DADI.org

By Charley Reese
Commentary

Published in The Orlando Sentinel, October 25, 1998

We won't solve many social problems until we return to a situation in which, to the maximum extent possible, children have the benefit of a father who provides and protects and a mother who stays home to teach and nurture.

Unfortunately, that conflicts with agendas of many post-modern forces -- feminism, the child-care industry and its lobbyists, and those cultists who worship government and think that it should replace both church and parents in the rearing of children.

Nevertheless, reality always wins, and the reality is that strong societies can be built only out of strong, two-parent families with children who aren't institutionalized before they can even walk or talk.

Feminist ideology, which has strayed so far from reality it's hardly worth a comment, is a variation of extreme individualism. This philosophy holds that the primary, number-one goal of each individual must be personal happiness and fulfillment. And it equates motherhood with slavery.

What's wrong with that? Well, two or more people whose number-one priority is their own personal happiness at all costs, will not last long as a unit, family or otherwise. Conflicts are inevitable. If you have a father, mother and three children, you will have five different individuals. What makes a family thrive is each member realizing that the whole is more important than its parts. When they don't, the family unit flies apart. Lasting human relationships are always built on morality, compromise and a set of priorities that place the relationship ahead of the individual egos.

As for motherhood, it's a hell of a lot more difficult to be a good mother than it is to run a corporation. Furthermore, it's not an either/or situation. Children don't stay children forever. A woman can be both a mother and have a career -- but not at the same time. From birth to age 6 or 7, especially, children need a mother at home.

It's interesting that in our society, the elites spend no time at all discussing the conditions that would allow two-parent families to flourish. Instead, they spend all their time arguing that two-parent families aren't necessary; that if there are two-parent families, it's better to put the kids into day care and grab the extra paycheck; that families can be any grouping, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. Hogwash.

What we ought to be talking about is a stable currency that holds its value and an economy that pays decent wages so a family could survive on one paycheck. That, however, would involve abolishing or seriously revamping the central bank and abandoning the insane notion of so-called free trade. The central bank inflates the currency, and the free-trade policies drive down wages. That also would involve reducing the size of government so that it would not take nearly half the fruits of labor.

Between the hammer of taxes and the anvil of accumulated inflation, most families are beaten to pieces.

Making real changes would be difficult. People would have to realize that you don't effect change by changing political faces. There is virtually no significant difference in the beliefs of liberals and neo-conservatives, between Republicans and Democrats. They simulate differences by arguing about marginal issues.

So to effect real change, people will have to force the pols and the news media to talk about a different set of issues. People still have two important political tools -- their votes and their money. But first, they have to decide what they want before they can set out to get it.


Back to Moms, Dads, and Kids