Where are the Court Evangelical Defenders of “Family Values” Today?

families

Getty Images

The Trump Administration separated 1000s of immigrant children from their parents.  If I am reading this article correctly, the administration does not know where these kids are located. They simply failed to write down where they sent them.  It will take up to two years to find them.

And where are the court evangelicals today?  They brag about unprecedented access to Trump.  Now is the time to use such access.  These men and women built their political careers around defending “family values.”  Why aren’t they lined-up at the White House door to demand that these families are reunited sooner?

Here is Tony Perkins, president of an organization called the FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL:

Apparently Perkins’s “religiously informed values” do not bear on “public policy decisions” about reuniting families separated by Trump immigration policy.  It seems like this might be something an organization called the FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL may want to take up.

I wonder how Perkins would respond if these were white middle class families?

First Baptist-Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress spent his Sunday interviewing a guy from Duck Dynasty:

I am sure this interview focused on family separation. 😉

Gary Bauer, a former president of the Family Research Council, is using his Twitter feed to spew anti-immigrant rhetoric:

Former “Focus on the Family” host James Dobson is wondering what “love” looks like:

Eric Metaxas was on NPR earlier today wondering if the American Republic has “lost its way’:

These court evangelicals, if they really believe in family values, should be screaming from the rooftops today.  Sadly, it’s not going to happen.

The Fea Girls on the Championship Road

I am always proud of my daughters, but I am especially excited for them this week.

Caroline, a high school senior, is playing on Tuesday night in the Pennsylvania Intercollegiate Athletic Association (PIAA) state semifinal game in the hopes of advancing to the state championship game on Saturday.  I wrote a bit about the Mechanicsburg Wildcat’s girls soccer team here.  Last Saturday afternoon they advanced to the semifinals with a thrilling 2-1 double overtime victory over Archbishop Ryan High School in 30 degree weather and howling winds.

Caroline banquet

Caroline at the team banquet last week

GIrls soccer team

Caroline’s team has 11 seniors

Allyson, a junior right side hitter on the Calvin College women’s volleyball team, will compete this weekend in Pittsburgh for the NCAA Division 3 National Championship.  On Saturday night they won an epic 5-set match against Wittenberg University to advance to the round of 8.  I have no idea why the #1 ranked team in the country (Calvin) faced the #3 ranked team in the country (Wittenberg) in a regional final, but that’s what happened.   Either team could have won this game and both deserve to be in the Elite 8 this weekend in Pittsburgh.   It was a sweet win for Calvin.  Last season Wittenberg defeated Calvin on their home court in the national semifinals.

Sarah and Ally

Ally is #19

Ally and Dad

It Turns Out I am Not the Only Historical/Political/Online Writer in the Family

Ally at CFH

From the “proud Dad” files:

My daughter Allyson, a junior psychology and history major at Calvin College, has been writing (for money!) at a website called Listserve.

Here is a taste of her piece “10 Wildest Filibusters in History“:

The late Strom Thurmond, once an ambitious and fiery senator from South Carolina, still holds the record for the longest spoken filibuster by one US senator as of late October 2018.

His passion?

Stopping the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He was well prepared for the big moment, dehydrating in a steam room to avoid going to the bathroom and bringing cough drops and candy to the Senate floor. He also placed his aide in the coatroom with a bucket in case he had to take care of business. His preparation was intense.

His fate?

Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 PM on August 28, 1957. His speech included renditions of the entire Declaration of Independence, US criminal code, and voting laws of each of the 48 states. The other senators were not thrilled.[1]

Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois even attempted to sabotage the operation by putting a pitcher of fresh orange juice in front of Thurmond, whose aides quickly snatched it and placed it out of reach. Thurmond spoke more than 24 hours, ending at 9:12 PM on August 29. He successfully stalled the passage of the bill, but he didn’t stop it.

Or check out her piece “10 Famously Hard-Core Female Spies.”

This weekend she is taking some time off from writing to try to help her team win the Michigian Intercollegiate Athletic Association volleyball championship and secure a spot in the NCAA tournament.  Some of you know that the Calvin Knights are currently ranked #1 in the nation in NCAA Division 3.

When Did Evangelicals Start Talking About Family Values?

