Fathers, Families, and Freedom
In 1977, Peter Berger and the late Richard John Neuhaus published a now-famous essay, “To Empower People,” which argued that “mediating structures” such as family, church, charities, and neighborhood associations are essential for a healthy civil society. I entirely agree, and as those who have followed my career will know, I attempted to develop these ideas throughout my time in the United States Senate and in my own 2005 book, It Takes a Family. I believe passionately that the family is the basic building block of society, and that in contrast to President Obama’s immense sums of borrowed money being spent on entitlement programs and his undermining of charities and religious liberty, we can and must do far better—here in South Carolina and throughout the country.
I am running for President because I believe in practical, constitutional, and limited government that respects the rights of ordinary citizens and makes room for local communities to thrive because real people who know one another support one another. In my tradition we call this the principle of subsidiarity: the idea that whenever possible, reform should happen locally because people closest to the need have the most invested in the solution. From its first day in office my presidency will restrain the overreach of Washington by giving space for civil society institutions like congregations, families, businesses, charities and community organizations to flourish—acknowledging that the kind of solidarity that exists in local communities is far stronger and more effective than taxpayer-funded subsidies from Washington bureaucrats.
In the last three years, the current President has added more to America’s deficit than the collective total of all prior presidents—and this comes at tremendous cost to our children and grandchildren, and it is not working. Unemployment continues to exceed the promised “8 percent” he told us his whopping $787 billion stimulus package would guarantee. But even more problematically, Mr. Obama’s policies have made far too many of us less resilient, less responsible and less free. Food stamps usage has increased by 41 percent since the President took office. More than 1 in 7 U.S. adults—and an astonishing 1 in every 4 children—today receive food stamps. The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program received billions in additional annual spending. Subsidized housing, the Women, Infants and Children program (WIC) and the numbers of children born out of wedlock—are all up. As a father this breaks my heart. This should not be.
I will address this issue of father-absence and family-strengthening head-on, because doing so makes sense both culturally and economically. Today, more than 25 million American children, at least 64% of African Americans and 36% of Hispanics, live in father-absent homes. Research tells us that low-income children without a father at home are five times more likely to remain poor. Children growing up without a dad are 2-3 times as likely to become teen parents and engage in criminal behavior: for these young people, economic realities follow cultural-relational realities, not the other way around. We need courageous fathers; that’s what moms want and America’s children need.
As president I will support state and local funding options that strengthen marriage and support for low-income families so that dads are incentivized to support their children and be involved in their lives. I will not attempt to “transform” faith-based and community organizations into bureaucratic arms of the federal government, but will instead look to devolve resources to states, much as I did in 1996 in reforming welfare. And put wind behind the back of great charities like the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities which have been discriminated against by liberal courts, regulators, and now the Obama Administration.
The Obama Administration only makes it harder for generous Americans to help those in need, even though Obamanomics has resulted in 1 in 6 Americans being in poverty. Obama has proposed limiting deductions for charitable giving, for those Americans who are large givers which United Way estimates could cost charities between more than $4 billion a year, larger than the operating budgets of of the American Cancer Society, World Vision, St. Jude's Children's Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association combined. President Obama has also worked to define “religious employers” in ObamaCare so narrowly that it’s doubtful that Jesus Christ’s ministry would even qualify.
Moreover, his Administration stopped Catholic Charities from their long-standing partnership with government to help women who are victims of sex trafficking because they do not support abortion, just vulnerable women being abused. Is that caring for the least of these, respecting the free exercise of religion, or is that playing to the extreme left to the detriment of women? Many on the left care more about being politically correct and imposing their agenda than caring for those with HIV or kids that need adopted. They didn’t stop there. They told a positive marriage program to help teenage girls that they could talk about marriage just not abstinence. So marriage is OK just not fidelity.
I was the best advocate for private sector charitable activity and giving incentives in Congress for many years, taking on those who wanted to restrict freedom and civil society, and successfully passing several provisions into law that enabled the donation of food to the hungry, good equipment to volunteer firefighter companies, and large IRA contributions to faith-based groups, education, and other charitable groups. I will continue to be an advocate for the little platoons of faithful servants who help their neighbors all around our country.
