Freedom is under serious assault today. Government takes and spends nearly half of America’s income. Regulation further extends the power of the state in virtually every area of people’s lives. Increasing numbers of important, personal decisions are made by some public functionary, more often than not based in Washington, D.C.
Virtue, too, seems to be losing ground daily. Moral decline is evident throughout American society. The legal and political systems are increasingly based on irresponsibility and de facto theft. Families and communities are extraordinarily fragile, if they form at all. Popular culture celebrates many of humanity’s worst attributes.
Alas, at this critical time, some family advocates who emphasize virtue seem ready to toss liberty overboard. Indeed, some have become advocates of government expansion, especially of the national government, in the name of saving the family.
Virtue cannot exist without freedom, without the right to make moral choices. Coerced acts of conformity with some moral norm, however good, do not represent virtue; compliance with that moral norm must be voluntary.
Still, one could imagine that Uncle Sam could help save the family. Not that such an issue, obviously, is a priority in Washington, D.C. Political leaders like Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Ted Kennedy, for example, seem unlikely defenders of the family. At the very least, they would not seem to be the first people upon whom we would want to rely.
That does not matter, however, to many conservative and, especially, religious activists. In the triumph of hope over experience, they continue to try to use and expand the central state in the vain hope that it will encourage stable families and communities.
Obviously, opinions vary among those who speak on behalf of the family, and not all want ever-expanding government, especially at the national level. But some of the most prominent religious activists seem to have become captivated by Washington—or, at least, they favor expanded government in areas that could cause serious harm to families over the long term.
For instance, Gary Bauer, former president of the Family Research Council and former presidential candidate, and now head of American Values, is, along with other conservative Christian leaders, pressing for larger government in a variety of areas. Some are unrelated to the family. The expanded state that would result, however, is likely to redound to harm the family. For instance, some Christian “pro-family” activists have adopted such foreign-policy positions as a tight embrace of Israel and continued financial subsidies to that country; war against Iraq and any number of other nations, sometimes in the name of the “War on Terrorism,” and sometimes for other reasons; higher military spending and renewed conscription; and trade restrictions against China and other nations.
Whatever the specific justification offered for any one of these, they would collectively guarantee a more expensive, more expansive state, which would be more inclined to intrude in more people’s lives. Such measures would raise the costs of goods purchased from overseas. They would also create a less stable, more dangerous world, in which terrorism would be more likely to afflict American families.
Restricting the importation of clothing and shoes, for instance, poses a particular burden on poorer people. More seriously, war against a series of nations backed by a larger military would obviously be costly—and the very families supposedly represented by these activists will have to pay for the weapons and man the military. Even more disruptive would be a draft, which would transfer decision-making authority over some of the most basic aspects of family life to Washington.
Moreover, increased U.S. support for Israel and war against a variety of Muslim states will only inflame further Islamic hatred of the United States. Some people might always hate America because of her economic and political freedoms (as well as the degeneracy that too often flows from those freedoms), but they are likely to try to kill Americans, and die trying, only as part of a concrete political dispute.
This is evident in such countries as Greece, Ireland, and Spain, which have suffered from violent terrorism, as well as countries like India, Israel, and Sri Lanka, which have suffered from suicidal terrorism. One could argue that the intrinsic benefits from such policies might justify the cost. But the consequences are sharply anti-family.
Even more harmful are some of the policies advocated in the name of the family. For instance, Gary Bauer has helpfully backed a simpler, flatter income tax. At the same time, however, he opposes Social Security reform, which would allow workers to create their own accounts, which they would control. Families would receive a higher rate of return and own the principal. Yet, curiously, Bauer criticized the idea, on the grounds of protecting the family: “[N]o matter what the market does, why do we think the nation will be better off by forcing workers to put their money into stock rather than, say, spending it on rearing children?”
One can criticize Social Security privatization for any number of reasons—but for being anti-family? Bauer has never explained why it is better for the government to take people’s money rather than to let them invest it. It is hard to imagine that millions of parents, left with more of their own earnings by the federal government, would suddenly plant themselves in front of stock tickers and ignore their kids. Indeed, half of American families currently invest in the stock market. Presumably, Bauer thinks they should all sell, hand their cash over to Washington, and let Tom Daschle and Denny Hastert take care of Americans’ retirement futures.
Even if Social Security theoretically frees up time for the family, it forces parents to work longer to make up for its paltry return, which has turned negative for many new workers. In short, the current system leaves people with less in retirement earnings and no nest egg to pass on to their children—which hardly seems family-friendly.
Domestic measures formally dedicated to strengthening the family are also problematic. Parents can obviously use education and counsel, which James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, emphasizes. Although he has signed onto the “back Israel regardless of anything” movement, his primary activities tend to be nonpolitical. Other activists, however, look more to Washington for answers. Even though some of their proposals might temporarily help the family, they would inevitably strengthen the federal government, and, thus, the end result would be to hurt the family.
Take, for instance, the Defense of Marriage Act. The most obvious institution to define marriage is the Church. The most obvious government institution to register marriages is the state government. Nothing in the federal Constitution empowers the national government to set marital policy. Once we allow Congress to define marriage in a “pro-family” manner, what is to prevent a future Congress from changing that definition to satisfy, for instance, homosexual activists or polygynous Muslims?