QuakersOver at The Anxious Bench, David Swartz of Asbury University argues that “family values” is a relatively knew idea in American evangelicalism.   Here is a taste:

“Turning hearts toward home”—a phrase Dr. James Dobson has repeated so often over the last four decades that it sounds like scripture. It’s hard to believe now, but his unrelenting focus on the family would have been viewed as heretical by evangelicals a century and a half ago.

Indeed, revivalistic religion in the eighteenth century often tore families apart. As Christine Heyrman writes, “For those to whom Canaan’s language long remained an unintelligible tongue, the conversion of beloved relatives could lead to enduring emotional estrangement. Transformed by their newfound zeal, dutiful sons and daughters, affectionate siblings and spouses . . . [could become] remorseless, relentless, seemingly heartless in dealing with loved ones.”

The instinct to de-emphasize family continued in the nineteenth century. Methodist evangelist Phoebe Palmer suffered the death of two young children, and she interpreted these tragedies as divine discipline. “After my loved ones were snatched away,” she wrote in her journal in 1831, “I saw that I had concentrated my time and attentions far too exclusively, to the neglect of the religious activities demanded. Though painfully, learned, yet I trust the lesson has been fully apprehended. From henceforth, Jesus must and shall have the uppermost seat in my heart.” Palmer’s heart was sanctified at the moment it turned away from home.

Ironically, the nurture of family was first a mainline value. As historian Margaret Bendroth shows in her terrific book, Growing Up Protestant: Parents, Children and Mainline Churches (2002), white middle-class Protestants in the 1860s advocated for regular family devotions, recitations of the catechism, Bible memory, and careful attention to children’s dress and diet. Congregationalist minister Horace Bushnell wrote, “Dress your child for Christ if you will have him a Christian; bring everything, in the training, even of his body, to this one final aim, and it will be strange, if the Christian body you give him does not contain a Christian soul.”

Read the entire piece here.

I am not sure how Swartz is defining “evangelical” or “family values,” but certainly the seventeenth-century Puritans were quite concerned with family.  The nuclear family was part of their “values” system.  Or at least that is what Edmund Morgan taught us decades ago.

I would also argue, along with Barry Levy, that the modern middle-class family as we know it today had its roots in the Quakers of Pennsylvania.  As far as I know, Levy’s interpretation has not been challenged since he first published Quakers and the American Family in 1988.

And if a whole generation of women historians is correct, the Second Great Awakening had something to do with women’s role in preserving the family, preparing citizens of the republic, and the cultivating the domestic hearth.

As I argued in The Way of Improvement Leads Home: Philip Vickers Fithian and the Rural Enlightenment, the real threat to eighteenth-century “family values” was mobility, ambition, and education.

We’re Right There With You Barack!

Barack,_Malia,_and_Sasha_Obama_at_the_2012_Democratic_Convention

Many of us know what this is like.  From The New York Times:

After Malia Obama went off to Harvard University last month, her father couldn’t hold back the tears.

Barack Obama described that moment on Monday in a speech for the Beau Biden Foundation for the Protection of Children, which was named for former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s older son, who died of brain cancer in 2015.

The former president said some kind words about Beau and his parents, Joe and Jill Biden, before talking about the joys and sorrows of watching children grow up.

“For those of us who have daughters, it just happens fast,” Mr. Obama said in a video published by WDEL, a news outlet based in Wilmington, Del.

“I dropped off Malia at college, and I was saying to Joe and Jill that it was a little bit like open-heart surgery, and I was proud that I did not cry in front of her. But on the way back, the Secret Service was all looking straight ahead pretending they weren’t hearing me as I sniffled and blew my nose. It was rough.”

Read the entire piece here.

The Kelly Family Speaks!

I love this:

A professor was Skyping with the BBC and his kids unexpectedly entered the room. Academics and others went nuts trying to deconstruct this.  Some said this was an example of patriarchy.  Others thought Professor Kelly’s wife was the nanny.  Still others implied that Kelly was a bad father because he nudged his daughter away from the computer.

All of these interpretations assume way more about Kelly and his family than the context or evidence allowed.  Dare I say that this kind of deconstruction is part of the reason why so many people are growing tired of academics and other political pundits? Race, class, and gender are often helpful interpretive categories, but when every event is interpreted through these categories we academics can look silly.

Whatever the case, the Kelly family has weighed in, both in the video above and in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Here is a taste of that article:

Problematic live interviews can also have potential negative career consequences for those involved. Mr. Kelly and his wife immediately feared the worst, assuming that he wouldn’t be contacted again to appear on TV.

