Robert Reich's I'll Be Short 2: Solutions and Counter-productive Consequences

In my latest reading of I'll Be Short: Essentials for a Decent Working Society, Robert Reich essentially addresses the issue of whether doing the right thing would have counter-productive consequences for businesses and workers.  You hear from a number of conservatives that it would----only they would disagree with many on the Left about what the right thing is.  Conservatives have argued that raising the minimum wage would result in unemployment; that unions encourage businesses to go overseas to escape union demands, or to hire fewer workers because each worker costs so much under unionization; and that Family and Medical Leave would result in the hiring of fewer women because it would be costly for businesses to train a female worker's replacement while she is on leave.

Reich argues that policies such as flexible work hours actually help businesses because they increase worker morale and productivity, reduce absenteeism, and keep good workers, which means that businesses would not have to spend as much money training new people.

But Reich also acknowledges that there could be such a thing as too much.  If the Earned Income Tax Credit is increased, for example, then businesses may pay their workers less because they know that the "taxpayers would make up the difference" (page 56).  Reich says that raising the minimum wage too high could discourage employers from hiring low-skilled workers or lead them to rely on machines rather than working people.  Reich does not think that unionization would necessarily encourage companies to go overseas, for most low-income people are in the "local service economy", and Reich refers favorably to efforts to unionize health care workers and raise janitors' wages.  And yet, Reich states that "there's a limit to how high unionized wages can go before employers find it cheaper to automate the jobs, cut back on staffing, or not offer the services to begin with" (page 56).  Reich says that the Federal Reserve could stimulate the economy and thus demand for low-wage workers, resulting in higher wages.  But, if that is taken too far, Reich says, the result could be inflation.  Reich then says that "the best way to make work pay is to ensure that everyone has an education sufficient to raise their productivity and thereby warrant higher pay" (page 57).

Reich states that "Together, a somewhat higher minimum wage, a somewhat expanded EITC, more unionization of low-wage workers, faster growth, and better education can lift full-time working families out of poverty" (page 57).  But Reich acknowledges that we may have to try until we get the "ideal combination of these measures", and yet he says that we're "rich enough and clever enough" for such a task (page 57).

I'd also like to note something that Reich says about welfare.  Here, too, Reich seeks to understand conservative positions about that issue.  Reich says that there was at one point resentment among working women towards welfare mothers who were only "slightly poorer" than they, for welfare mothers got to stay at home with their kids and receive welfare, whereas working mothers were out there trying to earn an income for their family after the loss of American manufacturing jobs.  But Reich then goes on to say that, now, many mothers are in the same boat, for the law aims to put welfare recipients into the workforce.  On page 59, Reich states that "direct handouts and income transfers to do the job" result in dependency and are hard to sustain politically, for "there's no political will to carry them out on a large scale."  Reich expresses openness to an idea that I read about in Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: give the poor capital.

I appreciate Robert Reich's acknowledgement of nuance.  I think that it's important to try to solve problems, while also keeping an eye out for potential drawbacks to proposed solutions.  Both need to be balanced.  We shouldn't decide not to solve problems because some solutions may have drawbacks.  But we should also seeks ways to lessen the drawbacks, or to seek better solutions.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 15

I finished Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

In my latest reading, Rick Santorum reaffirms a point that he made earlier in his book.  Up until now, I have not gotten around to mentioning this point in my posts on Santorum's book, but I consider it to be important.  Rick Santorum states on pages 423-424:

"The corrupting of our moral and cultural capital by the village elders has had devastating effects on the poor.  The cultural artifacts of the village elders teach us the lie that there are no negative consequences and no alternatives to the self-centered pursuit of pleasure...Here too the poor suffer much more than the village elders, simply because they usually don't have strong families and networks to fall back on and have fewer resources to recover from the consequences of their actions.  When a son of the Bigs lives the self-indulgent life the village elders prescribe and ends up with multiple addictions, there is always rehab and a second, third, and fourth chance.  When the son of the poor single mom does the same thing, he ends up either in a gang, on the street, in jail, or dead."

I'll let that quote stand, without commenting on it.

Overall, I enjoyed this book.  That doesn't mean that I agreed with all of it, and you can read my posts to see where I agreed and disagreed.  The positives of the book: Santorum's inspiring anecdotes about people who do the right thing (i.e., helping the poor, choosing to clean up their lives to become responsible parents, etc.), his down-home advice about parenting, the conversational style of his book, his concern about the entertainment media (without going overboard and favoring flat stories), and the times that he tries to understand liberal arguments and either acknowledges that liberals have valid concerns or offers fairly decent counter-arguments.  The negative: his us vs. them mindset, as he stigmatizes the so-called village elders.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 14

In my latest reading of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Santorum talks about education, from public education to higher education.  Santorum favors teaching students about Intelligent Design, while also allowing teachers to present the reasons why most scientists believe in evolution.  Regarding higher education, Santorum laments that it's dominated by liberals.  While he applauds programs that bring conservative speakers to campuses, he does not think that goes far enough, since faculties are still overwhelmingly liberal and tend to persecute conservative students and professors.