It is time to stop rewarding bad behavior via government handouts that have unintended consequences, and to instead respect hard work, family, and local civil society institutions (like the hundreds of congregations, private hospitals, and grassroots community organizations throughout South Carolina) that make our country truly great. When the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville visited our land 200 years ago, he said that our political associations “form only a detail in the immense picture that the sum of associations presents here”—and that those associations are “essential for defending liberty from State tyranny.”
Saturday's primary election is an opportunity to send a clear message to the current president that freedom is back. We do not want a European-style welfare state; we want freedom to be neighbors to our neighbors. We want the federal government to focus on keeping us free and standing for our values and interests around the world. With your help, I will defend our country, restrain federal spending, restore the honor of marriage and family, while respecting civil society which forges local solutions to the challenges we face in America.
Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.
- Comment (66)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
And if you could say it in ten sentences, instead of ten paragraphs, you'd win a lot of people over.
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
Ten paragraphs was needed to hide his call for increased govenment spending. See paragraph 5.
May '10
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
As president I will support state and local funding options that strengthen marriage and support for low-income families so that dads are incentivized to support their children and be involved in their lives.
Rick, I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Ask the guy who wrote this essay what it means.
Edited on Jan 21 at 3:02amMay '11
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
Beggin' the Colonel's pardon, but I don't think this is quite the issue with which to differentiate yourself from the former Speaker.
Apr '11
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
I'm glad to read about someone addressing fatherless homes. But this is completely wrong:
You think the problem is a lack of courage? No, sir. You are wrong. It's huge incentives for women to throw men out of their children's lives. Government actually pay women to toss fathers out of the house.
Stop questioning the courage of fathers (it's offensive and untrue) and start looking at the economic incentives. We need policy makers who can do things like that. Look at economic incentive in government policies, rather than blame "courage". Jeeesh.
The government welfare system puts women in charge. It's their system. Women often exclude fathers from their children's lives. Everyone knows it. If you had the courage you want to see in men, you'd be talking about that. It's the main problem
You've put women on a pedestal so high, you don't see how they contribute the most to fatherless homes.
Nov '10
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
How in the heckfire does a president fix fatherless homes? Some government program? How does that square with "I am running for President because I believe in practical, constitutional, and limited government "? If you were running for governor, that'd be one thing. But I don't think the constitution gives the president the power to force dads to take responsibility for their children.
May '11
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
I'm not.
Gosh, I like the former Senator, but I just don't see it going anywhere. I do believe that there's a reason Newt got two looks before Santorum got one, and even if this were merely a case of surge timing, is that really the desired basis for selecting a nominee?
But it's not timing, of course. Romney is stuck in the polls because he is the first choice of a limited and well-defined group. Gingrich has built up a following by being the second choice of a large and flexible number of people, scooping them up from the serial Hindenburgs of the primary process. When Santorum's campaign yields, many of those supporters will also flow to Gingrich, as a darn sight closer to their concerns than Romney. Then it's on with the GOP's champion and their neo-confederate spoiler kook (so to speak).
/Popcorn
Apr '11
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
End the government programs that give women economic incentives to exclude fathers from their children's lives.
I don't think Santorum means to do this. He blames the "courage" of fathers rather than the system erected by government.
The limited government way is to tear down these destructive government programs. Santorum does not appear to favor that approach.
May '10
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
He's calling for government to stop subsidizing fatherlessness, not to "force dads" to take responsibility for their children.
He understands, as far too few do, that the collapse of the family is a major (if not THE major) cause of the growth of government.
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
Jeff Younger: I'm glad to read about someone addressing fatherless homes. But this is completely wrong...
Stop questioning the courge of fathers (it's offensive and untrue) and start looking at the economic incentives.
I'm going to support Santorum on this issue. The amount of women and children on welfare is first and foremost a sign of weak men.
Apr '11
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
katievs He's calling for government to stop subsidizing fatherlessness, not to "force dads" to take responsibility for their children.
He understands, as far too few do, that the collapse of the family is a major (if not THE major) cause of the growth of government. · 4 minutes ago
The last sentence is true, but I'm not sure the first one is. He blames the "courage" of fathers rather than the system erected by government.
To be fair, Santorum has a consistent record of opposing radical feminism. I praise him for that.
Dec '11
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
I don't dig the whole "courage" line either, but perhaps if one were to phrase it in a more pedestrian way, it might read: "Vote for me and get ready to man up, fellas, because government handouts to single-parent-by-choice families are going the way of the dinosaur."