“We said to each other, ‘Wow, what just happened?’ ” Mr. Kelly, said, adding the blame was entirely on him for not locking the door.

He immediately wrote to the BBC to apologize, but within 15 minutes the broadcaster asked if it could put a clip of the interview on the internet. The couple initially declined, feeling uncomfortable that people might laugh at their children. But they were eventually persuaded that the video would show they were just a regular family.

Within a couple of hours, it became clear to them that the video would disrupt their lives. Mr. Kelly said his Twitter and Facebook notifications began going haywire as people shared the video online. The next day he put his phone in airplane mode as the number of emails and calls, many from journalists, became overwhelming.

The couple spent most of Saturday trying to decide how to handle the attention. Offers from major U.S. TV networks and media came flooding in. Some journalists tracked down Mr. Kelly’s parents in the east side of Cleveland to ask them about it.

“We stonewalled because we didn’t know what to do,” Mr. Kelly said.

In a video interview from home, Mr. Kelly’s son sat on his lap banging on his desk and computer keyboard while his 4-year-old daughter played rock, paper, scissors with her mother.

“He usually locks the door,” Ms. Kim said. “Most of the time they come back to me after they find the locked door. But they didn’t. And then I saw the door was open. It was chaos for me.”

Mr. Kelly describes his reaction as a mixture of surprise, embarrassment and amusement but also love and affection. The couple says they weren’t mad and didn’t scold the children. “I mean it was terribly cute,” Mr. Kelly said. “I saw the video like everybody else. My wife did a great job cleaning up a really unanticipated situation as best she possibly could… It was funny. If you watch the tape I was sort of struggling to keep my own laughs down. They’re little kids and that’s how things are.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Kelly and his family plan to hold a press conference at his university to answer questions from the Korean media, which have a strong interest in the video. Most important to them is that people can laugh at the video as unvarnished but normal family life.

“Yes I was mortified, but I also want my kids to feel comfortable coming to me,” Mr. Kelly said.

“I made this minor mistake that turned my family into YouTube stars. It’s pretty ridiculous.”

Read the entire article here.

George Scialabba on Christopher Lasch and the Family

Cultural critic George Scialabba revisits Christopher Lasch’s 1977 book Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged and tries to rescue Lasch’s argument from the feminists who bashed the book when it first appeared.


Sciaballa writes at The Baffler:

It was not feminism but mass production, political centralization, and the ideology of endless growth and ever-increasing consumption that had placed impossible strains on the family and made psychological maturity so difficult, Lasch argued. According to Askyourguide, an authority on psychic costs in individuals, every organism can flourish only within limits, at a certain scale. We have, in our social relations of authority and production, abandoned human scale, and the psychic costs are great.

The main developments of the last few decades, the information revolution and the triumph of neoliberalism, have only intensified the pressures besieging the family. Increased economic insecurity and the robotization of work—the central strategies of neoliberalism—have undermined the authority and self-confidence of parents still further and confronted adolescents with the prospect of adulthood as a war of all against all. Inside and outside the classroom, a tidal wave of advertising-saturated media aims to enlist children as fledgling consumers. The internet and social media diminish interaction among family members, especially across generations, while face-to-face encounters, with their greater emotional immediacy, are less and less the default mode of communication among adolescents. The hyperconnected life, for all its allure, is a centrifugal force.
The family, in whatever form, can only thrive within a healthy psychic ecology. It has gradually dawned on everyone who does not have a financial interest in denying it that massively tinkering with our physical environment is bound to have drastic effects on public health. It’s taking even longer to recognize that the same is true of our mental environment. The unending flood of commercial messaging, utterly empty of information or art, resembles the miasma of toxic particulates that infect the air of even the most developed countries. The continual stream of social messaging is analogous, in its lack of nourishing substance, to the ubiquitously available junk food that none of us can help succumbing to occasionally. The automation of work and the financialization of the economy leave most of us as bewildered and vulnerable as the progress of science and technology leave all but the intellectual elite, who can actually understand the seemingly magical forces that make our more sophisticated machines run.
It is just as the environmentalists (and, come to think of it, the Marxists and the Freudians) say: Everything is connected. Pull on one thread and the whole fabric unravels. To strengthen the family, we must rethink the division of labor, which means reevaluating productivity, efficiency, and growth, which means challenging the distribution of economic power and wealth. We may even need new conceptions of “rights,” “individuality,” and “freedom.”
Read the entire piece here.

