« Good luck, Mr. Whitney | Main | Do journalists know anything? »

June 22, 2006

Think of the children

Joe Sherlock points out an interesting suggestion from Peter Hitchens, brother of the acerbic British journalist Christopher Hitchens.

"Given that all the social evidence shows that children from stable homes with two parents are more likely to do well at school, more likely to do productive work when they grow up, less likely to take to crime than those who come from fractured and fatherless homes, why doesn't the state use the sort of efforts it uses to curb smoking, to encourage marriage?"

Brilliant.

It's for the children! Just like car-seat laws, bike helmet laws, childproof gun locks, pre-school for all and the V-Chip.

Why do I suspect this one's going to languish, unloved by the cultural elites?

Posted by Mike Lief at June 22, 2006 08:46 PM | TrackBack

Comments

The elites are free and easy, so of course institutions and responsible behavior can be a bit confining. But a stable home with two parents is something that's hard to mandate.

Bush promoted marriage for low-income women awhile back. It's a great idea, but productive kids are the result of responsible, loving parents and the state can't throw in a marriage license and call it a day. IMO

Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at June 23, 2006 08:05 AM

I think the point was not to mandate marriage, but to use advertising and other public service-type efforts to create societal pressure in favor of marriage, as has been successfully done in the anti-smoking arena.

Posted by: Mike Lief at June 23, 2006 08:11 AM

"...productive kids are the result of responsible, loving parents..." doesn't have anything to do with marriage. Parents can be responsible and loving without a marriage licence.

I also think the distinction needs to be made between "fractured" homes and fatherless homes. Research does show us that fatherless homes do have children with more difficulties, but research does not show that divorce creates difficulties.

If both parents stay tuned in to their children the results can be just fine.

Posted by: Dawn at June 23, 2006 11:26 AM

Right. I had to mention the one angle because it was interesting. Hitchens cites the political efforts of 40 years of liberal preaching, which more or less translates to things that are done for the children.

"These views, given huge amounts of official support, money and standing, are not neutral. Sex-ed programmes implicitly deny that the young have any choice about how they behave"

Sorry to be so literal. But libs have been able to promote certain platforms through the death of the family unit. In England, the 'child carers' for single moms and more examples.

I agree with Dawn that parents can be responsible and loving without a marriage license. The problem is, I don't like the idea of kids outside of marriage.

Divorce happens, there are no guarantees. But starting a family should just happen under the umbrella of marriage. Ideally, people need to hold off on sex as recreation and put more of a moral connection with partnership. Kids see the opposite in film and music and are encouraged to emulate that.

Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at June 23, 2006 10:12 PM

Dear Vermont Neighbor,
I agree with you whole heartedly that kids deserve to begin a life with two married and committed parents in their corner, however I must admit ... I'm a "lib" as you put it.

There are times that this isn't an option and two unmarried parents totally committed to their kid(s) is a really good and positive thing too. In a perfect world we would all create that environment for our kids, wouldn't we? In an imperfect world we roll with the punches and do the best for our kids which is humanly possible.

Inevitably for some of us this means not raising them with two parents in the same home. All in all, "starting a family under the umbrella of marriage" will get no argument from me. However, the alternative can be a rich and rewarding experience too.

Posted by: Dawn at June 23, 2006 10:47 PM

Dawn, you are so right about the idea of a perfect world versus what we have: an imperfect world! Raising kids and doing it right takes personal dedication, and it's not realistic to think that everything will always be in order. Finances, life goals, heck, next year's vacation are all fluid compared to expanding the family tree.

Two parents, great. But the state *could* spend money on discouraging the possibility of young parenthood. Really, government benefits from a more disorganized social structure; taxpayers don't benefit.

I am personally liberal in several ways. I want the border sealed off, but I believe in the humane response of using taxpayer money to fund water stations. Water at the border affects immigrants on a personal level. That doesn't mean I want them here illegally. Our community infrastructure has quite literally had enough.

I also believe in the availability of abortion as a personal choice, but would avoid it myself in a crisis.

Overall, I just think we have to buck up and be strong; contribute. Make a positive difference. That certainly starts with raising happy, confident successful kids. In your rocking chair, you will have kids and memories surrounding you. Those of us who are kid-less really do respect your work.

Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at June 26, 2006 12:13 PM

Post a comment










Remember personal info?