On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Over the weekend, the New York Times’ new Sunday Review columnist, Frank Bruni, came out in favor of “oratorical contraception” on the campaign trail. Part of Bruni’s argument is that, if candidates want their kids to be “off-limits” during election season, children should be kept out of the discussion, period. Specifically, he wants fecund Republicans to stop trotting out their families as evidence of their qualifications to be president. After describing several aspirants’ large broods, Bruni laments:
Of course a big part of what all of these Republican candidates are doing is trying to appeal to anti-abortion voters. But they and other politicians, including both the Democratic and Republican members of Congress who brought up their offspring during last week’s fiscal wrangling, are also sending the message that they can be trusted to whittle down the debt, shore up the country and otherwise safeguard the future precisely because they have a direct biological stake in it. If they breed, they lead, or so their self-promotion holds.
That’s ludicrous. Progeny aren’t proof of caring and farsightedness, qualities manifest in politicians who never procreated — George Washington, for example. This Founding Father fathered none. He nonetheless proved eminently capable of the long view.
How many children someone has says nothing about how well he or she will govern, and the tableaux of family bliss that candidates choreograph regularly prove to be fictions. During the 2008 presidential election, which was unprecedentedly awash in little kids, John and Elizabeth Edwards made the most extravagant show of a tightly knit brood, transplanting their two youngest, Emma Claire, then 9, and Jack, 7, from the classroom to the campaign bus, a rolling romper room. Need I even finish this paragraph?
Question is, why shouldn’t the decision to raise a family—particularly a large family—be an important consideration in politics? Electing a man (or woman) president is a major exercise in public trust: We’re (usually) not choosing him because of how well he’s done the job before, but rather because of how well we hope he’ll do the job once he has it. On the part of voters, making this decision requires an assessment of various characteristics that don’t necessarily come across in a résumé or list of past offices held—qualities like honor, steadfastness, emotional and mental stability, loyalty, charity, and so forth.
And one area of life that tests, and reveals, all these elements of character is the sphere of family—particularly the raising of children. Now, I’ve never done it myself, but I gather that raising children involves enormous patience, the subjugation of ego and selfish desires, and a sense of humor. Having children is an essentially hopeful, giving act; Bruni’s claims notwithstanding, it’s impossible to see how it doesn’t indicate a certain concern for and investment in what happens in the future.
As a practical matter, politicians who put the time, money, and hard work into raising large families are also doing us all a big favor: a large part of why our entitlement state is headed toward collapse is demographic (fewer workers to support more retirees). And in the case of the current GOP field, or at least the candidates Bruni mentions—including Mormons, evangelicals, and Catholics—it also says something about fidelity to the tenets of one’s faith, an issue that matters to many Republican primary voters.
This isn’t to say that people who don’t have children can’t possess these same qualities. Nor is it to say that people who have many children are necessarily good people. Some of Bruni’s caveats do make sense. But he strings together such exceptions in an unpersuasive effort to rebut what seems like a fairly self-evident rule: It takes a certain kind of person to marry (and stay married) and raise a large family. And the traits that define such a person can tell us something—not everything, but not nothing, either—about whether he (or she) will make a good president.
At least, that’s my view. Curious to hear others’ thoughts on whether kids—the decision to have and raise them, not necessarily the details of their lives—should be fair game during election season.
Also, is Bruni right that “candidates who seek credit for parenthood are also asking to be judged by the results”?
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Jul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Meghan Clyne, Guest Contributor:
Also, is Bruni right that “candidates who seek credit for parenthood are also asking to be judged by the results”? ·
Tough one... I'm gonna go with a qualified "yes."
It seems to me that pitching any accomplishment as a qualification for a gig necessarily entails the capability to argue that the endeavor has had positive results or that important lessons have been learned.
The problem, of course, is that parenting involves a great deal of the latter and the former is generally ignorantly judged by know-nothings.
Feb '11
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
First, Bruni should be lightly chastised for the language he applies to human children and to human procreation. John Edwards didn’t make an extravagant show of his ‘brood’, we don’t ‘breed’ human babies, and the word ‘offspring’ has strong connotations suggesting non-human offspring.
The reason that this mild dehumanizing is troubling is that he is talking about subjecting the children of politicians to the same sort of obscene scrutiny that politicians themselves are subjected to. He notes that, sometimes, when a politician brings his kids into the spotlight, this is not very good for the kids. But that doesn’t justify the media to dig up dirt on the kids and show what an awful a parent the politician is. Kids and spouses should be off-limits unless they start playing an active role in the political process (as when, for example, First Lady Hillary Clinton supported health care legislation).
The Palin example might merit some analysis, … if it weren’t Sarah Palin. I don’t think the rules of decency apply when the task is to attack Palin.
