From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: On the Hunt for Elusive Family Values
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:12:45 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Sep26.183550.28205@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> 
> 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:

There are a lot of good points in this article, but I think it takes a
political slogan much too seriously.  "Family values" is a euphemism
for "Conservative values."  You can't speak about "Conservative
values" directly in an election because the man on the street can't be
presumed to know what you're talking about.  There's an important
dialogue going on between Liberal and Conservative ideologies but the
average voter doesn't watch C-Span or read the opinion journals.

As a slogan I don't see what's so obscure about "family values"  For
years we've spoken of movies "suitable for family viewing" and
"keeping families together" and we've used expressions like "family
man" and so on, and nobody ever objected that these were meaningless.
It seems we nitpick about meanings in public only in political
contexts (where it isn't really relevant).

"Family values" is surely intended to convey roughly "decent,
middle-class, bourgeois, old-fashioned values."  In other words,
Conservative/conservative values.

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

[...]

> 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.

TV shows always try to cover all their bases.  Notice how neatly it
worked this time...

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

Me too.  (The devotion of this culture to fantasy is *astonishing*.)

[...]

> The Vice President knows that his electoral base includes conservative
> Christians, and so he says things that will appeal to them.  

Exactly.  Politics is the art of the possible.

> But his actions,
> and those of the RNC, are inconsistent with a claim of opposing entertainers
> who glamorise sexual immorality and violence.

Can't argue with this--your evidence is good.  But again, politics is
politics: how do you deal with realities you don't like without
seeming to tolerate them while you're dealing with them?
> 
> 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'.

As I've suggested it's a euphemism for Conservative values.  (By the
way I've heard a lot of people say they don't know what Conservative
values are as well; they take the same tack you did here.)

[...]

> 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).

Generalizations never say anything about specific cases.  But
political discourse has to go on at the level of generalizations;
there's no other way.

[...]
> 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.

I've never understood this attitude.  *Any* person who supports *any*
particular legislation or public policy is interfering with other
people's lives!  That's what participation in the political process
*is*!  Sometimes I think only the Libertarians really understand this...

[...]

> 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

Maybe so, but our system has developed in such a way that the
*judicial* process *must* deal with issues like this, and since judges
and justices are appointed by politicians...
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc