Family Values and the Government that destroys them
A family is a unit composed not only of children but of men, women, an occasional animal, and the common cold.
~Ogden Nash (1902 – 1971)~
Before I begin I would first like to define that what I am talking about today is Family values and family principles. The question I start with is “What is the difference between a Principle and a Value?” There are as many answers to this simple question as there are people to answer it. For debates sake I will define a Value as an established ideal of life, objects, customs, ways of acting, and the like, that the members of a given society regard as desirable. A Principle is a fundamental belief, a rule of action or conduct, a truth that is a foundation for other truths; fundamental, primary, or general truth.
For the definition of family I will state that its “a group of persons who form a household under one head, including parents, children, or sharing a common progenitor. I myself come from a ‘broken family’. That is to say my parents divorced when i was young but my sister and I were lucky enough to be raised by my maternal grandparents who were separated by my grandfather’s death after 36 years of marriage. In turn my great grandparents were together for 75 years until she passed away at the age of 98 and he lived on to the age of 104. Something about ‘country living’ and a hard work ethic (but I digress….)
This 7 part series was about the 7 topics you can’t talk about in Washington but please allow me to edit this one particular topic to state “The one topic you can’t discuss unless you’re on the “Politically Correct” ideology side. Bear with me while I elucidate (that means ‘explain things’ to the folks we sent to represent us in Washington) on the matter.
I put forth 3 conditions necessary for true family values, the first being Cohesion. By that I mean cohesion would be defined as the feeling of being loved, of belonging to the group and being nurtured by it. Although closeness is good in a family unit, there must be a balance between being together and being separate. A person must be able to develop their individuality, while being supported and confident within the family. A few things that bring a family together are the commitment of other family members, and the spending of time together.
The second but equally important aspect would be Flexibility. You see there must be a structure in a family or it will become chaotic and will not be a peaceful setting for a family. Conversely, there must be flexibility or the family becomes rigid and the authority figures become resented (who many kids get angry at their parents for some perceived damage done to the child’s psyche?). We could compare a successful family to a democracy. There are leaders, but the whole group is involved in the decision making process. Although the leaders are in charge all members develop the ability to cope with stress, and at times lead. While the family works to avoid stressful situations they work together to solve problems, without blaming, criticizing and finding fault with each other. Families that tend to have a strong spiritual base seem to have a sense of well-being that facilitates this working together in times of stress.
The third and most important aspect must be Communication. Do you remember ever hearing the old movie cliché “What we have here is a failure to communicate?” A lack of communication can rip a family apart and destroy them. Things that facilitate communication are the things mentioned so far — family closeness, flexibility, time spent together, spirituality. All members must feel a freedom within the group to express themselves freely.
Imagine tomorrows headline, “They want Your Children”! Does this sound farfetched? The traditional family has from antiquity been the basis of free government and clearly the elected officials have been trying to rewrite the accepted rules and social mores since we elected the first politicians. They are ever increasingly cuddling-up to special-interest sex and eugenics groups, the two most pernicious types of interests to family integrity, without any input from the traditional family group. Interesting point was that after demonizing Dan Quayle for his position on “family values” the liberals are increasing their attempts to fool Americans with their brand of family values that includes Hillary Clinton’s “village” and Big Government raising your children.
Just what exactly are the government’s perceived “family values”? Almost to a person Democratic Party convention speeches defined the family as “all of us,” the entire nation, a state collective. “The gay and lesbian community is an American family in the best sense of the word,” declared one of the government’s top homosexual advisors. The Republican Party Platform, in contrast, references the family as “home” and as “the core institution of society” which fosters “the virtues – honesty, self-discipline, mutual respect – that make a free society strong.”
We all think of ourselves as part of a family and caring about our families is one of the values all politicians claim they have in common with the working class. They talk about making a difference for families, and about the value of policies that strengthen and protect families. Families are strengthened, they say, by giving parents the tools they need: family and medical leave, health care for our parents, education for our children, clean water and safe communities. Where the disconnect occurs is when politicians self righteously proclaim “two-mothers, or two men… the children are what’s important… they claim the children are for the use of the government…”
Who remembers Hillary Clintons book “It takes a Village”? She proclaims, as a pseudo intellect “It takes more than a family to raise children”. This not only redefined the family but it also creates creates an Orwellian euphemism for bureaucracy to replace it. Politicians are turning our family values into George Orwell’s brilliant satire on twentieth-century collectivism entitled Animal Farm. It is the story of a revolution staged by animals on Farmer Jones’ place. As with all revolutions, there were leaders and there were followers. In this case, the pigs became the leaders since they were, through no fault of the others, a little smarter than the rest. (Much like our own elected officials huh?)
