This fantasy family never existed. But real families show some basic principles our country (a really large family) should have, including the most important: duty.
Republicans like to call themselves the party of “family values.” Never mind that their policies are viciously destructive to actual families. And never mind that what they mean by that is a particular kind of family. But a family is an important social unit, one that provides for the common good of its members. On a much much larger scale, a country is a social unit that, under more enlightened leadership, would also provide for the common good of its members.
Since republicans like to invoke “family values,” let’s look at a few. The common theme, and most important value, that ties a family together is shared responsibility — i.e., duty. (NB: I am reflecting on what a family should be, I realize, of course, that not all actual families are like this — and that for too many, families were not places of safety. But the fact that we somehow realize there is a failing in those cases means that families should be places where we are safe and loved.)
In a family, everyone is equally valued. There are different roles to play and different contributions to make, but there aren’t second-class family members. Your brothers and sisters and parents and children have your back. In republican america — you have greater value if you are white, male, wealthy, etc.
A family provides shelter, food, and clothing to everyone in the family. If you get sick, you get taken care of, taken to the doctor, your medical bills are paid. You go to school, your family pays for college. In republican america, you are on your own.
In a family, those who can contribute the most, do contribute the most. The wage earners put their earnings into the family — they have a responsibility to do so. In republican america, the wealthy have no duty to anyone but themselves.
In Leviathan Thomas Hobbes describes the need for government (for a common-wealth). The phrase “nasty, brutish, and short” comes from Leviathan. In fact, it is the final phrase in Hobbes’ description of, basically, the ideal libertarian world:
In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
It is through social units — families, cities, societies, countries — that we are able to rise above having lives that are “nasty, brutish, and short.” For some reason, that is where the republicans want to take us back to — seemingly the opposite of “family values.”
The problems we have in our country right now — in our world right now — are solvable. If not solvable, they can be greatly ameliorated. Unfortunately, the wealth that would enable these problems to be solved is being hoarded by an ever smaller number of individuals (cough, families). The recent tax bill by the republican congress is an abomination. It allows the hoarders to hoard even more, and pushes the rest of us towards “nasty, brutish, and short.”
The vocabulary and connotations around “taxes” are so distorted now that it is impossible to say something like the wealthy should pay more taxes on income, more taxes on wealth, and more taxes (as in, 100%) on inheritance. But that is what needs to happen. Democrats often describe this as asking the wealthy to pay “their fair share” — which leads into endless arguments about what is “fair.” (Isn’t it only fair that everyone should have the same tax rate? Augh.) The issue isn’t about fairness, it’s about duty and obligation. The wealthy need to contribute to ending poverty, building up our infrastructure, educating our youth, not because it is fair — but because they can — because it is their duty as citizens of our country. Just as it would be for members of a family.
This isn’t a super-polished diary, but it has been weighing heavily of late. We really need to turn the conversation to be about duty — about “what you can do for your country.” It seems hopeless to try to reason with republicans — they did not get their viewpoints by reasoning them out — but if they are going to talk about “family values” then we need to talk about the most important family value: duty.
