Copyright 1997 - 2008,

by Surly

When I heard a lawyer on a radio talk show the other day expounding that only the family has any responsibility to and for children I was struck by the irresponsible and isolationist view he was promulgating. This was not a ranting right-wing orator, but a cool, concerned conservative. What is more disturbing about this viewpoint is that many americans are buying into it and perhaps shirking a social responsibility. Is the family to withdraw totally from society, become a fortress against all others?

The conservative viewpoint has been accused of being hard-hearted. Charitable giving is declining while conservatives call for more charity to replace welfare programs. When we cut basic welfare and healthcare for the truly unfortunate, then we hurt society - everyone of us. Its health declines. The current and uncertain economic climate certainly has something to do with it. People do not feel secure in their jobs and so are not inclined to give freely. But we americans have prided ourselves in being the most charitable and compassionate people on earth. Are we? We may have been charitable when we had money to spend, but how many of us have ever really been compassionate? Compassion means feeling with the unfortunate. How many of us can do that? Certainly we are not feeling much compassion for the people of Bosnia, Rwanda or Burundi when we hesitate to commit troops to help keep the peace and prevent massive loss of human life or to send them aid. It seems that we only want to take care of our own. Even that seems to be fragmenting into smaller, like-minded social groupings.

In the brunt of attacks on them by the right wing, many of us are questioning the roles of major governmental social institutions because of their inefficiencies and sometimes corrupt officials. But they have served us, if not as well as we would have liked. If we sweep them away what will replace them? Every society needs some social service institutions, such as public health, under government to make them available to all citizens as a function of society caring for itself and the well-being of its members. But this concept wars with the ingrained american ideology of independence and self-sufficiency. This, the right wing is now exploiting. However, in our complex and highly interrelated society it is extremely difficult to be totally independent and isolated. Thus the right will create a socio/political vacuum. What institutions will they put in the place of the existing ones they want to destroy?

Of course, many right-wing religious fundamentalists want most social power to reside in the family and the church. They don't want a pluralist society, only a theocratic one following one interpretation of morality. They don't want the society at large to offer values to their children for fear that they might be taught something not of their belief. This is a recipe for dictatorship.

The problem of family control and responsibility for children is a philosophical one that hits at the core of human rights issues. If children are property of the family, as some right-wingers seem to believe, then they may have no rights. But we do recognize rights for children, however giving parents the responsibility for their care and protection for the rights they cannot yet assert. This is a social responsibility. A family cannot own children; a society cannot own children, but both have a responsibility for their care and protection until they can survive on their own. Parents have a duty to society to raise children, not for their own ends, otherwise it is the duty of society to remove children from irresponsible and abusive parents and place them in a better parenting situation. It is in the best interests of a society and its children that all children be taught all of the views that are in the current debate as well as its history. This, many in the political right refuse to do.

What is the proper role of society? What responsibilities do individuals have to it and it to them? If we are moving toward an isolationist family structure then we are perilously close to violating the basic social contract. The interactive and open society that we know could collapse.