The Family vs. the State Font Size: <javascript:;> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
By Arnold Kling : BIO| 16 May 2006
Discuss This Story! (8) <mailto:?subject=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article&body=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article%3a%0a%0aThe%20Family%20vs.%20the%20State%0aBy%20Arnold%20Kling%20on%2016%20May%202006%0aYou%20can%20view%20it%20at%20http%3a%2f%2fwww.tcsdaily.com%2farticle.aspx%3fid%3d051606A%0a%0a> Email <mailto:?subject=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article&body=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article%3a%0a%0aThe%20Family%20vs.%20the%20State%0aBy%20Arnold%20Kling%20on%2016%20May%202006%0aYou%20can%20view%20it%20at%20http%3a%2f%2fwww.tcsdaily.com%2farticle.aspx%3fid%3d051606A%0a%0a> | <javascript:;> Print <javascript:;> | <javascript:doBookmark()> Bookmark <javascript:doBookmark()> | <javascript:doSaveAs()> Save <javascript:doSaveAs()>
family-govt
"It is intelligible to say 'I love Mother Teresa' or 'I love Madonna.' It is possible to sincerely wish them well. It is even possible and intelligible to say, 'I love the poor.' I can sincerely will that the individual members of this large, impersonal class of people have good things happen to them. But I cannot invest in knowing them to the same extent that I can invest in knowing my own mother. I cannot possibly know them as well or as clearly."
-- Jennifer Roback Morse, Love and Economics <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890626295?v=glance> , p. 181
If you think that libertarianism is incompatible with "family values" conservatism, then think again. And read Jennifer Roback Morse's book.
Single moms and the welfare state go together. Strong families and free markets go together. Morse argues that a combination of weak families and free markets is much less likely to persist.
Sources of Friction
There are a number of issues that provide sources of friction between market libertarianism and "family values" conservatism. They concern personal behavior, morality, and the law.
Should gambling, prostitution, and recreational drugs be legalized? Market libertarianism answers in the affirmative, but "family values" conservatives would disagree.
Another potential source of friction is abortion. It is not a coincidence that the abortion issue became prominent during the sexual revolution of the late 1960's and early 1970's. That was a period in which social attitudes about sex-without-consequences underwent a reversal. Prior to 1960, sex-without-consequences generally was frowned upon. By 1975, sex-without-consequences was widely applauded. In that context, abortion rights were considered a victory for sexual freedom. Libertarians tend to take the pro-choice side.
Gay marriage is another legacy of the sexual revolution. Again, it tends to divide libertarians from "family values" conservatives.
One compromise, which Morse generally endorses, is to use persuasion rather than government in the family-values struggle. That is a compromise that I would favor, although unlike Morse, I approach the issue primarily as a libertarian.
If one views a strong state and a strong family as incompatible, then a case can be made that taking the state out of issues related to prostitution or abortion or marriage actually helps serve family values. If people know that they cannot rely on the state to arbitrate these issues, then they will turn to families, religious institutions, and other associations within communities to help strengthen our values.
For example, consider the issue of cursing. One of the more dubious examples of "liberation" in the 1960's was to break the taboo against using four-letter words. I have come to believe that restraint from using curse words helps to reinforce a sense of respect for other people. By not cursing, you set limits on your expressions of anger or contempt, and that in turn makes for better human relationships.
Nonetheless, I do not favor any external restraint on cursing. Restrictions on speech lose meaning when they are imposed from the outside. Ironically, the same generation that liberated us to curse then turned around and wrote "speech codes" for universities that are every bit as counterproductive as rules against cursing. Formal prohibitions on modes of speech only lead to rebellion against the authority doing the prohibiting. Of course, any corporation, university, or other private association should have the freedom to draw up its own speech code. That is not the same thing as violating the first amendment, which only protects us from restrictions on speech imposed by government.
I would contend that other forms of morality, like speech codes, are best reinforced by nongovernmental means. When we see moral decline, we ought to try to resist turning to government as the solution. Instead, we should view moral decline as a symptom of an adverse cycle of government expansion and family breakdown.
Government vs. the Family
To see what strong government can do to families, consider Phillip Swagel's observations on China <http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/swagel-on-china.html> , as reported on Greg Mankiw's blog.
"You see it just walking on the street: there are just hardly any children around. It's eerie. The 1-child policy has been in place for 3 decades, and as a result China is heading into a snap demographic transition; they've created their own aging society...And their problems don't end there, since the demographic change means as well that they will soon be a society with near-vertical family trees -- no brothers or sisters means in a few generations there will be no more cousins either. So there's no formal social safety net and they are putting an end to the informal safety net of the extended family. No wonder they save so much -- it's all precautionary...who knows what all of this will do to the social fabric in China, as the family structure of 1,000+ years comes to end."
In the West, we do not use decrees to artificially break family bonds. However, Morse argues that the incentives of government programs, such as Social Security, can have the same consequences.
"It is convenient for us who are young to forget about old people if their financial needs are taken care of...But elderly people want and need attention from their children and grandchildren...This, then, is the ultimate trouble with the government spending other people's money for the support of one part of the family. Other people's money relieves us from some of the personal responsibility for the other members of our family. Parents are less accountable for instilling good work habits, encouraging work effort...Young people are less accountable for the care of particular old people, since they are forcibly taxed to support old people in general." (p. 116-117)
Most Western nations have created a cycle of dependency with respect to single motherhood. Government programs, such as welfare payments or taxpayer-funded child care, are developed to "support" single mothers. This in turn encourages more single motherhood. This enlarges the constituency for such support programs, leading politicians to broaden such programs.
The Real Compassionate Conservatism
While President Bush and other elected Republicans have won over "family values" conservatives on issue such as gay marriage or stem cell research, the legacy of this Administration and its allies has been to enlarge government. Much damage has been done by "big government conservatism," or by neoconservatism, which always troubled me (see here, also).
* The No Child Left Behind Act fortified government schools, to the detriment of personal responsibility.
* Entitlements were expanded, with the prescription drug benefit. A consensus is emerging that the only solution for Medicare spending is "cost controls," which means a combination of price controls on health care suppliers and bureaucratic restrictions on health care procedures. The stroke of a pen solution, that would raise the age of government dependency, is mocked by the policy apparatchiks of both parties.
* Fueled by entitlements, the share of GDP that will go to taxes is certain to rise.
The original idea of "compassionate conservatism" was for government to achieve goals using as partners faith-based organizations and other nongovernmental associations. If that idea ever takes off, I believe it will be a disaster. My line <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/03/medicare/> is that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and private-public partnerships absolutely corrupt the private sector."
There is nothing compassionate about government subcontracting out to private entities. The only real compassionate conservatism is conservatism that shrinks the role of government. Compassion should start with families and expand through voluntary associations. Government programs, everywhere and always, undermine families and weaken voluntary associations.
After observing Republican rule over the past several years, one must come to the conclusion that there is no top-down solution for the problem of big government. The Republican Party is clearly part of the problem and not part of the solution. Those who wish to be part of the solution should focus on strengthening our own families. The lesson of Morse's book is that strong families are the only antidote to the nanny state.
Arnold Kling is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and a frequent contributor to TCSdaily. He is the author of Learning Economics <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413460267/002-7090541-8412033?n=283155> and Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care <http://tinyurl.com/qms8e> .