We’ve talked here before about the formula for success in
America (which I wrote about here and here):
1. Don’t have sex before age 20.
2. Don’t have sex until after marriage.
3. Stay married.
4. Obtain at
least a high school diploma.
I first had this formula spelled out in a speech from
Richard Wilkins in 2001, the first time I met him. While going through various
tributes following his early death (this is a good one, from Sharon Slater,
who worked with him for Family Watch International), I found a link to one of
his last speeches (full speech here) Richard Wilkins was the keynote
speaker at the June 2012 UN event Standing for the Family: The Family in the
Context of Human Rights. The speech is called “The Family as the Cradle of
International Human Rights,” and again he asserts that the necessary solution
to poverty and other social and economic issues worldwide depends on
strengthening marriage and family. As always, it is clearly laid out and well
documented.
He points out the founding UN documents that validate the
family as the basic unit of society, and then laments the failure to abide by
those founding principles.
During the past 65 years there has been great (and laudable)
progress in individual rights and freedom, particularly with regard to equality
for women. But the family—and the associated civic virtues of hard work,
tolerance, patience, kindness, forbearance and forgiveness that are taught to
children by wise and loving parents—has been ignored. It is well past time for
the international community to acknowledge the fundamental roles played by the
family and to take appropriate action to strengthen and support the family.
He spends the body of the piece outlining the specific
benefits to men, women, and children—and to society as a whole—provided by
marriage and family, well-documented by mounting social research. He then
outlines social problems stemming directly from family breakdown. And ends with
a call to strengthen family:
Because families are the fundamental unit of society,
governments and other social assistance actors should not bypass the unit that
can best strengthen society. Fathers and mothers, by and large, love their
children. Policies and assistance that permit fathers and mothers to work
together to strengthen their families to improve the condition of their
children will not only be more successful than other possible approaches, they
will strengthen society itself. By building a healthy family, we build a
healthy society and—ultimately—a healthy world.
In the shadow of some looming economic catastrophes in our
own country, I think we need to make the connection to family breakdown as the
root cause and stronger families as the ultimate only solution.
Paul Rahe Photo from Uncommon Knowledge interview |
While I was thinking this, I happened to be doing a little
catch-up watching of things I got behind on, and tuned in to Glenn Beck’s
November 30th show—last Friday. Glenn wasn’t there that day. BYU
History Professor Paul Kerry hosted, and
his main guest was Professor Paul Rahe
of Hillsdale College (I recognized him from Week 3: “The Greek Miracle,” from
Hillsdale’s free online History 101 course). Much of the hour talked about the
need for a long-term view, and what perpetuates that view. Family is one of those
things. Starting at about 21 minutes in, the discussion gets somewhat specific:
Paul Rahe: Let me
give you some statistics that I think will shock you and surprise you. In 1940
what was the rate of out-of-wedlock births, in other words the percentage of
children born who were not born to people who were already married? The answer
is somewhere between 2 and 3%. That was true in 1950,2-3%. It went up to 5%, a
shocking number, in 1960. And, among African-Americans, it went considerably
higher than that, to about 12%, which caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was
an assistant secretary of labor, to work on the so-called Moynihan report about
the crisis of black families.
Paul Kerry: And a
Democrat as well…
Paul Rahe: Yes. By
1980 it was 18.4%. Last year it was 39.6%. Now, think about that. We are
approaching a situation in which half of the children born in the United States
are born to young women who are not married. This is a very good example of a
lack of long-term planning. Because they’re taking on heavy responsibilities
that it’s hard enough for two parents to manage, especially with one working full
time and the other at home (which was the old pattern) to manage. And they’re
doing this without thinking.
Now, it’s even worse than I say. Because, if you go back to
1940, there’s almost no form of contraception available. So, in the absence of
contraception, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 2-3%. With the presence of
contraception, it’s 39.6%. And I’ve left abortion out of the picture. In 1940
there are almost no abortions; last year in the United States there were
three-quarters of a million abortions. There have been 50 million abortions
since 1973.
So the pattern, which is among young people—because
50-year-olds aren’t having this problem, since they’re not giving birth—the
problem is a lack of impulse control. The problem is a lack of long-term
planning. The problem is that a moral revolution has taken place.
So a question you
might want to ask yourself is, can a republic sustain itself in a world
in which people are acting on impulse and irresponsibly—and I say
irresponsibly, because there are other human being involved, not only the
sexual partner but the offspring—can a republic be sustained in those
circumstances? Because the women who have children out of wedlock are in fact
going to be dependents on the state. And what they’re going to do is call upon
other people to pay their bills, to take care of them. Not the father of the
child, but welfare, food stamps, things along those lines.
It was a nice connecting of the dots. Who teaches impulse
control and encourages a long-term outlook that helps individuals and
communities? Families do that. Who does it in broken homes or single-parent
households? No one. Especially if the broken family situation happened because
of choosing short-term impulse over long-term perspective. In those cases the
burden to teach the values falls on someone who does not hold those values.
The solution to economic problems is not to forcibly take
income from successful people and hand it unearned to people whose behavior led
to dire circumstances; the solution is to strengthen families, where the
formula for success is taught. A backup is for churches and schools to also
teach the values traditionally inculcated in families, rather than working
against them. The social problems caused by an out-of-wedlock birthrate of 2-3%
are much easier for society to solve than the overwhelming 39.6% rate. Too many
problems, and too few successful society members to make up for the problems.
We know the formula for success. We know the path to take.
Some of us will take that path no matter what. The question is, why isn’t that
the direction followed by everyone who ever sought to be a leader? Because a
leader moving people in any other direction cannot lead to success.
No comments:
Post a Comment