Currently, Washington uses money under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to promote marriage. Dollars have flowed out to a number of states for counseling, workshops, and other services. In September alone, Arizona, Oklahoma, and West Virginia collected grants; the Bush administration, backed by religious conservatives, hopes to distribute $300 million per year for this purpose.
Similarly, some pro-family activists have lobbied for federal sex-education funding for sexual-abstinence programs. Republican control of Congress yielded some dollars to tell children not to have sex; the Bush administration is hoping to dedicate as much money for abstinence programs as the federal government currently does for other sex-education approaches. Here, too, control of millions of dollars is at stake.
Yet the very notion that Uncle Sam should tell people when to marry and to have sex is one that would have shocked the Founding Fathers. If the federal government is going to spend the money, then, arguably, devoting it to marriage and abstinence initiatives is better than spending it on the alternatives. But the more basic issue is whether such programs are appropriate.
Marriage and abstinence are good things, but they are best promoted within the family and by the community. At most, there might be an argument for action by local and state governments. It is not appropriate, however, for Washington to set one policy for more than 280 million Americans. Moreover, allowing Washington to set such a policy ensures that the national government will interfere with decisions made by the many private and public institutions appropriately concerned with these issues.
After all, left-wing antifamily groups are much more likely to seize control of the congressional process than legislatures in 50 states, and thousands of school districts, and millions of families. All it takes is one left-wing Democratic committee chairman, or one pliable Republican politico seeking public affirmation from the usual suspects, and every child in America will be placed at risk by a new federal program.
The Bush administration’s “faith-based initiative” falls into the same category. At one level, seeking to place religious-oriented charities on the same level as secular ones in terms of their eligibility for government grants seems perfectly reasonable, especially since the evidence is overwhelming that those groups that address spiritual and moral issues are much more likely to succeed in transforming people’s lives.
That is not all that the faith-based initiative involves, however. In fact, many groups view it as an opportunity to increase the size of the federal gravy train. Just as AmeriCorps’ government-funded “volunteers” have allowed groups like Habitat for Humanity to get their piece of the federal pie, so, too, the faith-based program will turn groups allegedly fighting welfare into welfare recipients.
Indeed, the Washington Post reported in mid-September that “Republicans are using the prospect of federal grants from the Bush administration’s ‘faith-based initiative’ to boost support for GOP candidates, especially among black voters in states and districts with tight congressional races this fall.” How so? Republican officials have been explaining that “the federal program will distribute about $25 million in grants to community groups affiliated with churches and other private-sector initiatives.” Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) opined that the initiative is not “a system that replaces government. It’s designed to be a system that embraces government.”
In short, politicians in Washington, at least, think that today’s Christian conservatives can be bought for a few pieces of silver, a purchase that threatens the soul of groups by compromising their religious mission for the sake of winning the cash and transfers decision-making power to the national level in the process. It would be far better to fight to defund Uncle Sam, leaving the money where it belongs—with families, communities, and states—than to work to get a “fair” share of the federal loot.
The religious right’s emphasis on Washington also seems curious given the movement’s success at the state level. Christian conservatives hold a majority of seats on Republican state committees in 18 states and large minorities in all but six others. That does not guarantee legislative success, of course. Nevertheless, it is far harder to translate fervent activism into actual results at the federal level. Moreover, making government, especially the national government, a moral enforcer encourages abuse by majorities or influential minorities that gain power. As America’s traditional Christian consensus crumbles, we are more likely to see government actively attacking the Christian understanding of virtue.
Indeed, government already increasingly promotes alternative moral views. This is evident in schools, where sex education has become relativist indoctrination. Such abuses are possible only if government is given the authority to mold souls in order to promote virtue, or traditional values, or the family, or whatever. Despite the best intentions of advocates of statecraft-as-soulcraft, government is likely to inculcate notions of virtue very different from those intended by the advocates of traditional morality and the family. When that government is the national government, it can impose its dictates on every other institution in society, crushing all before it. Pro-family advocates who seek to enlist Uncle Sam in their cause are risking everything when he turns against them, as he inevitably will.
The fact that Washington can do little to help does not mean that there is nothing it should do. Religious conservatives should press federal officials to adopt “First, do no harm” as their maxim. For instance, though the community-wide moral breakdown most evident in the inner city has many causes, government policy has exacerbated the problem at almost every level.
Governments punish both marriage and thrift through their welfare and tax policies. Welfare disrupts families and communities, subsidizes destructive personal habits, and discourages personal responsibility. The state has spent years attempting to expunge not only religious practices but religious values from the public square, and the public-school monopoly discourages moral education. These same schools fail to equip students for employment in an advanced industrial economy, while other government agencies impose licensing and regulatory restrictions that impede job creation. Drug prohibition has created a profitable illicit market that appeals to people with few alternative economic options. Simply reducing national interference with private choices and local and state policies in these areas would provide better protection for the family than any “pro-family” legislation would.
The left has long desired to use state power to remake the individual and society. That experiment filled the 20th century with misery and death. Now, many on the right hope to use government in a similar fashion, if for more worthy ends. The outcome may be less horrific, but it will almost certainly fail in its goal of making us into better, more virtuous people and strengthening the family. Religious conservatives, above all, should reject Uncle Sam’s 30 pieces of silver.
Leave a Reply