Skip to main content

is the title of this terrific Washington Post op ed by E. J. Dionne.

He begins :

Politicians talk about family values but do almost nothing to help families. They talk about parental responsibility but do almost nothing to help parents. They talk about self-sufficiency but do precious little to make self-sufficiency a reality for those who must struggle hardest to achieve it.
And the occasion of his column is the introduction last week by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of NY and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of CT of
the FAMILY Act, the acronym standing for their Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. The bill would provide partial income for up to 12 weeks of leave for new parents and for other family demands, such as care for a sick family member, including a domestic partner.
He refers to a fellow Post reporter who had cited a study that of 168 countries examined, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave - you will not be surprised to learn that the US in among the 5 that do not, which, according to Post reporter Amy Joyce means
“the U.S. is on par with places like Papua New Guinea and Swaziland when it comes to paid family leave.”
Please keep reading.

Dionne notes that the program would be paid for by a separate insurance program, with premiums ranging from $72 to $227 annually, and that the program builds on the already successful Family and Medical Leave Act, and

is modest in comparison with leave policies in other well-off countries.
Of course, given the nature of the House of Representatives since the Republican takeover after the election of 2010, Dionne recognizes the difficulties of getting anything like this, which actually truly benefits ordinary folks, passed into law.

He then writes  

Our current discussion of what constitutes “freedom” is shaped far too much by a deeply flawed right-wing notion that every action by government is a threat to personal liberty and that the one and only priority of those who care about keeping people free is for government to do less than it does.
This is followed by a reminder of our history and the role of big government, including the usual programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with things like schools, civil rights, voting rights, etc, all of which have served to expand the real freedom we have as Americans, and then follows with this parenthetical kicker:  
(And we don’t take seriously enough the implications of a most basic fact of our national story: that it took big government in Washington to outlaw slavery.)
Dionne praises the work of Gillibrand, whom readers of this site already know has chosen to offer a variety of proposals that would positively impact the lives of many Americans.

It is in his concluding two paragraphs that Dionne really brings it home.

First, his penultimate paragraph:  

Yes, we need to protect what the philosophers call “negative liberty.” There are, indeed, many things that government should never be able to do to us. But we need to think more about “positive liberty,” the ability to realize certain goals in our lives. Democratic government can create the framework in which we have more power to reach those ends.
Here I feel I must interject an observation that the budget compromise negotiated by Sen. Patty Murray fails to focus on the idea of "positive liberty" - not when it is in part achieved by cuts to the benefits of military veterans, among other things.

To this I add that were some Democrats not so beholden to certain financial interests, and others inexplicably still accepting the notion of some middle or "Third" way as an approach to our problems, in short focusing more on deficits and less on the real needs of this country and its people, our side could be advocating an approach then when presented to the American people draws strong support.  It is not only more popular than what we have been seeing, it makes economic sense.

And most of all, such an approach is far more moral than putting the pain on those already suffering while those whose actions created our current difficult situation not only have not paid either a financial nor a criminal price for their actions, but have been bailed out by the taxes of the rest of us and continue to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth while giving little back to the society that has enabled them to garner such wealth and its concomitant power.

Then there are Dionne's final words:

And surely a country that honors the devotion of family members to each other should want to make it at least a little easier for them to do their jobs.
I hope Dionne meant that with his tongue at least partly in his cheek, since he knows as well as I do that on the other side of this debate is little concern for the families of ordinary people or their well-being.  Their words about family values merely represent an imposition of a particular theological approach, one that defines family so narrowly that if you do not meet their particular social values you and thus your family are illegitimate and not entitled to any benefits much less basic respect and protection.

Family valuyes hypocrisy indeed!

Go read the entire column.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (27+ / 0-)

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 03:31:55 AM PST

  •  You are correct in your reference to a narrow (11+ / 0-)

    definition of "family" as I remember one GOP luminary who opined that not only should women be compelled to carry pregnancies to term but also thought that single mothers should relinquish their children for adoption by "stable two parent families", noting studies which indicate that the two parent (two gender) family model is the optimum one for child rearing.

    In today's world, such a parochial view is one doomed to failure, as I note Utah has just had its cohabitation laws overturned.  These laws were meant as anti-polygamy measures but were among the most draconian nationally, banning unmarried people from co-habitation.  The case was brought by the polygamists featured on "Sister Wives", as a part of their struggle against anti-polygamy laws (which is a topic too broad to broach in a comment)

    The "traditional" view of family grew out of the Victorian sensibilities and their idealized view of how the world operated.  Such views are very hard to sustain in a universal society, unless one lives in a social bubble, which is evidently the goal of some advocates of "family values"  

    •  I note the recent district court decision (5+ / 0-)

      about the highly visible family with multiple wives -  while he did not rule directly on the issue of multiple marriages, the judge ruled that using laws on cohabitation to prohibit a man from having multiple wives cannot stand in light of rulings like Windsor.

      I am waiting to see how that one plays out on appeal

      and I fully expect to see attacks on the ruling on the grounds that it would encourage Muslim men to come to the US with multiple wives -  

      our ideas of family clearly have to change

      remember the Murphy Brown episode with all the different kinds of families illustrated (which ended with a truck dumping potatoes, as the finally pushback against Dan Quayle)?

      "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

      by teacherken on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 04:41:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It should actually be pretty easy to pass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    this and make it law.  Just tell the GOP that it allows companies to fire pregnant women at will.

    190 milliseconds....

    by Kingsmeg on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 05:54:50 AM PST

  •  Oh Jeebus Please Spare Me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, a2nite

    There are absolutely no words in any human language that are worth reading when the opening word of the essay about American government is:

    Politicians
    Stop it.

    The word you are searching for is "conservatives."

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 05:54:53 AM PST

    •  No, he's right: they don't see us as a prosperous (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      nation filled with citizens guaranteed equal rights and protections under the constitution, Gooserock. For sure the Gee O Pee doesn't (has it ever? My experience with it only goes back, with reasonably clear memory, to Nixon and Watergate) and the Democrats apparently don't either now, because

      immigrants cost too much from corporate profits
      women cost too much from corporate profits
      children cost too much to raise and educate

      and corporate profits are where their donors' funding comes from.

      LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 10:02:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They don't value families, never have nt (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 12:33:32 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site