From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Family values
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:33:19 GMT

In article <16854A2B9.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>
MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>The debaters herein seem to think "family values" is a debate about
>abortion, gay rights or Clinton's inability to keep his pants zipped.
>But the real debate is about how the state has worked against the
>stability and integrity of the family unit.
>
>The new FBI crime figures came out the other day, and they show that
>youth crime- and were're talking armed robbery and murder- has shot up
>over the past two decades. Seven out of ten perpetrators of serious
>crimes, if I recall the numbers correctly, are juveniles.
>

This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that few economic or
recreational alternatives exist for inner-city youths, could it?
Whose policies have ensured that what alternatives there were, have
evaporated over the past 12 years?

>A case can be made that those who have sought to "empower" children
>in the name of protecting them from abuse have instead succeded only
>in a creating a situation in which children receive a stronger moral
>message from the state then from their parents. Don't like the way
>your parents are raising you? It's okay, you have a right to sue them.
>And *your* leagal costs are covered.
>

This is priceless.  The fact that kids have legal recourse against abusive
parents is at the root of soaring juvenile crime statistics?  Come on.  What
percentage of the gang-bangers do you think have ever sued their parents
for non-support?  I doubt that any of them are even aware of these sweeping
legal powers you claim are at their disposal.

>Sound extreme? It's not. It's happening. Parental pressure doesn't prevent
>teenagers from getting pregnant- nor does economic pressure. The state
>insures teenage mother will get an income- so long as they don't marry,
>of course. That certainly helps the average 16 year old mother raise her
>children along the straight and narrow.
>

Fine, if you want to make a case that our welfare system has only
institutionalized certain self-destructive behavior patterns like teen
pregnancy, there is surely a case to be made.  But that is far from saying
that laws shielding kids from abusive parents are what is tearing at the
fabric of American families.  Empty sermonizing by silver-spoon types like
G. Bush, J.D. Quayle, and Pat Robertson, in any event, is intended more to
curry favor with their fundamentalist constituencies than to bring about
radical changes in how the federal government treats families.  If this
is such a key issue to the Republicans, why did Bush wait so long into his
first term to raise it, and even then only on a symbolic level?  Where are
their proposed alternatives to the Great Society?  Jack Kemp, however
wrong-headed many of his ideas, was the odd man out at the GOP convention
because he exuded compassion rather than contempt for the American underclass.
Is it a coincidence that he is an outcast within the Administration he serves?

>The family policies that came out of the great society have amounted for
>the most part to talking making everyone play by rules designed for the
>worst few. Some parents beat their children? Okay, all parents will have
>all their behavior monitored by social workers. All decisions will be
>monitored and approved by the state. Think it's a joke? It's not. Friends
>of mine, good hearted liberal Democrats living on the edge of an upscale
>neighborhood, nearly had their children taken away from them by a social
>worker called by a neighbor who didn't like the fact the youngest (2 years
>old) was playing naked in the yard. They had to put up with months of
>unnanounced visits from the social worker to prove they were sufficently
>good parents. Want more?

Glad to see you concede "good heartedness" to us liberals! :^)  But your
statement that "all parents will have all their behavior monitored by social
workers" is absurd.  This is obviously not the case, despite the example you
cite about your friends.  Would you prefer that no public agency investigate
allegations of child abuse?  Your friends' anger should probably be directed
toward the loopy neighbor who phoned in a wild allegation based only on
innocent activity.  (On the other hand, what might Pat Robertson say if his
neighbor's two-year-old frolicked nude?)  But, even assuming their innocence,
they shouldn't be exempted from child abuse statutes just because outwardly
they appear to be normal, middle-class citizens.  And if you think this example
is representative of how the state's meddling in family affairs is raising the
incidence of juvenile crime, here's one more question for you:

Do you think a social worker would show up in South Central L.A. if someone
there phoned in a complaint about a naked two-year-old playing in the yard?
No, because there are more severe problems in the cities than the inanities
cited so often by conservatives seeking to distract the public.  The social
workers really beat down the door last year in Milwaukee when two black women
called in a complaint about a nude Laotian teenager being abused in the street,
didn't they?


>-----------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
> medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
> mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
> medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
> KE8YY
>


           Tom G.