On the one hand, Santorum appeals to the importance of debating ideas within education, and that's why he favors including alternative points-of-view.  On the other hand, I get the sense that he also wants to counter ideas that he considers to be dangerous (not through censorship, though).  For example, although he talks about evolutionists who see a divine process leading evolution up to a good end, he treats evolution as a sort of nihilism that is inconsistent with teaching values.  That's just my impression.

I'm one who believes that different points-of-view should be taught in schools and universities.  I'm aware that this needs a significant amount of fleshing out, for, obviously, we can't teach everything.  But, if there is a significant amount of controversy about an issue, and schools are discussing that issue in their classes, then students should be told about the different perspectives about it.

"But evolution is not controversial, for the vast majority of scientists accept it", people have said.  True, and that should be taught.  Yet, there are people who have problems with evolution, for religious or other reasons.  That should be acknowledged in schools, as well.  Simply ignoring that people have problems with evolution (even if they're wrong) does not make that fact go away.

"But then shouldn't we teach also that the earth came from the womb of the goddess?", one could ask.  Look, if there was a sizeable number of people who had issues with evolution because they believed that the earth came from the womb of the goddess, then, yes, that belief should somehow be addressed in the classroom.  Ignoring it wouldn't help matters.  I do think, though, that students should be exposed to evolution and the scientific justifications for it.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 13

In my latest reading of It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Rick Santorum talked about education.  I'll use as my starting-point something that Santorum says on page 386 as he defends homeschooling against the charge that homeschooled kids are deprived of socialization opportunities:

"By asking the right question, we can see that when it comes to socialization, mass education is really the aberration, not homeschooling.  Never before in human history have a majority of children spent at least half their waking hours in the presence of 25 to 35 unrelated children of exactly the same age (and usually the same socioeconomic status), with only one adult to keep order and provide basic mentoring.  Never before and never again after their years of mass education will any person live and work in such a radically narrow, age-segregated environment.  It's amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools.  In a home school, by contrast, children interact in a rich and complex way with adults and children of other ages all the time.  In general, they are better-adjusted, more at ease with adults, more capable of conversation, more able to notice when a younger child needs help or comfort, and in general a lot better socialized than their mass-schooled peers."

I appreciated this passage because I've long had issues with the elitism of some public school professionals, who have the audacity to criticize homeschooling, when public schools are far from perfect.  I'm not suggesting that Santorum is against public school teachers, for he talks about good teachers who actually want to work with parents to help kids get a better education.  My experience has been that this sort of concern spans the political spectrum among teachers, for I once had a liberal social studies teacher who said that any parent was welcome to come to his class to observe, no questions asked.  But I still have issues with how some public school teachers and professionals act so high and mighty.

At the same time, I think that public schools are important, for they bring different people together (to some extent).  I fear that an emphasis on private schools and homeschooling could result in right-wing fundamentalists indoctrinating their kids to hate and to fear people and ideas that run contrary to right-wing fundamentalist beliefs.  I acknowledge the value of many of Santorum's arguments: that there are parochial schools that are more diverse than public schools, that the poor should have a chance to receive a good education, that homeschooling allows for parents to spend more time with their children, that homeschooled kids perform well on tests, etc.  But I still have my concerns.  I'm not suggesting that people should not be right-wing fundamentalists, but I think that it's important for them to be around people who are different from them, so that diverse people can learn to get along with each other and to respect one another, notwithstanding their different beliefs.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 12

In my latest reading of It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Rick Santorum continued to talk about how the entertainment media's focus on illicit sex and violence could harm kids.  He commended companies (such as Wal-Mart) that try to clean up the culture for kids, lamented that piracy enables children to see rotten movies, presented public policy proposals for dealing with the culture (which sometimes entailed censorship of such things as pornography, since Santorum believes that the First Amendment is primarily about protecting political speech and not smut, but his proposals mostly related to the government making it easier for private interests to clean up the entertainment media for children, without necessarily banning mature movies for adults), exhorted families to monitor what their kids watched and to turn off the TV and tell their kids stories, and affirmed that schools should teach values.

What I want to highlight here, however, is something that Santorum says on pages 357-358:

"In addition to the usual checklist of learning skills, sciences, and humanities, the orientation of education toward truth should include moral truth as well.  I know this will strike some readers as either dangerous or impossible for a public school system in a pluralistic democracy, but that's because we all tend to focus on a few highly contentious areas of morality in our culture, mostly revolving around human life and sexuality.  But what about honesty and loyalty?  What about self-control and self-sacrifice?  Aren't these true values that we can agree to teach our children as being part of an objective moral reality?"

