'S religious life.

Also, when a politician says "So & So topic is important to me" while looking
the other way, it hurts his credibility.  I do not believe that Dan Quayle or
George Bush cares one bit about family values.  Entertainers have been
portraying sex & violence since before this Administration took office -- why
weren't they talking about it for the last four years?  What do they plan to
do in the next four years that they haven't had the opportunity to do in the
last four?  Mr Bush has been President since 1989; if this issue is so
important to him, and he has ideas about how to address it, why hasn't he
already done so?

I believe that traditional sexual morality has numerous benefits for society,
and I believe that people should take seriously who they get in bed with and
whether they have children.  But depending on the government to promote such
ideas is ridiculous, and I think it betrays laziness: if certain values are
important to you, do something yourself to make a difference.  Don't push off
your responsibility to your neighbors on elected officials who couldn't care
less.

In my opinion, my fellow Christians who take these politicians seriously when
they talk about "family values" have been sold a bill of goods.  If Mr Bush is
re-elected, he's going to forget all about family values the next day, and he
will do the same thing in his next term that he did in this term: nothing.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Recession: your friend loses his job.  Depression: you lose your job.
 Recovery: Bush loses his job" -- Bill Davidsen