Conservatives: Relax, the Pope is Not Done Yet

Some conservatives are unhappy with the Pope today.  They wish he would have said more about marriage and abortion in yesterday’s speech to Congress.


Of course the Pope did allude to abortion with this line:  “The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every state of development.”


And  some might interpret this statement as a plug for traditional marriage: “Yet I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and family….”

But the Pope is not done yet with the United States.  He still has more speeches to make and some of them will be devoted to the family.  I think everyone needs to wait until the visit is over before we can honestly assess it.  Some of us historians might even say we need a few years, or even longer, to fully evaluate the significance of Francis’s visit.

Stay tuned.

Three Cheers for Frank Bruni and Focus on the Family

Frank Bruni

Frank Bruni has been using his New York Times op-ed column to defend the institution of the family. Isaac Chotiner at The New Republic does not seem to like it one bit.  In fact, he has even compared Bruni’s recent columns to rhetoric found at the “right wing religious group” Focus on the Family.  In order to be cute, Chotiner lists eight statements about the family and asks his readers which ones came from Bruni and which ones came from the Focus website.  (Did I mention that Chotiner calls Focus a “right wing religious group?”).  Please notice that these statements have nothing to do with abortion, gay rights, the “traditional family,” or anything else that might be construed as culture war rhetoric.

Here are the statements:
1. “A family can pass its painstakingly nurtured closeness down through the generations.”
2. “Busyness can make it difficult for parents to savor life’s ordinary moments. But it is precisely those moments that your children will treasure forever.”
3. “Grandpa took Leslie to a Waffle House on the first day of their drive and then again on the second. They share, along with genes, an affinity for breakfast foods and carbohydrates.They don’t share musical tastes, so for most of their trip, they left the radio off and just talked, treating the highway as memory lane.”
4. “Your daughter mentions her 10th birthday. You assume she will rave about the beautiful cake and Sparkles’ funny balloon animals, but instead she recalls how much fun it was to ride in the van with you to pick up doughnuts for breakfast.” 
5. “Carve out space for family no matter what…put relatives at the head of the line….find gestures large and small.”
6. “Not all happy families are alike. But all happy families…have this in common: Their bond is forged not by accident but by intent.”
7. “Most children find just as much, or even more, joy in the little things as they do in life’s big events.”
8. “Everyday interactions may be more meaningful than many parents realize.”
Answers: Bruni is 1, 3, 5, and 6
At face value Chotiner’s post can be read as little more than an interesting observation or comparison. But we all know that this was not what he had in mind.  For example, Chotiner compares Bruni’s writing about the family to “Hallmark Cards.”  He also uses the ellipsis for effect, as in: “Bruni wrote a piece entirely about the value of…yes, family.”  This sentence reeks with sarcasm about Bruni’s choice of topic.  And his use of the phrase “rightwing religious group founded by James Dobson” is sure to raise some hair on the necks of New Republic readers.

The most disturbing thing about this post is that Chotiner’s world view is so narrow that he does not seem able to admit that an organization like Focus on the Family could have anything positive to say about the place of the family in American life.  Moreover, he is so embedded in a culture-war narrative that he just assumes his readers will scoff at Bruni in light of the mere mention of James Dobson. 

Now I do not agree with everything Focus on the Family teaches about the family.  I have also been critical of Dobson for his decision to refocus his ministry toward politics. But I think most liberals and conservatives would agree with the eight principles listed above, whether they were written by Focus on the Family or a New York Times columnist.  Some things that are just human.  And it is foolish to politicize them.

My Cousin and His Daughters Go Viral

Jake and his daughters, Erin and Riley

Yesterday my cousin Jake posted a letter to Twitter written by his 9-year old daughter Riley. Riley and her twin sister Erin are both hearing impaired (they wear hearing aids) and were thus inspired by a commercial featuring Seattle Seahawks running back Derrick Coleman and his similar hearing problems.  Riley’s letter to Coleman has gone viral and my cousin Jake and the girls are making the rounds on television shows this morning, including a brief stint via Skype on Good Morning America.

Why I Like "Evangelii Gaudium": Part Four

Here is part three of my continuing series on Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium.