I appreciate Santorum's willingness here to search for common moral ground rather than obsessing over controversial issues.  I guess my question is this: Don't schools teach morality already?  Good behavior in the classroom is necessary for the class to run smoothly, after all!  There are right-wingers who have criticized situational-ethics exercises in the classroom as an attack on morality being absolute, but, heck, acknowledging that there are gray areas and difficult dilemmas does not nullify morality as a whole, or the truth that it is wrong to be inconsiderate of others and to hurt them.  Santorum will be criticizing "value-free" education that promotes tolerance, for he mentions that on page 358, but I have not yet read his specific criticisms.  But I don't think that the current educational system is completely "value-free".  Tolerance, after all, is a value, as long as we're not tolerating acts that directly hurt others.

UPDATE: On pages 388-389, Santorum acknowledges that liberals are committed to certain correct values (i.e., equality) and states that "tolerance, properly understood" should be taught.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 11

In my latest reading of It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Rick Santorum criticizes the violence and illicit sex (without consequences) in the stories that come out of the entertainment media, and he urges conservatives to enter the media to create stories that are more realistic.  Santorum also talks about meeting Fred Rogers, whom he says (like many say) was "the same in person as he was on TV."  What I particularly liked was Santorum's discussion of art on page 327:

"I cannot pretend to fathom the mind of a true artist.  I cannot play an instrument; I can barely draw a circle; I don't even take good photos.  How cultural artifacts are created is a great mystery to me.  And from what I understand, it is often a mystery to the artists as well.  I have often been told that the layers of meaning in a particular artwork such as a song or a film often are revealed to the artist himself only long after the work is complete.  Its shaping and forming influence is often subliminal, and therefore all the more powerful in the long run."

This may be relevant to a question in biblical studies and interpretation: Should we just go with what the original author meant when writing a passage, or can the passage have a life of its own, conveying meanings that were not apparent to the original author?  And, if the latter is the case, what are the controls against eisegesis----people reading into passages whatever they want?

But Santorum appears to acknowledge the artist's intention even behind things that were not apparent to the artist when he was crafting his work.  What is the subliminal influence that Santorum mentions?  Is it something in the artist's sub-conscious that comes out in the artist's creation, yet is not immediately apparent to the artist?

Or can the artist see different ways to interpret his work after its completion, even ways that he did not envision when creating it?  These ways may not do violence to the work, but they are legitimate ways to make sense of the work of art that's there.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 10

In my latest reading of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Santorum offered some thoughtful insights on movies and stories.  A lot of his discussion on this topic was lamenting the illicit sex without consequences and the anti-hero in today's stories, which he contrasts with the clear delineation of good and evil in stories of the past.  But Santorum makes clear that he's not in favor of flat stories that do not show anything unpleasant.  Here are some of his insights about stories:

Page 275: "An ancient rabbinic saying is that 'God made people because He loves stories.'  I say, 'Man makes stories because God made us to love.'"

On page 282, Santorum quotes novelist Walker Percy, who said: "Judeo-Christianity is about pilgrims who have something wrong with them and embark on a search to find a way out.  This is also what novels are about."

Pages 285-286: "Cultural capital consists of the stories, images, music, and practices----all the 'artifacts' and the activities that are the fruit of leisure----that explain ourselves to ourselves, the whole of ourselves, and which do so truthfully, honestly."

I agree with a lot of this.  I love stories that encourage me to care for the characters.  I believe that good stories have characters who grow.  And I think that good stories have realism or (even if they're unrealistic) communicate values.

Santorum takes a swipe at Desperate Housewives, but I think that the series fits what Santorum considers to be a good story, at least in many areas.  It makes me care for the characters.  It presents characters who learn and grow, notwithstanding their flaws.  And, while I agree with Santorum that it does not promote a morality in which sex is reserved solely for heterosexual marriage (since there are gay characters and also people who live together), it does have story-lines that depict the bad consequences of adultery, as well as highlights that pre-marital sex can result in a baby.  Moreover, it has had positive episodes about faith.  I'd say that these are characteristics that I've observed in a number of TV shows and movies nowadays.

Rick Santorum, It Takes a Family 9

In my latest reading of It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Rick Santorum talked about abortion.  Sub-topics included: How he arrived at his pro-life stance; how he did not focus on abortion in his congressional and Senatorial races (in areas that had a lot of Democrats) but felt compelled to take a public stand in the partial-birth abortion debate; how his wife had a baby with severe defects (the sorts of babies who are often casualties of partial-birth abortion) and loved that baby during the baby's brief life; and how Santorum gave a hundred minute speech against partial-birth abortion in a last-ditched attempt to gather votes to override President Bill Clinton's veto, and, while he failed to get the votes, he did dissuade a lady watching him on C-Span from having an abortion.  There was more to my reading, but those were some of my favorite passages.

Santorum makes an excellent point on pages 262-263, but my question is whether his statement there is at odds with other things he has said.  Santorum states: "I know that for so many women this is the most painful decision in their lives: but the family, the churches, community organizations, and even the government have to be there to help.  Not just during the pregnancy and after the baby is born, but before.  I have introduced a bill to provide government grants for organizations that provide everything from prenatal care to diapers and baby clothes.  If abortion proponents are interested in 'choice,' they should join us in helping poor women afford the choice to have a baby."

