Democratic Family Values: My Vision
Okay, I never thought I'd say this, but Joe Lieberman has some excellent policy proposals.
I admit I never looked at Lieberman's policy papers because I never considered him seriously for the Dem Nomination. I still don't consider him seriously for the Dem Nomination, but The New Republic's editorial endorsement did get me thinking, especially about the whole 'family values' thing:
Liberals resent Lieberman's moralism. But what they see as sanctimony, many ordinary Americans see as overdue concern about the toxic influences that saturate their children's lives. Clinton acknowledged that concern with calculated micro-initiatives like the v-chip. But it is Lieberman, the more sincere New Democrat, who infuriated Hollywood--and thus denied himself a rich vein of campaign funds--by repeatedly insisting that the entertainment industry value the public good as well as the bottom line.
It's true, I do resent Lieberman's moralism. (I also resent TNR's implication that I somehow can't be both a liberal and an 'ordinary American'.) But I'm just as concerned as the next parent about the "toxic influences that saturate their children's lives". I hate the crap that comes out of Hollywood, I hate the crap they put on TV, I hate marketing aimed at children, the commercialization of every single sphere of public life including the public schools, and yeah, the gratuitious sex and violence of much of what passes for entertainment these days. I resent his moralism because it seems to assume that as a liberal agnostic, I'm not concerned about these things.
Nevertheless TNR did make me take a look at Joe's policy proposals, and I have to admit, I liked what I saw. He's covering ground no other candidate is talking about. For example, he has a great proposal to limit junk food marketing to children, especially in the public schools. He wants to offer paid parental leave to families, just like practically every other industrialized nation does. And he has a plan to help families better afford quality childcare. I like these plans because they go beyond just giving tax breaks to working famlies and really address specific areas of concern. I hope all the candidates look closely at Lieberman's proposals and tackle some of these issues themselves.
But there's room to go further. I'd like to see more programs targeted to stay-at-home parents who are doing important work without much recognition. It should be easier for stay-at-home parents to save money for retirement in their own names, so they don't have to rely on the retirement plans of their working partners. In addition, stay-at-home parents should have some way of earning social security credits for the unpaid work they are doing. As things now stand, parents who give up their own income to raise their kids are far more likely to end up in poverty in old age than those who don't. This is unfair. I realize that candidates may want to stay away from policy proposals that can be used against them to accuse them of pushing outdated models of the single-income family, so maybe it's too much to ask. But the reality is that there are plenty of single-income families with an at-home parent, and lots of things can be done to make life easier for them without pretending that all families want, need, or are able to have the same configuration.
In addition to promoting programs, not just tax breaks, for families with children, candidates need to remember that not everyone has kids. A lot of single people and non-reproducing partnered people feel ignored. As I've said before, I love Clark's new "Families First" tax proposal, but there have been some rumblings to the effect that it screws single people and other non-reproducing families. As Calpundit -- otherwise supportive of the plan -- says "My sister will hate it. She's constantly kvetching --� and reasonably so--� that politicians are forever pandering to families but never offer anything to single people. Clark's plan follows in that rich tradition."
True, true. Although I recently crossed the breeder divide (our son is 9 months old), I still remember the perplexity with which I approached the concerns of people with children before I had any myself. I'd argue that people without kids should still care about helping out families, because those other peoples' kids will be the ones who grow up to be their doctors, their home health aides, or their muggers. There's no escaping the consequences of raising kids, even if you're not doing the raising. Childless people are unlikely to find that a convincing argument, however, so candidates should start listening to their needs too. Supporting civil unions is one important way to support families without children. I'm sure there are others.
Finally, a crucial aspect of supporting families is providing people the tools they need so they don't have children before they're ready. This means access to truthful information about reproductive health, providing sex education that is actually proven to work, not just proven to appeal to the religious right, supporting the right to choose abortion, and working to improve access to birth control and emergency contraception so that fewer people confront that choice.
So that's my vision of what democratic family values are all about. Lieberman addresses some, but not all, of my concerns. That doesn't make him my pick for president or anything, but it does make me glad he ran. I'd like to see General Clark adopt some of Senator Lieberman's positions on family stuff. Then, when Lieberman drops out of the race, he can feel good about endorsing Clark, and he can work on getting Palm Beach County for the dems.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home