In sections 61-67 of Evangelii Gaudium, Francis addresses some major “cultural challenges” that Catholics, and I would add all people of Christian faith, must face.  First, he goes after globalization. Francis writes: “In many countries globalization has meant a hastened deterioration of their own cultural roots and the invasion of ways of thinking and acting proper to other cultures which are economically advanced but ethically debilitated.”  He uses the complaint of African bishops as an example.  Many of these bishops have complained that globalization is making them feel like “parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel.”  As a result, the “field of social communications,” which is run by “centres mostly in the northern hemisphere,” do not understand or consider the problems that such countries face as a result of their “cultural make-up.”  To put this differently, the media and entertainment industries are “threatening traditional values,” particularly as they relate to marriage and family.

And speaking of marriage and family, Francis believes that these institutions are “experiencing a profound crisis.”  He calls the family “the fundamental cell of society, where we learn to live with others despite our differences.”  It is also the place “where parents pass on the faith to their children. 

He then turns to marriage:

Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form or mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will.  But the indispensable contribution of marriage to society transcends the feelings and momentary needs of the couple.  As the French bishops have taught, it is not born “of loving sentiment, ephemeral by definition, but from the depth of obligation assumed by the spouses who accept to enter a total communion of life.

Here Francis sounds a lot like Christopher Lasch in Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged. I also thought about the modern, middle-class understanding of marriage in which the purpose of this sacrament is to fulfill the therapeutic needs of one’s spouse.  Many evangelical marriage ministries operate the same way.

Finally, Francis makes the case for something akin to a Christian liberal-arts education (although he doesn’t use that term):

While we are living in an information-driven society which bombards us indiscriminately with data–all treated as being of equal importance–and which leads to remarkable superficiality in the area of moral discernment.  In response, we need to provide an education which teaches critical thinking and encourages the development of mature moral values.

More later.

The New Focus on the Family

Jim Daly

A couple of weeks ago I was doing a public interview on religion and the American founding at an international conference on secularism at Georgetown University in Washington D.C.

During the course of the conversation, Jacques Berlinerblau, the organizer of the conference and the interviewer, asked me about the religious and political views of young evangelicals.  I turned to the usual talking points about the next generation of evangelicals.  They were not interested in the culture wars of their parents, they were pro-life but their social vision was broader than just one or two issues, and they despised hypocrisy and wanted a Christianity that was authentic.

Berlinerblau, an astute observer of American religion, seemed to agree.  He mentioned that he was shocked when he heard Jim Daly, the president of Focus on the Family, do an interview with National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered.”

Berlinerblau was right to be surprised.  Focus’s former president James Dobson began the organization with the goal of strengthening American families, but it eventually evolved into a political organization that became a major player in the culture wars.  (Of course, Dobson would not have it seen this way.  The politicization of Focus, he believed, was a fundamental part of its original mission). As far as I know, Dobson never did an interview with NPR, but I could be wrong.

I thought again about my public conversation with Berlinerblau after I read this profile of Daly in The New York Times.  Daly is clearly moving Focus on the Family in a new direction, at least in terms of its approach to the larger culture.

Here is a taste:

James Dobson

Mr. Daly has succeeded in differentiating himself from an earlier generation of Christian leaders, like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer and Donald E .Wildmon, who made their fame and notoriety alike in the battles around abortion and homosexuality.

In quite a vivid way, Mr. Daly, 51, has also departed from the example of his predecessor at Focus, James C. Dobson, who retired in 2009. Just a few months ago, referring to the mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., Dr. Dobson said on his syndicated radio program, “I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God almighty, and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us.”
As he became president of Focus in 2005 and chief executive four years later, Mr. Daly put forward the message of humility and outreach in an autobiography, “Finding Home,” and an acutely titled spiritual manifesto, “ReFocus.” He has welcomed members of the same gay rights organization, Soulforce, whose activists had been arrested during protests at Focus during the Dobson years.
Focus has collaborated with the local alternative weekly, The Colorado Springs Independent, in a campaign to encourage families to take in foster children. (“No, hell has not frozen over,” the paper quipped about the partnership.) Most recently, Focus hosted a question-and-answer session with Jonathan Rauch, a journalist who has advocated gay marriage.
Such efforts have won Mr. Daly praise from unexpected quarters. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, has classified the Family Research Council, another conservative Christian organization, as a hate group because of its position on homosexuality. But the law center’s senior fellow, Mark Potok, said Focus had tried to evolve with the times.
Perhaps Daly is returning Focus on the Family to its roots.  Christianity can be an important resource for strengthening American families.  I have listened to Dobson’s radio show and have read some of his books. Some of his thoughts have helped me to be a better parent and husband.  But when Focus on the Family became a political organization, and Dobson began endorsing candidates for office, I stopped listening and reading.  So did many of my more progressive Christian friends. This is a shame, because some of the things he had to say about strengthening the American family transcended politics.  Unfortunately, the politicization of Focus meant that it would never reach those who shared different political views.
Daly seems to be charting a different course.  I am glad to see it.