One of their first official acts was to draft a statement of seven principles which were then painted on the back wall of the barn for all to see. These principles became the basis of the new order (just as our constitution….)and were designed to protect the animals from any future injustice or infringements on their rights. There were noble pronouncements as “No animal shall drink alcoholic beverages”; “No animal shall sleep in a bed”; and “No animal shall kill another animal.” But the greatest and wisest of these was, “All animals are equal.”
As the months became years, however, things did not turn out quite the way the “workers” had expected. They were working twice as hard and eating half as well as they had when they were “exploited” by Farmer Jones – all of them, that is, except for the rulers, the pigs, who were now drinking Jones’ ale and sleeping in his bed. When the puzzled workers tried to figure out how things turned out this way, they went to the rear of the barn to see if there was not something in the seven great principles prohibiting this kind of injustice. They found, instead, that the principles were now worded slightly differently. Indeed, just a few words changed here and there completely changed the picture: “No animal shall drink alcoholic beverages … to excess”; “No animal shall sleep in a bed … with sheets”; No animal shall kill another animal … without cause.” But by far the worst shock of all came when the poor creatures turned with hope to the seventh principle guaranteeing their rights but which now declared, “All animals are equal … but some animals are more equal than others.”
To simply put it politicians are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning. As proof I refer to recent ‘laws’ that were signed to ensure government family values are at the forefront. Politicians have expanded the right of minors to abortion. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right of minors to obtain abortions without notifying their parents. If a minor is found to be mature enough to make the choice on her own and does not want her parents to know about it, a judge must allow an abortion under a series of Supreme Court rulings dating to 1979. Beginning with a Massachusetts case 18 years ago, the court has protected access to abortion for pregnant minors by assuring that they could obtain permission from a state judge if they did not want to involve their parents.
In the class room they have restricted the rights of parents in connection with compulsory sex and AIDS education. They have also advocated a looser standard of child pornography, promoted so-called “children’s rights” that can be independently asserted by children against their parents, broadened the definition of “child abuse”, the list goes on and on….
When Diocletian published his draconian Edict of 301 A.D. he destroyed the few remaining liberties of the old republic, he justified it by referring to himself and his associates as “the watchful parents of the whole human race.” Rulers have ever been tempted to play the role of father to their people. In his justification for state direction of the national economy, A.P. Lerner defended rationing “as a form of guardianship” that the state should exercise over the population in order “to prevent foolish spending.” (Much as Barak Obama is attempting now)
The nanny state not only feeds its children, but nurtures, educates, comforts, and disciplines them, providing all they need for their security. This appears to be a mildly insulting way to treat adults, but it is really a great crime because it transforms the state from being a gift of God, given to protect us against violence, into an idol. It supplies us with all blessings, and we look to it for all our needs. Once we sink to that level, as C.S. Lewis says, there is no point in telling state officials to mind their own business. “Our whole lives are their business.” The paternal state thrives on dependency. When the dependents free themselves, it loses power. It is, therefore, parasitic on the very persons whom it turns into parasites. Thus, the state and its dependents march symbiotically to destruction. When the provision of paternal security replaces the provision of justice as the function of the state, the state stops providing justice. The surrogate parent ceases executing judgment against those who violate the law, and the nation begins losing the benefits of justice.
Can we reverse this trend? Yes We Can and its amazingly simple by following these seven questions and applying them to your family,
1. Does this action strengthen or erode the stability of the family?
2. Does this action strengthen or erode the rights of parents?
3. Does this action help the family or try to substitute the government in family functions?
4. Does the action increase or decrease family earnings?
5. Can the activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by the family itself?
6. What message, intended or otherwise, does the action send to the public regarding the status of the family?
7. What message does the action send to young people concerning the relationship between their behavior, their responsibility, and the norms of society?
A bridge to the next millennium is essential but it must not be built upon the disasters of the past or on a redefined family that seeks to obscure such failures. It must be built on the age-old definition of the family as the cornerstone of society. From this essential base we can build and foster what the great statesman Edmund Burke called the “little platoons,” the churches, neighborhoods and charities that emanate from the nurturing love of the family. These “little platoons” embody the belief that those closest to the need or problem are best suited to solve it. For they are not an end unto themselves but a direct extension of the family which is the instituition closest to man’s needs. A bridge built on the pillars of the family and paved with the principle of subsidiarity will lead us toward a millennium that truly secures the dignity of man. Our children deserve more than the failed pipe dreams of the past. We must not buy the Washington bridge – it is used and broken.