But how does this jive with Santorum's criticism of the welfare system (which serves many low-income single mothers), and his statement during his Presidential campaign that health insurance should not be required to cover prenatal tests, which he thinks will encourage abortions because parents could abort their kid when they learn that he has defects?  Prenatal tests could do that, but they could also be an essential part of prenatal care.

Moreover, Santorum talks about how there are babies with birth defects who survive through medical care, against those who argue that partial-birth abortion may be necessary on account of such babies.  Santorum makes a valuable point, but that kind of medical care probably costs a lot, especially in America's health care system.  Health care reform should be part of a pro-life policy.

One area in which I was disappointed in Santorum's discussion about abortion is that he did not talk much about cases in which having a child can take a serious toll on the physical health of the mother.  He mentions that particular argument, so he is aware of it, but (at least in my latest reading) he does not engage it.  I think that this aspect of the debate is important, for one reason that Bill Clinton had issues with banning partial-birth abortion was that he did not feel that the bill in question contained a sufficient exception for the health of the mother.  I recall reading a reference Clinton made to mothers becoming crippled on account of childbirth.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 8

In this write-up on my latest reading of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, I'll highlight where Santorum tries to add a tone of moderation to his controversial positions.  Here are three areas in which he seeks to do so:

1.  Earlier in the book, Santorum appeared to argue that it's preferable for a mother to stay at home rather than pursue a career.  On page 211, however, he states:

"The 1950s were not without moral blemishes.  Many conservatives recognize that there was something unsustainable about the role of women made normative in that period, for example.  Allen Carlson has argued that whereas the household had once been a center of productive activity, the advance of industrial technology and suburbanization often left women with few roles beyond those of infant caregiver and consumption specialist, i.e., shopper."

This sounds a lot like Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique, which argues that consigning women solely to the domestic sphere leaves them bored and unfulfilled, resulting in damage to the women and also their families.

2.  Santorum argues that Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law against the use of contraceptives and affirmed the right to privacy, was a bad decision, a reason being that it established a right to privacy that went beyond what the framers of the Constitution intended and set the stage for Roe vs. Wade.  But Santorum makes clear that he does not agree with the Connecticut law against contraception, and that he believes that the judges who decided Griswold vs. Connecticut were acting according to a tradition of common law, which held that the government should not intervene in the lives of married couples.

3.  Santorum criticizes Lawrence vs. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that invalidated laws against sodomy.  Santorum tried to clarify remarks he made that this could set the stage for a right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery.  Santorum says that he was not equating homosexuality with those things.  But Santorum does argue that the Lawrence decision has set the stage for state-sanctioned same-sex marriage, and he notes that polygamists have challenged statutes against polygamy on the basis of the Lawrence decision.

So does Santorum support criminalizing homosexual sex?  To be honest, it's tough to tell.  On page 215, he says that he's not in favor of the government "snooping through people's private lives".  At the same time, he does appear to argue that liberty must coincide with virtue, and that a lack of virtue leads to more government restrictions.  Does that mean that he's open to the government restricting people from doing what he considers to be contrary to virtue?  Of course, most people are for the government prohibiting certain wrong behaviors (i.e., theft, fraud, murder), but does Santorum think that homosexuality should be banned as something that is not virtuous?

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 7

In my latest reading of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Public Good, I liked Santorum's discussion of Tommy D's Home Improvement Centers, one of which is in West Philadelphia, which is the inner-city.  (Remember Will Smith on the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air: "In West Philadelphia I was born and raised, on a playground where I spent most of my days...")

Tom Delany, who built the business, reports that "In our stores, 90 percent of the workforce can walk to work, and probably 60 percent do just that."  This business employs people in the inner-city.  And the business takes care of its employees, not just the owner.  The employees receive good benefits, and there are monthly bonuses.  And the business participates in a program that advises employees and their families who want expert counsel regarding finances, child care, and other issues.  Moreover, Tom employs a number of people who have been to jail, people who really want to work.  The recidivism rate among these employees is very low.

I admire Tom Delany for giving people a chance and for treating his employees well.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 6

For my write-up today on Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, I'll highlight areas in which Rick Santorum worked with Democrats, in terms of what Santorum discussed in my latest reading of his book.

1.  On pages 151-152, Santorum talks about his work with Senator Joseph Lieberman to create Individual Development Accounts for the low-income.  (But I do not know if Lieberman was still a Democrat at the time that he worked with Santorum on this.)  According to this plan, organizations would assist low-income clients in setting up accounts, train the clients on how to manage and grow them, and "match individual contributions to these accounts dollar-to-dollar up to $500 a year."  These accounts can be used for purchasing a home, paying for education, or starting a business, and Santorum says that the outcome will be "new businesses, new jobs, increased earnings, higher tax receipts, and reduced welfare expenditures."