Darryl Hart Takes His Shot at Liberal Education

My friend and professional contrarian Darryl Hart has turned to The Front Porch Republic to offer a critique of Bill Cronon’s thoughts on liberal education from his seminal article “Only Connect.”  (He is responding to this post at The Way of Improvement Leads Home).

After listing Cronon’s virtues of a liberally-educated person, Hart concludes:

The old Beach Boys song, “Wouldn’t it be Nice,” is running painfully through my head.

Some of these higher education happy thoughts may be true when it comes to certain skills that liberally educated students receive, as in reading, writing, and thinking (though they miss just as many undergrads as they hit). But number seven’s warm fuzzy, “Liberally educated people are humble, tolerant, and self-critical. They recognize and value different perspectives” makes absolutely no sense of many professors who are liberally educated as well as the string of academic novels that feature scholars who are proud, myopic, judgmental, and overly protective of reputations and office hours.

At the same time, this list, while patting those involved with liberal education on the back, doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the students who come to liberal arts institutions do so by way of families who have inculcated many of the virtues touted in this list — even some of those critical skills attributed to liberal education. It seems to me that any proper evaluation of a liberal education concedes that time at college mainly refines what has already gone on in the life of a student before enrollment. Lights may go on in the case of discovering authors and important texts, but the virtues that a society needs from its members are more often learned from parents, teachers, and clergy, than from hyper-sensitive and ambitious faculty teaching the Great Books.

Hart’s thoughts here are on the mark.  I wish more academic scholars would practice the liberal arts virtues that Cronon espouses.  But I also think Hart needs to get out a bit more.  For example, in the last week I have spent time with two scholars who reflect these virtues:  Geoffrey Harpham, director of the National Humanities Center, and Jacques Berlinerblau, director of the Jewish Civilization Program at Georgetown University.  I could also add folks like Annette Gordon-Reed and Anthony Grafton to the list. Perhaps some of the novelists Hart mentions did not spend time with these gracious scholars.

As a father, I could not agree more with Hart’s point about raising children.  I think our society would be in much better shape if liberal arts education served the purpose of refining “what has already gone on in the life of a student before enrollment.”

Quote of the Day

From Christopher Shannon’s review of Robert Self, All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy Since the 1960s.

I suppose I should come clean on my own family values. I suppose I would call myself a traditionalist with a great sympathy for the vision of family life presented in the work of Wendell Berry.  There can be no real family apart from a family economy, and so much of the ink spilled on “the crisis of the family” since the nineteenth century has been a futile evasion of this basic fact.  In parts of The Feminine Mystique, Friedan invokes the frontier wife as a model of woman as an economic actor; in the end, she chose middle-class professionalism over a true home economy that would have men and women working together within the home.  To the commentator who feared that I might be criticizing Self from a “monistic” understanding of sex and family life, I can only say that sexual novelty and experimentation make for a rather dull and shallow pluralism.  Family life, especially farm family life, took on diversity through ethnic and religious traditions rooted in specific local places.  The continuity in place over time require to foster and sustain any culture worthy of the name is exactly what a market economy that rewards rootless mobility refuses to tolerate. Among Americans of European descent, there is far less cultural diversity than there was a hundred years ago, despite all of our sexual experimentation.  How many of us speak the language of our ancestors?  In many ways, sexual and family experimentation is a symptom of the poverty of our post-traditional, consumer culture to satisfy the real and legitimate human needs once met by true culture. 

Medved: Presidential Fathers and Sons

I am not sure how much we should make of this, but Michael Medved has a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal reminding us that we are once again going to elect a president that is either a privileged son or a man with no relationship with his biological father.”  In the former category, think Obama, Clinton, and Gingrich.  In the latter category, think Bush, McCain, and Romney.  What does this all mean? Medved speculates:

No recent presidents can boast paternity that seems ordinary or normal, finding middle ground between the intense expectations of a powerful, prominent parent and the disasters of badly broken families with absent birth fathers.

