Rick Santorum doesn’t like feminists. He also doesn’t like homosexuality (he loves homosexuals, just hates their acts). He vehemently opposes abortion, child killing in his view. He also condemns birth control. He considers any pre-marital (and, of course, extramarital) sex a sin and, presumably (if he is true to his Catholic faith), only condones marital sex when engaged in for the purpose of conceiving children (whether the completed act itself is fruitful being out of his hands, i.e., God’s will).
Mr. Santorum would have all of these views portrayed as family values. And when he refers to that term, he contemplates the traditional nuclear family—a husband/father who works at an income-producing job, a wife/mother who is the principal child-care provider and homemaker, and any number of children (see above as to how many, the number being dependent on the fruitfulness of the marital acts of loving coitus and God’s will)—as the best way to recognize the country that God intended America to be.
And this is the man the base of the Republican Party is currently “dating” as the “anybody but Romney” candidate du jour. And they better find him acceptable, because after considering and ultimately discarding Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and presumably Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, along with Donald Trump, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah what’s-her-name, he’s about all they have left.
All right, so it’s all too easy to make fun of the mess the Republicans have on their hands. But the fact that Rick Santorum, so out of the mainstream that when he ran for re-election to the Senate in 2006, Pennsylvania voters rejected him by a whopping 59-41 margin, is their last option says everything about their plight.
But, okay, what if they actually do nominate this guy? What would the real policy debates be like? How might President Obama legitimately engage the Santorum world view without openly demeaning it as if it were unworthy of an intellectual response?
For starters, Obama could suggest why the traditional nuclear family is no longer the model for most Americans. Most women, for the last forty years or so, have regarded the life that Santorum so admires of staying at home to tend to the children and take care of the home-making chores as absolutely unacceptable. They have brains and talents that deserve actualization, and they are not about to be relegated to the stereotypes from the 1950s and ‘60s so well epitomized in “Mad Men,” that delightfully retro soap opera that portrays a man-dominant world that women were forced to endure.
Women in America have achieved equality with men, if not yet in terms of the income they receive, then at least in the goals they can legitimately aspire to.
More women than men are now earning advanced scholastic degrees and their numbers are growing appreciably in the fields of law, medicine and academia. Even in politics, more women are evident, as witness the near successful presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2008 and the short-lived ascendency of Ms. Palin (that’s her name) before she found her niche as a media pundit (or political king-maker if you buy her view of herself).
So while Santorum may claim, as he does in his 2005 book, “It Takes a Family,” that “in the 1960s … radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family … ,” today’s liberated women are not about to roll back the clock to once again be enslaved by accepting their place in Santorum’s traditional nuclear family.
But apart from the lack of sensitivity to the aspirations of the new millennium’s woman in America, Mr. Santorum also fails to appreciate the other reason the traditional nuclear family is long gone from the American scene. It’s all about the economy.
Two income couples are not just a consequence of women’s liberation, they are also a necessity in the real-life struggle to make ends meet. And the lower down the economic scale we go, the more severe that reality becomes.
Thus, while Santorum deplores the lack of parental interest in the education of their children, he ignores the fact that in most lower-income families, the struggle to feed and clothe their children requires that both parents work. And with minimum wage incomes well below basic subsistence levels, those families that are at or below the poverty line may have both parents working two jobs. It’s pretty hard to attend PTA meetings and help Johnny and Judy with their homework when you’re holding down two full-time jobs.
And that scenario describes the two-parent households. In single-parent homes, the situation can be even less child-oriented, with many pre-teens living latch-key existences while single moms work full time for meager wages and then try to feed their children (often using food stamps to fill out the month’s meals).
And, of course, when the economy is struggling, as it is now, the plight of the poor and near-poor is even more pronounced, further diminishing the possible benefits of the nurturing parenting that Mr. Santorum envisions in his version of family values, especially when the inevitable emotional stress and resulting marital discord is added to the picture.
But let’s assume the best of economic times, the kind of boom that Mr. Santorum and his pals on the right think will result if we just balance the budget by reducing the amount of government support in areas like school lunch programs, head start opportunities, day-care facilities, Medicaid and SSI, unemployment insurance and minimum wage laws.
Assume that those reductions in government “largesse” do truly lead to economic prosperity for the country, with good employment opportunities for everyone who wants a good job. What would the traditional nuclear family for the lower economic classes look like then?
Would parents who had never read a book themselves and barely completed high school then spend more time with their children, perchance helping them with their homework or even reading a book with them? Would teen pregnancies be reduced because parents would teach their children the perils of unprotected sex?
The real world is not nearly as bright and sunny as Mr. Santorum thinks it is, nor, in truth, was it ever.
Santorum and the conservatives not only create bubbles – they live in a bubble too. They have absolutely no conception whatsoever about what it is to live in a low income – two wage earner family. It is difficult enough if there are no children, but almost impossible if there are children. Santorum and his 1% fellow conservatives are completely removed from the every day reality of what life is like today for many of the 99%.