What would the federal government and state governments do in terms of these accounts?  First of all, the interest accruing on these accounts would be tax-free.  Second, there would be tax-credits for private institutions that create IDAs.  And third, governments would contribute dollars.  Santorum states that states are setting up IDA programs with money from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program.

2.  Okay, you're saying that Lieberman is fairly conservative, and so it's not a wonder that Santorum would work with him.  But, on pages 152-153, Santorum talks about kicking around an idea with Senator Bob Kerrey and working with Senator Jon Corzine on a plan.  This plan would create a tax-free (until the money is withdrawn) savings account for every child born in the United States.  The federal government would contribute $500, and kids in homes that make below the median income could get additional money up to $500.  Private interests can contribute to the accounts, and lower-income children would "be eligible to receive a dollar-for-dollar match on the first $500 contributed to their accounts each year."  Kids can withdraw the money once they turn 18, but they must leave $500 in the account for education, purchasing a home, or retirement.

3.  I talked yesterday about Santorum's controversial support for the Nehemiah Project, which helps the low-income to buy a house.  With Diane Feinstein, Santorum introduced a bill that would consider the Nehemiah Project (and similar projects) a charitable activity under the IRS code.  Santorum states on page 162 that "The bill will ensure that legitimate nonprofit assistance programs are protected while also providing some congressionally directed oversight to prevent abuses."

4.  On page 176, Santorum says that he worked with Republicans and former President Bill Clinton on incentivizing investment in low-income areas.  Santorum states that the renewal communities "provide a variety of tax incentives, including a zero capital-gains rate for investments in these communities, while requiring those local communities and governments that wish to participate to shed unnecessary regulatory burdens."

5.  On page 179, Santorum discusses something that he and Carol Mosley Braun added to the 1996 welfare-reform law.  It enabled people from poor areas to get to the suburbs to work, since low-skill jobs have migrated to the suburbs, and there are many among the urban poor who do not have cars.  Unfortunately, many "mass-transit commuter routes" did not go out to the suburbs.  Consequently, Santorum and Braun supported "Federal reverse-commuting dollars [helping to] subsidize routes from reclamation areas to suburban job centers." 

In light of the us vs. them tone that Santorum often uses in the book when talking about liberals and Democrats, I find his discussions about his bi-partisan work to be refreshing.  At the same time, while I appreciate his goal of providing the low-income with a means to increase in wealth, I question whether it's prudent to replace the welfare system (or parts of the welfare system) with his ideas.  I wonder if his ideas could help the poor keep up with costs, the way that (say) food stamps and low-income federal housing do.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 5

My latest reading of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family focused on welfare reform and how to help the poor. I have five items:

1.  To his credit, Rick Santorum appears to be supportive of the earned-income tax credit for the working poor, something that Newt Gingrich in Lessons Learned the Hard Way was open to abolishing on account of the fraud within it.  I think that it's good to supplement the income of the working poor, since that could encourage work.  At the same time, I did not care for how Santorum pooh-poohed the idea that the poor are entitled to a living wage.  He talks about the financial burdens on middle-class families and the necessity for tax reform to alleviate those burdens, so doesn't he realize that there are financial burdens for the lower-income as well----that they need an income that is sufficient to support their families?  I'm tempted to say that Santorum does not understand the problems of the poor, but I have to give him some credit: He employed people on his staff who had been on welfare, and he was open to learning from them.

2.  Santorum makes the point that Bill Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, and then signed it the third time, after which Clinton sought to chip away at the welfare reform law's provisions.  But there are two sides to every story.  And, whether or not you trust Bill Clinton, it's a good idea to consider his side.  In this opinion piece, Clinton says: "The Republicans wanted to require able-bodied people to work, but were opposed to continuing the federal guarantees of food and medical care to their children and to spending enough on education, training, transportation and child care to enable people to go to work in lower-wage jobs without hurting their children."

Both Santorum and Clinton treat welfare reform as a success, and, in a sense, it was.  But, as Jason DeParle (whom Santorum cites as an authority on welfare in his book) points out, it has not been overly successful during the latest recession and hereafter (see here and here).  Rather, the time-limits for receiving welfare have placed a number of poor families in desperate straits.

I agree with Santorum that welfare before welfare reform was problematic, for the goal of welfare should be to bring the poor into the workplace.  The question is how to do that.  Personally, I think it's a good idea to put the people on welfare who are having difficulty finding work in New Deal-like programs, where they can work, make money, and then spend that money to stimulate the economy.

3.  Santorum says that welfare reform should prioritize work over education, for those who enter the workplace from welfare make more money, plus they gain work experience.  But, as Ruth Conniff of The Progressive pointed out, that attitude contradicts a story that Santorum glowingly told in his book about a woman who left her abusive husband, got an education, and got off welfare.  Santorum believes in encouraging the poor to marry, but the problem is that women may be married to abusive spouses whom they should leave.  And, while Santorum questions the value of education in helping the poor to advance, his anecdote demonstrates that education can be a means to advancement.  I wonder if there is a way, though, for the poor to receive education and training, and also to get work experience.