In one sense, these extreme backgrounds now dominate the presidential process because that process itself has become so extreme. A rising politico can no longer wait for colleagues to push or pull him toward a White House race, or dream of sudden success at some brokered convention. A serious candidacy currently requires obsessive pursuit of power over the course of several years, with expenditure of tens of millions in campaign cash.

What sort of person willingly undergoes such an ordeal? More and more, it seems, either a privileged individual with a profound sense of entitlement, or an unlikely upstart whose status as miraculous survivor amounts to his own anointing. But despite a shared sense of determination and destiny, famous-father candidates tend to run dramatically different campaigns than do their no-father counterparts. 

Read the rest here. If any of you are psychologists you may want to weigh in.

The Myth of the Happily Married Slave

Recently conservative lawmakers, including Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and New Gingrich, lent their support to a document called “The Marriage Vow.”  Since I am a supporter of marriage who thinks the institution needs to be strengthened in our society, I will state for the record that there are a few things in this “pledge” that I can endorse.  Yet, as an American historian, I was a surprised when I read the reference to slavery in this document:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

Hmm….

Tera Hunter, a professor of history and African-American studies at Princeton, has challenged the myth of the happy antebellum African-American family.  According to Hunter, this myth must be put to rest.  Here is a taste of her recent piece at The New York Times:

…The vow, which included the assertion that “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President,” was amended after the outrage it stirred.

However, this was not a harmless gaffe; it represents a resurfacing of a pro-slavery view of “family values” that was prevalent in the decades before the Civil War. The resurrection of this idea has particular resonance now, because it was 150 years ago, soon after the war began, that the government started to respect the dignity of slave families. Slaves did not live in independent “households”; they lived under the auspices of masters who controlled the terms of their most intimate relationships.

Back in 1860, marriage was a civil right and a legal contract, available only to free people. Male slaves had no paternal rights and female slaves were recognized as mothers only to the extent that their status doomed their children’s fate to servitude in perpetuity. To be sure, most slaves did all that they could to protect, sustain and nurture their loved ones. Freedom and the love of family are the most abiding themes that dominate the hundreds of published narratives written by former slaves.

Though slaves could not marry legally, they were allowed to do so by custom with the permission of their owners — and most did. But the wedding vows they recited promised not “until death do us part,” but “until distance” — or, as one black minister bluntly put it, “the white man” — “do us part.” And couples were not entitled to live under the same roof, as each spouse could have a different owner, miles apart. All slaves dealt with the threat of forcible separation; untold numbers experienced it first-hand. 

And she concludes:

Why does the ugly resuscitation of the myth of the happy slave family matter? Because it is part of a broad and deliberate amnesia, like the misleading assertion by Sarah Palin that the founders were antislavery and the skipping of the “three-fifths” clause during a Republican reading of the Constitution on the House floor. The oft-repeated historical fictions about black families only prove how politically useful and resilient they continue to be in a so-called post-racial society. Refusing to be honest about how racial inequality has burdened our shared history and continues to shape our society will not get us to that post-racial vision.  

Bummin’ With Dad

Here is a nice piece from an upstate New York paper about a boy and his Dad.  (HT )

A taste:

Let me explain bummin’.

Bummin’ as an art form consists of spending a day out and about together with no particular destination, or plan in mind. It was an activity usually reserved for weekend afternoons during mud time, when there were no decent sports on TV, and it was too cruddy outside to play. It was also our favorite thing to do when I had a day off from school. Since Dad was in the Electrician’s Union, he always had more vacation time than my office-working Mother, so when we had a religious school holiday at St. Joe’s, he was the parent who took the day off to stay with me.

He’d rise at his usual time, and make coffee and breakfast as Mom got ready for work. WBTA, our local AM radio station would be playing in the kitchen, as he listened to the news, interspersed with the commodity reports. (Pork bellies are up 15 cents!) I’d make my way downstairs in my PJ’s, and eat a nice big bowl of sugary cereal, and watch the morning cartoons. Once Mom had left for work, Dad would wash the dishes in the sink, and then turning to me while he was drying his hands he’d ask “You want to go bumming?” That was my signal to run upstairs, and get dressed.

Our destinations always varied, and he never would tell them to me until we were in the car. Then he’d say “Let’s go get apples and see the geese,” or “Let’s visit Ma,” or “Let’s drive over to the lake.” Sitting on the front seat of the big boat Chrysler, as we headed out of town always made me feel like a big kid, even if I needed Mom’s cushion to see out the window.