Estimates of the cost to raise a child have been as high as $ 1,000,000 including cost of food, medical care, clothes, tuition – especially college fees, etc. Today it is prudent for a couple to consider whether they are really willing to take on this kind of responsibility and debt – especially with the high unemployment rate and lack of jobs paying more than the minimum wage. Then many employers expect their employees to work at a set salary for more than 40 hours a week.
If a woman cannot control her fertility, she cannot control her life or her destiny. And, further, I am tired of those who want to make women “baby factories” – so we can have more “boots on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and God only know where else – (now maybe Iran). In case any of you slept through the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany, women were encouraged to have babies for the Third Reich (read Nazism).
During this same era, the government and large corporations were closely aligned – we called it Fascism. Does anyone see any similarities today in the US?
Well written article, Ed. I agree with everything you said. The GOP nomination is a circus. I truly believe (and I still do) that 2012 should have been the Republican’s race to lose, and somehow the longer this goes on and we see “the best” of what we have to nominate, I think they might actually lose it… I was holding out hope for Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or even Jeb Bush (though this country has Bush / Clinton fatigue) – just someone who has common sense. The problem is that I believe that Romney, Santorum, and to a lesser extent Gingrich don’t believe what they’re saying – rather, they’re all politicians and the evangelicals have highjacked the party. If there ever was a need for a third party in the last 150 years, now is the time. The moderates / centrists do not have a voice. Obama has to cater to the ultra liberals and not piss off the Occupy Wallstreeters and people of that ilk, while the GOP has to cater to the evangelicals. It’s sad to see our political system in the state it is in today.
Simple economics. When women started working more (due to the women’s liberation movement), the money earned from two-earner families chased the same goods and services. This caused an increase in prices, specifically in areas of spending where two-earner incomes could be jointly spent: housing. Quite simply, women have no one to thank but themselves for their having to work these days. It is a simple example of price inelasticity when it comes to essential goods and services. I believe it certainly would be a better world if women could stay home to re-invigorate the modern family unit. I doubt it can happen though because of simple economics: women will always have to work because they do now…
Women have been “fall girls” ever since the book of Genesis. Now working women are to blame for increase in prices – perhaps they are responsible for the current rise in gasoline prices too? This increase in gas prices has nothing to do with not enough competition (is the Sherman Anti Trust Act just a joke too?)? How about the increase in food prices – are they responsible for that too? Also – see Pandora’s box for blaming women for the ills of the world.
The cost of housing has been one of the major causes of two income families (until recently of course – there has been some relief). I can attest to this personally – I spent over 35 years in the residential construction industry in California. In 1953, a nice 3 bedroom-2 bath home in a suburban area cost about $10,000 in Orange County – by 1991, that same home in a far less desirable area, Riverside County cost at least $150,000. The cost of land was the primary reason for the increase in price – also, add cost of city or county fees (in excess of $25,000 in some areas – park, school, fire, freeway, infrastructure fees of all kinds). This had nothing to do with women working. Or maybe you can attribute some of the problem to greedy builders (VERY FEW WOMEN BUILDERS). One young, pregnant secretary I worked with some years ago, complained bitterly to me that is was no longer possible to buy a house and have a child – her generation had to CHOOSE. Some women didn’t want to make that choice – so they went to work. In many cases, that women worked 40 hours a week at a job and then came home and worked another 30 or so hours a week – while her husband watched football, basketball or baseball games. This may be part of the reason for the 50% divorce rate.
Then sometimes I truly believe that part of the problem with the belief that abortions should be totally outlawed (even in case or rape, incest or to save the life of the mother) is because of the belief that sex (outside of the missionary position in a marriage relation) is even – THEREFORE, these evil women should be forced to bear the unwanted child as punishment. The only problem with that argument is that the child, far too often, gets punished too – ENFORCED MOTHERHOOD doesn’t always work. Prior to Roe v Wade, it was possible to have a “legal” abortion in California. The woman had to have a doctor swear that she was insane – so, if you were crazy – you could get an abortion. The other choice was a “coat hanger.” And as to the adoption argument, not all of the unwanted children are adopted – especially those with birth defects. So my suggestion is that the do-gooders of the world adopt an unwanted child – that would be far more helpful to society.
Perhaps one of the reasons for some men to yearn for the good old days of women staying in the home – is that they miss the free maid, cooking and cleaning service. Society doesn’t put much value on such activities (look at pay scale for those who do this kind of work) – so neither do many men. Baby sitting (child care) doesn’t pay too well either.
And before anyone wants to say that I don’t like men – I had one of the best who ever lived – for 28 years. He loved me and his home – he would voluntarily look around to see if anything needed to be fixed, offer to wash the dishes – help me fix dinner (when I worked) or anything else that needed “doing.” He felt that I was helping him with his job – support us – so he should help me around the house. When I wasn’t working, I insisted that he not help me. And he worked hard every day of his life – sometimes doing carpentry work when construction was in a recession -until he contracted Alzheimer’s. Perhaps if there were more husbands like him- the divorce rate would go down.