4.  Santorum says that welfare mothers should work, when, earlier in the book, he recommends that mothers stay at home to raise their kids rather than pursuing careers.  It annoys me when people on the right do not spot this contradiction in their mindset (but at least some of the right-wing contributors to the books that Phyllis Schlafly edited criticized welfare reform that pushes mothers into the workforce).  Santorum says that parents should spend time with their children.  Well, remember that working welfare mom on Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, who had to work long hours (and thus be away from her children) to satisfy welfare reform requirements? 

5.  Santorum speaks highly of the Nehemiah Project, which seeks to help the poor to purchase a house.  Santorum states on page 148 that some who worked in HUD feared that there would be default rates as a result of the Nehemiah Project's work.  Well, some have argued that the Nehemiah Project helped set the stage for the defaults and the economic crisis that resulted (see here and here).

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 4

Here are some items from my latest reading of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

1.  Santorum does not support passing out condoms to teens in school, for he thinks that sends out a message of low expectations: We don't expect for many teens to abstain, so here's some contraception.  Against this mindset, Santorum cites the 1991 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which says that 54 percent of high school students have had sex, and Santorum notes that this percentage was down to 46 percent in 2001.  That means that most high school students are virgins, even though Santorum acknowledges that it is not that overwhelming of a majority.

Personally, I'm in favor of abstinence-plus education.  I support contraception being available, but I also think that sex education should teach teens that abstinence is okay, and to respect themselves and others.

2.  Santorum thinks that the tax system should be reformed to help families.  He has problems with the marriage penalty, and also with phasing out the per-child tax credit for families making $110,000 a year, since such a family would need that tax credit if it had (say) eight children!  Santorum also talks about how the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to make sure that the "super-wealthy were paying their fair share at a time when tax shelters were commonplace", hurts families that take advantage of deductions, since these families are deemed to be paying "not enough" (pages 96-97).

3.  Santorum is a strong proponent of parents spending time with their kids.  He supports parents talking with their kids and families eating dinner together.  In the book, he also appears to be critical of mothers with kids pursuing careers, which came back to bite him during his Presidential campaign.  But he also wants fathers to spend time with their children.  In terms of how he believes that public policy can encourage this, his ideas go "from providing money for regional telecommuting planning, to providing pollution credits to companies that encourage their employees to telecommute, to giving a tax credit to individuals and companies" (page 94----see here for information on telecommuting).  He also supports amending the Federal Labor Standards Act to allow hourly workers to choose comp or flex time over overtime.

I don't think that women need to stay home all day to spend quality time with their children.  There is something to be said for them finding fulfillment outside of the home.  At the same time, I appreciate that Santorum does not want for parents to be so bound to the capitalist treadmill that they don't have time to spend with their kids.  For him, there's more to life and society than the bottom line. 

4.  Santorum believes that religion is beneficial to society.  He says that institutions affiliated with religions (i.e., Catholic hospitals) should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs, even when they receive federal funds, the same way that Planned Parenthood can act according to its beliefs when receiving federal funds.  (But isn't Planned Parenthood barred from spending tax money on abortion?)  Santorum also talks about how Prison Fellowship, which teaches prisoners faith and morality and gives them a network to get back on their feet after being released from prison, has produced a lower recidivism rate among participants, in comparison to prisoners who are not in Prison Fellowship programs.  Santorum believes that the government should support these kinds of programs, and, against those who cry "Separation of Church and State", he replies that such a phrase is not in the Constitution.  At the same time, in defending faith-based initiatives, Santorum states that President George W. Bush took measures to ensure that federal funds were not being used to proselytize or to condition help on participation in religious activities.

I appreciated a point that Santorum made on page 103, where he talked about introducing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act with John Kerry.  This act required the workplace to accommodate people's religious practices, such as observance of the Seventh-Day Sabbath.  Although the ACLU has advanced legitimate arguments against this law (see here), I am appreciative of Santorum's sensitivity to the issue, as one who has been in denominations that keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 3

There was a lot of good stuff in my latest reading of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.  Here are two items:

1.  On Page 62, Santorum says: "...in many states, convicted felons can never vote, practically ensuring that large numbers of black men are permanently disengaged from civic life.  That is why I have supported state laws and even voted for federal laws allowing felons to vote again, provided they have been crime-free for five years."

Some may have issues with Santorum bringing up race when talking about felonies, but Santorum does present statistics about how crime hits the African-American community hard.  For Santorum, strong social capital can be a panacea to this problem, and that entails civic participation.  I applaud Santorum's stance for restorative justice (if that is the right phrase), which respects the humanity even of felons and seeks ways to discourage them from committing more crimes.  Redemption was a salient theme in my reading of Santorum last night, for Santorum tells a moving story about a druggie who decides to become a good father and makes a turn-around in his life.