Or, I could be wrong, in which case, Mr. Santorum should say the above.
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
Flapjack: I don't dig the whole "courage" line either, but perhaps if one were to phrase it in a more pedestrian way, it might read: "Vote for me and get ready to man up, fellas, because government handouts to single-parent-by-choice families are going the way of the dinosaur."
Or, I could be wrong, in which case, Mr. Santorum should say the above. · 3 minutes ago
The way I'm reading it is this:
"When I'm President, no longer will tax money be used on women going downtown to sign their children up for government welfare. Instead, tax money will be used on women going uptown to sign their children up at the Salvation Army."
Nov '11
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
katievs
He's calling for government to stop subsidizing fatherlessness, not to "force dads" to take responsibility for their children.
He understands, as far too few do, that the collapse of the family is a major (if not THE major) cause of the growth of government. · 0 minutes ago
Agree, and I would add that government policy is merely a reflection of the unfortunate view that men are expendable, which is one more bit of fallout from the teachings of our intellectual class, and it does take courage to stand up to that, on the part of both men and women.
Apr '11
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
Flapjack: I don't dig the whole "courage" line either, but perhaps if one were to phrase it in a more pedestrian way, it might read: "Vote for me and get ready to man up, fellas, because government handouts to single-parent-by-choice families are going the way of the dinosaur."
Or, I could be wrong, in which case, Mr. Santorum should say the above. · 2 minutes ago
The presumption is that men don't want to be in their children's lives. This is false.
Most men give all their resources to stay in their children's lives. It's women empowered by the welfare state that keep them out.
May '10
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
Jeff Younger
katievs He's calling for government to stop subsidizing fatherlessness, not to "force dads" to take responsibility for their children.
He understands, as far too few do, that the collapse of the family is a major (if not THE major) cause of the growth of government. · 4 minutes ago
The last sentence is true, but I'm not sure the first one is. He blames the "courage" of fathers rather than the system erected by government.
To be fair, Santorum has a consistent record of opposing radical feminism. I praise him for that. · 2 minutes ago
Forgive me, Jeff, but it sounds to me like you're reacting over-sensitively here.
There is no doubt that radical feminism bears a lot of the blame for the current crisis, as does bad policy. But irresponsibility among men likewise plays a big part.
True, many men have been "kicked out" by selfish women. But many women have likewise been abandoned by husbands and boyfriends who want sex without responsibility.
Jun '10
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
katievs
He's calling for government to stop subsidizing fatherlessness, not to "force dads" to take responsibility for their children.
He understands, as far too few do, that the collapse of the family is a major (if not THE major) cause of the growth of government. · 0 minutes ago
Sing it, sister!
Mr. Santorum understands that the family is the basic building block of a healthy society. As goes the family, so goes the nation. I hope the Ricochet membership will acknowledge that the problem is fundamental, and help the senator refine his message.
We can question the federal government authority to make policy regarding family life. That's fair. But we must understand that current policy is promoting and subsidizing the very behaviors that are shredding our social fabric. It's become a federal issue whether we like it or not.
I've decided to double my contribution to the Santorum campaign. Carry on, sir. And Godspeed.
Nov '10
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
I've no doubt that fatherlessness is a serious problem, but I doubt highly that a President can do anything about it. I'm nervous any time a politician says he's going to fix some moral issue. I don't fully understand how the president can do so. Most of the people I know get their welfare and food stamps from the state, not federal government.
Nov '10
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
And just so we are clear, not most of the people I know....because most of the people I don't get food stamps. I meant, most of the people I know who get food stamps, get them from the state. Sheesh!
Re: Fathers, Families, and Freedom
katievs
True, many men have been "kicked out" by selfish women. But many women have likewise been abandoned by husbands and boyfriends who want sex without responsibility. · 6 minutes ago
Fun to agree with Katievs!
If one comes to the conclusion that women are incentivized to kick out a father in exchange for free government money, the conclusion that men will also be incentivized to leave knowing that their children will get free money from the government is inescapable.
Until he finds out it isn't exactly free. The welfare system will sue the father to get the money back.
The difficulty, as it is with all welfare programs, is separating out those in real need despite best efforts and those in need by design.
Lets not forget, lest we be un-Christian, that somewhere out there are those in need despite best efforts.
Whether to help them is a moral issue; how to help them is a political one.