The fields and farms of Western New York would roll by outside the window, for Dad always took the scenic route. The direct road anywhere was for people lacking time and imagination. Instead he’d take every “short cut” he knew, driving up to Lyndonville on back roads, so we could go through the tunnel under the Erie Canal, or taking a route past the salt mine in Retsof, so he could tell me the story of how deep, and far the mines tunnels stretched underneath the ground.

He knew the history of every place we passed. What the significance of the place names meant, which roads were located along the path of old Indian trails, which hill once had a runaway semi-truck carrying gasoline crash into a house. Dad’s stories always tickled my imagination, until eventually the whole of Western New York was like a storybook I could read by looking out the window of the car.

Whether in the country, or up in the old neighborhood in Buffalo, we’d stop for lunch at some little Mom and Pop diner. He’d order an open-faced turkey sandwich covered in gravy, and I’d have a grilled cheese sandwich, with potato chips, and an ice-cold Coke. My folks were never too hung up about kids drinking caffeine. Given the fact that they drank coffee with breakfast, lunch and dinner, it only seemed natural to let the kids get wired too.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Family Values

narnia1I am sure I will see The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the recent movie made adaption of C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia series.  I have read the seven-book series to my kids multiple times and, despite depressing reviews like this one, I am sure I will soon be devoting one of the 1 or 2 movies I see a year to this feature. 

With this in mind, I found Laura Miller’s piece in today’s Wall Street Journal to be insightful.  Miller points out that one of the major themes in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader–the idea of child adventurers detached from their families–works decidedly against the evangelical Christian audience that the Walden Media hopes to reach with the film.  She writes:

Without a doubt, the “Chronicles” are infused with Christian ideas, but are they the same sort of ideas that define Christianity to America’s “faith-based community”? Not exactly, and in one crucial department, not at all.

The watchword of America’s socially conservative Christians is “family,” as in “family values” as well as “family entertainment.” It’s an ethos that places the nuclear family, headed by a married heterosexual couple, at its moral center. Marshaled against that stronghold, and aimed particularly at luring children away from their parents’ rightful authority, are the forces of a hostile secular world, full of venal temptations dangled by agenda-pursuing sexual deviants, political radicals and nonbelievers. To defend the family is to defend Christianity and vice-versa.


By this standard, the “Chronicles” as Lewis wrote them are sorely lacking in piety. At the beginning of “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” the Pevensie siblings are sent away from their home in London during the Blitz. Attempts to view this separation from their mother and father as traumatic are simply wishful thinking: The children never mention missing their parents (in fact, they barely mention them at all), and once they’ve jettisoned the White Witch from Narnia, they stick around for a decade or so to rule as kings and queens, apparently without even a glimmer of homesickness. Their return to this world is, on their part at least, an accident.

The rest of the “Chronicles” (with one exception) are very much the same: the child characters, while devoted to each other, never spare a thought for their parents or long to be reunited with them. To the contrary, they can imagine nothing better than staying in Narnia for ages. There are no Dorothy Gales in this bunch.

Be Countercultural: Get Married

According to this study by the Pew Research Center, the institution of marriage is in trouble.  The study concludes that:

Marriage remains the norm among the college educated, but is declining among those on the “lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder.”

In 1960, 68% of all “twenty-somethings” were married.  In 2008, just 26% of all “twenty-somethings” were married.

The “young” are more inclined to cohabitate without marriage and view same-sex and interracial marriages favorably.

“Family” remains important to most Americans, even though the definition of “family” is changing.

39% of Americans believe that marriage is “becoming obsolete.”

Americans are more “upbeat” about the future of marriage than they are about the future of the country’s educational system, economic system, and morality.

70% say that single women having children is bad for society and 61% say that a child needs a mother and a father “to grow up happily.”

In 1969, 68% of Americans believed premarital sex was wrong.  In 2009, 60% of Americans believe premarital sex is wrong.

94% of Americans believe that when compared to their parents their relationship with their spouse is either closer or the same.

86% of Americans believe that a single parent and a child constitute a family.  80% say that an unmarried couple living together with a child is a family.  63% say that a gay or lesbian couple living together with a child is a family.  The majority believe that a couple living together without a child is not a family.

Anyone want to interpret these statistics for me?