2. On a similar note, here's a passage from page 75: "For decades, the [liberal] village elders have talked about the need to address 'root causes' of our social problems.  For decades, conservative criticism of liberal policy has argued that the focus on 'root causes' was merely a cover for a liberal resolution not to enforce basic laws of public order.  But there has been something even more out of whack with liberal policy: it has never really understood what the real root causes are."

For Santorum, the real root causes of our social problems stem from the disintegration of the two-parent family, and Santorum especially focuses on the absence of fathers.  For Santorum, the two-parent family provides children with security so that they can go out into the world with trust rather than suspicion.  Santorum also notes that grandparents are a blessing for children who have two parents, for grandparents are generous and are easy for kids to talk to.

In terms of policy, what does Santorum believe should be done to strengthen or restore the family?  Well, on the one hand, Santorum thinks that government involvement in areas undermines the social capital, for it encourages people to turn to an impersonal bureaucracy rather than their neighbors.  Santorum favors a concept in Catholic social thought called "subsidiary", and the idea here is that "all social challenges should be addressed at the level of the smallest unit possible, preferably the family" (page 68).  Santorum acknowledges that sometimes the smallest unit that can truly handle a problem is the federal government, and that's why he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Santorum also speaks positively about the New Deal.  But my impression is that, overall, he thinks that federal involvement should be the exception rather than the norm.  And he believes that the government has done more harm than good and has not addressed the real problem of family disintegration.  Santorum notes that welfare, for example, primarily goes to single-parent families, and he also refers to a statement by Jason DeParle (a New York Times reporter who covers welfare issues) that the families he studied have no problem finding day care (contra liberals who think that federally-subsidized day care is a solution) but rather finding fathers.

On the other hand, Santorum does believe that there are things that the government can do to strengthen the family.  He supports the government paying for people to receive counseling in regards to marriage, for he believes that the government should encourage marriage.  He supports faith-based initiatives, and he co-sponsored with Democratic Senator Evan Bayh a measure to give $50 million annually to "community- and faith-based programs that promote and foster healthy fatherhood" (page 81).  Santorum supports abstinence-only education, and he cites studies about its effectiveness and the effectiveness of abstinence-pledges (from such publications as the Journal of the American Medical Association and Family Planning Perspectives).  And, while he was initially an opponent of Americorps and still thinks (as of 2005) that it has some waste, he now believes that it is positive in that it encourages social capital.

I think that Santorum has good points, but also that he's pretty selective about what data he chooses to focus on, since there are studies about the ineffectiveness of abstinence education and pledges.  What I appreciate is (1.) how his approach to crime goes way beyond "lock em up", (2.) how he was willing to admit that he was wrong (or not fully right) on Americorps, and (3.) how he worked with a Democrat in an attempt to fashion a pro-family policy.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 2

In my latest reading of It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Rick Santorum criticizes same-sex marriage and laments the erosion of community.

Essentially, Santorum longs for communitarianism, which entails people thinking about the well-being of others.  For Santorum, traditional marriage is consistent with that because it entails a man and a woman committing to each other and to their children.  And community associations such as bowling-leagues foster selflessness and community because members have to show up because their team is counting on them.  When there is a greater sense of community, Santorum argues, there is social capital, and this is the sort of thing that can help the poor.

Santorum associates same-sex marriage with individualism, for it makes marriage a matter of romantic attachment rather than commitment to children.  But I ask: Could same-sex marriage be consistent with values such as commitment and selflessness?  I agree with Santorum that it's tragic that marriage these days has become a lot like dating or going steady, but I don't think that same-sex marriage is responsible for that, or that same-sex marriage has to be like that.

At the same time, I wonder: If we as a country are to disregard what our Judeo-Christian heritage says about homosexuality, does that relegate that heritage to a state of non-importance?  What narrative, then, would we have that could help us to strengthen families and communities?  Like it or not, our Judeo-Christian heritage has been a significant factor in encouraging Americans to be selfless.  What could we replace it with?  Or would we even need to replace it, since there are gay-friendly versions of Christianity, plus even American Christianity disregards parts of the Bible (knowingly or unknowingly)?

Regarding same-sex marriage, Santorum believes that marriage being primarily a matter of romantic attachment has contributed to the declining birth rates in Europe.  The result, Santorum argues, is that in Europe there will not be a sufficient younger generation to support the older generation.

Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family 1

I started Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

So why am I reading and blogging about this book, when Rick Santorum is out of the race for the Republican nomination for President?  First of all, I think that Santorum has valuable insights, whether or not I agree with all that he has to say.  Second, I've been wanting to read this book ever since I first saw Santorum talk about it on C-Span, and that was long before he ran for President.  In fact, he was still a Senator at the time!  Santorum in that interview was criticizing individualistic conservatism and promoting a communitarian sort of conservatism, and (even though I was not yet disenchanted with conservatism) I admired that kind of outside-of-the-box thinking. 

