Quote:
Originally posted by geep
While I somewhat agree with the above idea or explaination, I feel it's ironic that the family, which suffers under the liberal model, is used in such a positive parallel.
|
I'm not sure I agree that the family suffers under the liberal model. There are aspects of conservatism and liberalism both that support different aspects of families - again, it depends on your values. Liberalism wants to provide an economic safety net for families and provide basic services, particularly for children. It could definitely be argued that liberalisms emphasis on personal freedoms threatens the
traditional model of the family, but it also extends the concept of "family" to more and more people - single parents, same-sex couples, "blended" families, etc.
Conservatism on the other hand wants a very defined, traditional concept of family: mother, father, kids, one parent at home, and they try to enforce/encourage that model through their own forms of social engineering. However, they do very little to support that concept financially. The fiscal policies enacted by most conservative administrations (hoo boy am I hijacking the thread here), including the radical redistribution of wealth up the ladder and the incredible shrinking middle class, have been extraordinarily harmful to the abilities of most families to have one parent stay at home. Granted, some families could get by with less consumerism, but consumerism, even rampan consumerism, is encouraged as the backbone of the American economy, and I would argue that with a median income of $32K for a familiy of 4, this "greedy family" model is a myth perpetrated to discourage actually family-friendly but government-centric economic policies like subsidized day care, progressive taxes, extended paid family leave, universal health care, minimum wage laws, etc.
Another way in which this argument depends on your values is how much you are willng to sacrifice for stability. A conservative model would provide maximum stability and minimum flexibility, while a liberal model would be just the opposite. Why is the family, particularly the traditional family, such a valuable institution to be protected at all costs? I would argue that both models have flaws, and we see that in the swing of the political and social pendulum: the 50s were repressive so we got the excesses of freedom of the 60s and 70s, which were followed by a reaction in the 80s and 90s toward a more stable and traditional model, and I'd be willing to bet we find some kind of equilibrium soon. We're trying to get there - look at the increasing homegeneity across the political spectrum. Sure, there are outliers, but I think we're working more and more toward a happy medium.