From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: "Who will support 'Family Values'?"
Date: 9 Sep 1992 21:09:44 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: plague-ether.berkeley.edu

Article by Gail Quinn.
Reprinted without permission:

****************************************

This is the year of "family values."  And everyone (except perhaps me)
seems to know exactly what the term means.  Of course, everyone's
definition is different.  Many running for elective office neglect
to define the term; that doesn't stop them from offering solutions for
restoring these values.

Some suggest more social programs as the solution -- e.g., child care,
family leave, more jobs with better wages.  These are good things. 
Adults need jobs that pay living wages.  Parents should not have to
fear loss of their jobs when they have to take care of sick or dying
children or other family members.  Good child care is essential to
many parents.

Yet as good as these programs may be, especially for poor families, are
they the answer to supporting family values?

Social behavior has changed dramatically in recent decades, often 
resulting in negative impact upon families and upon society.  Non-
marital sexual relationships have become accepted as normative.  There
is little expectation, much less pressure (subtle or overt) for couples
to marry.  Divorce rates have skyrocketed, as have rates of teenage 
pregnancy and abortion.

Some suggest that if family life is not healthy, it's because society
has too narrow a view of what consitutes a family.  Solution: Redefine
"family" to mean any group of people who choose to live together
and care for one another.  Rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and abortion
need to be decreased.  Solution: Accept the fact that unmarried teens
and adults will be involved in sexual relationships; teach them about
"safe sex," and provide unlimited access to contraceptives and abortion.

It seems to me that the answer lies elsewhere.

A year ago, Morton Kondracke began an article in The New Republic 
(8/5/91) by referring to himself as a "prude."  "We prudes," he said,
"just think that sexual liberation has gone way too far, that all kinds
of people are suffering as a result, and that the media, the churches,
schools, the government, and other influential grown-ups ought to 
encourage old-fashioned virtues -- like self-discipline and the post-
ponement of gratification."

Using supportive statistics, Kondracke noted what others have observed
as well: the past half-century of sexual liberation has coincided with 
dramatic increases in teenage pregnancy, single parenthood, child
poverty, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion.

"You can say that the answer to all this misery is more sex education 
and free condoms on every street corner," said Kondracke.  "[B]ut even
if every sexual encounter were guaranteed 'safe,' this wouldn't 
eliminate other consequences: the pressure on kids to get involved 
with sex before they are ready and the tendency of men and women to
dump their spouses, often to pursue better sex with resultant emotional
trauma for children.  The fact is, there is too much sex too young with too
many partners and too little love."

Kondracke suggested that society might even be well served by the fostering
of "bourgeois values" -- encouraging people to work hard, learn more in
school, obey the law and stay out of debt.

We would do well, I think, to admit that many social programs -- good
programs, necessary programs -- aimed at helping families are not by
themselves sufficient to restore "family values."  We need to look hard
at the root causes of social problems that ultimately weaken family 
integrity, and agree not to waltz around the problems any longer.

It is true that many today accept (or tolerate) changed norms of 
behavior that impact the family.  Yet, most people value and desire
marriage, parenthood and family life for themselves -- and they want
it to work for themselves and for their children.