Here’s another paper I wrote last semester. Enjoy!
Let Them Eat Donna Reed:
Family Values As A Diversionary Tactic.
America is in terrible shape. We cannot even keep our government open. Our economy seems to be perpetually on the brink of collapse. Unemployment rates are high. We have been at war with terror for 12 years and counting. We have been at war with drugs for even longer. Our industrial base is being eroded by overseas competition. What are the reasons for our current predicament? Right-wing politicians, pundits, preachers and those who aspire to leadership want us to believe that it is the fault of the government, the unions, the gays, the Muslims, the single mothers, and the “takers” in society who are getting rich ripping off the welfare system. They would have us believe that we need to return to those good old family values represented in our collective sub-conscious by The Donna Reed Show and host of others like it, and our problems will fix themselves. By embracing and promoting the myth of the Donna Reed American family, politicians and religious leaders have manufactured an unimpeachable moral high ground that solidifies their power base while effectively hampering efforts to cure the societal ills that they bemoan.
Historically speaking, the stay-at-home mom is a largely a myth. To be sure, there have always been some women who were just homemakers, but they were in the minority, and usually in the middle to upper class. Poor women have always been major contributors to the family income, either through conventional employment in the work-place, or through under-the-table cottage industries, like providing child care in their homes for other working mothers, and manufacturing food and goods for their families to stretch the cash a little bit further. In fact, founding father Alexander Hamilton recommended women and children as cheap sources of labor in his 1791 report on manufacturing (Leckie, 2013). Not until the progressive movement of the early 20th century were many real steps taken to protect the working man, let alone working women and children, from blatant exploitation. National tragedies like the Homestead Strike in 1892 (Foner, pp 629-631), and the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in 1911 (Foner, pp 672-674) gave Progressive reformers the impetus to enact legislation restricting working hours, child labor, and unfair business practices, establishing work-place safety standards, minimum wages, unemployment insurance, a graduated income tax, and many other things that we now take for granted, like women’s suffrage, and the right to unionize (Foner 629-712). Although the power of the working class has ebbed and flowed, the times of greatest prosperity have been proceeded by further empowerment of the working class. However, today’s crop of family values advocates would have us believe that only unrestricted business can restore our economy. Government restrictions and regulations are presented as the enemy of prosperity and freedom. They conveniently ignore the fact that “We the People” are (or at least are supposed to be) the government.
One advantage of taking a simple (or simplified) stance on complex issues is that a simple rebuttal requires your opponent to at least appear to endorse what you stand against, and vice versa. Thus, liberals seem to be saying that abortion is good, and the “traditional American family’ is bad. When they try to explain their often quite reasonable views, liberals appear wishy-washy, unsure of themselves and their arguments, because articulating their views is necessarily more complex. To quote Manhattan Institute researcher Kay Hymowitz on the subject of non-traditional families, “Even if you’re just neutral on the subject, you are still saying it’s basically fine, that it’s of no importance difference whether a child grows up with a father or not” (Green, 2013).
Another advantage of the simple, conservative approach is that the simple approach appeals to personal justice, while the more complex, liberal approach appeals to societal fairness. To conservatives, if a teenager is pregnant and unwed, it is because she cannot keep her legs together, and she is only getting what she deserves. The fault is hers. To liberals, while most would agree that abstinence would have been a good policy, the reasons for her pregnancy stem from many things entirely beyond her control, i.e. poverty, lack of education, social marginalization, and the hopelessness that accompanies these things. The fault, in many ways, lies with all of us. To most of us, societal causes are many-faceted and hard to understand, while personal justice is simple. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time is a philosophy that most of us understand and agree with.
Yet another advantage is that it is able to rely on public perception and popular beliefs rather than cold hard facts. Warnings of a takeover of America by gays, Muslims and immigrants appeal to the feelings of insecurity that we all feel in this post 9/11 era. For example, Gallup polls have found that Americans think that homosexuals make up 25% of the population (Franke-Ruta, 2012). This is reinforced by the constant news coverage of gay issues, from political battles to gay pride parades, as well as the rapidly expanding numbers in homosexual-based programming and homosexual characters in TV shows and movies. The prevalent sensationalism, particularly in news coverage, from political hyperbole to the images of homosexuals parading down the streets dressed in outlandish and often disturbingly revealing costumes, ramps up the tension and insecurity even more. These days, everyone is much more aware of homosexuality than they were even 20 years ago. The fact is that homosexuals (and bisexuals) make up only about 5% of the population (Franke-Ruta), a much less intimidating number, but one that flies in the face of public perception.
It also appeals to Americans’ vision of ourselves and our nation. We see ourselves as moral, hard-working, independent-minded people who do not need government or anyone else to take care of us. All we need is a chance to get in the game, and an even playing field, and we will be fine. Dependence on government hand-outs will turn us all into slaves. We just need the government to get out of our way. The fact that most of us are living paycheck to paycheck, one car accident or illness away from destitution does not seem to enter into our thinking, politically speaking. The thought that, “There, but for the grace of God, go I” seems to be forgotten.
Finally, it is tactically sound. Choose the battleground, entrench yourself on the high ground, and make your enemies come to you. It worked for Lee at Fredericksburg during the Civil War, and it works for politicians today. For example, a right-wing pundit can say abortion is bad. Even moderate conservatives will agree with him. The problem for liberals is that even they basically agree with him. They generally see it as a necessary evil, or the best of two bad choices. Even most the ardent pro-choice advocates usually see it as a matter of women’s rights, not as a good thing in and of itself. Thus, the left is hobbled by seemingly vacillating, morally untenable, and therefore weak, positions.
In conclusion, by diverting people’s attention with “Family Values” the conservative right have managed to focus that attention on issues, rather than on the people affected by those issues. It is a tried-and-true political tactic that is often effective, but not without its risks in the face of rising support for reform. In the face of similar drives for reform, Marie Antoinette said, “Let them eat cake,” and look how that ended for her. In a time when even the Pope advocates a shift in focus from rules and dogma to concern for people (Spadaro, 2013), it may become even more dangerous.
References
Foner, E. (2012). Give me liberty! : An American history (3rd edition, Vol. 2). (pp. 629-
712). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Franke-Ruta, G. (2012, May). Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There
Are. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/
Green, E. (2013, July). Why Is It Hard for Liberals to Talk About Family Values’? :
Racial tensions, a fear appearing judgemental, and the sexual revolution…?
The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/
Leckie, S. (no date available). Women in the Workplace: A History. The Labor Site.com
Retrieved from http://www.thelaborsite.com/
Spadaro, A. (2013, September). A Big Heart Open to God. America: The National
Catholic Review. Retrieved from http://www.americamagazine.org/