And, third, while I respect Santorum's belief that the nuclear family and moral values are good for society, I wonder how exactly he thinks that government policy can uphold those things.  When he was running for President, Santorum said that Republicans should not only focus on tax cuts, but should also support strong families.  But how exactly does he think that Republicans in power can support strong families?  Can they seriously turn back the clock to the 1950's?  I wanted to read this book to see where Santorum believes that the government can help families, and where he believes that the government is harming the family.  I also wanted to see if his family policy encompasses more than opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

In my post here, I will feature and comment on three passages that stood out to me.

1.  On pages ix-x, Santorum states: "I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor: they hadn't even thought much about what might work better.  I often described my conservative colleagues during that time as simply 'cheap liberals.'  My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those less fortunate..."

I think that the sub-text here is that strong families can help the poor.  At the same time, things that Santorum says elsewhere in my reading of this book thus far add nuance to Santorum's argument.  Santorum appears to think that strong families are good for society, period, whether or not they make people financially well-off, and the reason is that healthy families teach moral values and provide children with emotional security.  Santorum acknowledges that there are rich families that are not good families, for the father is so busy that he fails to spend time with his children.  And Santorum also compares immigrant Latino teens with Latino teens born in the U.S., stating that, although the immigrant Latino families are poorer, their families and moral values are stronger, and so they are less likely to engage in violence.  Santorum believes that a strong economy can help families, but he does not think that money is where everything is at.  (UPDATE: On page 422, Santorum states: "Poor families, after all, will most likely be healthier if they are wealthier.")

2.  On page x, Santorum states: "My district and [the welfare-reform] bill started me down the road to building up a conservative philosophy within which we could use government policies and dollars as a catalyst to renew and re-form the poor families and communities in our country."

This passage reminded me of how some people have characterized neo-conservatism: as a belief system that holds that the government should encourage and incentivize doing the right thing, such as getting married. To some, that sort of sentiment can sound pretty patronizing and condescending!

In my reading of the book so far, I have not encountered Santorum's policy proposals for strong families, but my impression is definitely that he wants for people to live in a certain way.  He believes that couples should get married rather than live together apart from marriage, for many couples who live together end up getting a divorce.  (Santorum even says that the shotgun marriages of the old days were sometimes a good thing, and that made me think of Little House on the Prairie, in which Nellie and Percival marry each other, without having known each other that long.  And that turned out all right!)  Santorum laments that, in inner cities, social service agencies do not encourage young couples to get married, but they simply require the father of the baby to sign a paternity establishment paper so that the authorities can come after him for child support; for Santorum, that demonstrates the agencies' low expectations of people in the inner city.  Santorum also dislikes No-Fault divorce, and he believes that two-parent families are preferable to single-parent families----although he acknowledges that there are single-parent families that are healthy, and two-parent families that are unhealthy.

Santorum appears to want for the government to encourage marriage.  At the same time, when he acknowledges that there are two-parent families that are not healthy, that makes me think that there are limits to what the government can do.  The government can encourage people to get married, but can it make the couples good parents?

3.  On page 16, Santorum states the following: "Liberal social policy has never put an emphasis on the family because the village elders, frankly, don't believe in the importance of strong, traditional families...They think of society as fundamentally made up of individuals guided by elite and 'expert' organizations like government, not the antiquated, perhaps uneducated, independent family.  The village elders want society to be individualistic, because a society composed only of individuals responds better to 'expert' command and control.  Your father or your grandmother (or your priest or rabbi) may give you advice that contradicts the latest 'expert' wisdom.  The village elders just don't want such competition."

By "village elders", Santorum essentially means the liberal elite, which includes government, the media, academia, and other institutions.  He distinguishes this elite from your liberal neighbor down the street, who may be a really good parent, and he states that there are many village elders who don't have families of their own.  Santorum also observes that even some liberals agree that the decline of the family is a serious problem, for he refers to a conversation that he had with staff at a college newspaper in which liberal students identified the breakup of the family as the greatest problem in society today.  But Santorum still believes that a liberal elite is part of the problem in American society.  I agree and disagree with this view.  Where I agree is that I think that the entertainment industry perpetuates a cheap attitude towards sex, and I believe that this is deleterious to society.  Where I disagree is that I do not accept Santorum's characterization of the liberal elite as amoral, for I think that the liberal elite is guided by a morality, which includes helping the poor and the disadvantaged.

Where do I stand on Santorum's statement that the village elders do not want competition from the family?  I think that there is a place for expert wisdom and also for family wisdom, and yet both experts and families are flawed.  Experts are not always right, as we can see from the changes in expert opinion over the years.  Yet, there is something valuable in looking to studies for guidance, something that Santorum himself does in this book.  And families can be repositories of prejudice, yet they can also be places to draw from the common sense and experience of one's elders.