Mar '11
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
The problem with Bruni's discounting of children is that you can apply the same line of reasoning to any and every other claimed qualification a candidate trots out. Vote for me, because I have executive experience! But President X didn't, and he was a really good President. And so on.
The basis on which we vote cannot be reduced to a formula. Some do consider parenthood important, but I doubt few would raise it above all criteria. My guess is that most committed conservatives would prefer a parent in a strong marriage, but if given a choice between such a candidate who otherwise seems a squish, and a single or divorced or childless candidate with strong conservative views, and who impresses as having the character to adhere to them in policy, they would go for the latter.
May '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
EJHill ·
Agreed. Most individuals take no obligations more seriously than their own wedding vows. To the extent one fails to uphold that promise, one is likely to disregard other commitments as well (such as the oath of office). Someone who perceives marriage as a contract, rather than an oath, is likely to think in contractual terms ("I will do for you if you do for me") throughout his or her life.
There's not an absolute correlation. But a person evidently driven by loyalty to family and creed (as opposed to some vague spirituality) is likely to bear respect for the rule of law and humility.
It's not a coincidence that the Catholic politicians who reject the Church's teachings on sex, marriage and abortion are among the most vile pretenders and demonstrate no regard for the constraints of the Constitution.
Apr '11
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Meghan, your basic premise is sound. In choosing a president we look for character. Raising a large family is a good indicator of character.
Evidence: show me a large family and I'll show you a conservative couple as the parents.
Evidence: liberals are the ones in favor of abortion and population control.
You can find exceptions to most things, but if you want to play the odds on finding a man of high character then bet on the man with a big family.
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
I'm with you on this, Meghan--and welcome to Ricochet, by the way.
Bruni comes close to a historical solecism, nearly (but, I grant, not quite) implying that Washington chose to forgo children. Not so. As Rick Brookhiser and others who have studied the matter have concluded, Washington was almost certainly sterile. And we know that his family proved of immense importance to him--he lavished attention and concern on his stepchildren and extended relations. If Washington could have become a father, it seems fair--indeed, all but necessary--to conclude, he would have done so.
Edited on Jul 5, 2011 at 10:44pmJul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Maybe Octomom should throw her hat in the ring?
I couldn't care less how many children a candidate does or does not have.
But when I hear Mitt Romney say, in response to a question why none of his five strapping sons has seen fit to serve in our military, that they're doing service to the country by working on his campaign, that tells me something about a candidate.
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Now that you've got me mulling about this, Meghan, an additional thought: Although Bruni wrote about Washington and Edwards and seemed to imply particular criticism for Romney, a father of (as I recall) five, there's something particular about candidates who are not fathers but moms.
For me personally, one of the most impressive aspects of Sarah Palin is her commitment to motherhood--including her profound attachment to her youngest, who has Down Syndrome. Michele Bachman? She raised five children of her own--and, over the years, opened her home to 23 (if I have the number right) foster children. Hugely impressive--just hugely. These women are strong. They have character.
Yet as much as many of us on the right respect Palin and Bachmann for their virtues as mothers, to that very same extent, I sense, their motherhood unnerves and offends the left. Do you see that? Or at least sense it? Can you explain it?
Edited on Jul 5, 2011 at 10:37pmApr '11
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
When I hear people say they "couldn't care less how many children a candidate does or does not have" - that tells me a lot about the character of the person speaking (or writing, as it were).
There are few questions more important to an individual or an entire civilization than the number of children produced and trained. Read "America Alone".
Jul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
JohnBoy: When I hear people say they "couldn't care less how many children a candidate does or does not have" - that tells me a lot about the character of the person speaking (or writing, as it were).
There are few questions more important to an individual or an entire civilization than the number of children produced and trained. Read "America Alone". · Jul 5 at 10:23pm
Yeah, yeah, I know. Performing the same biological act as, say, a gerbil, is somehow a morally-elevated, selfless act?
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Kenneth
JohnBoy: When I hear people say they "couldn't care less how many children a candidate does or does not have" - that tells me a lot about the character of the person speaking (or writing, as it were).
Performing the same biological act as, say, a gerbil, is somehow a morally-elevated, selfless act? · Jul 5 at 10:29pm
Before the fisticuffs break out--or Diane has to read the Code of Conduct--a question for my friend Kenneth:
Sure enough, the mere biological act scarcely distinguishes us from gerbils. But the act of fatherhood? Of providing for a family? Of instructing, and correcting, and encouraging offspring for 18 or more years? I grant, with Frank Bruni, that the instance of George Washington proves that you don't need to have been a father to qualify for the highest office. But if a candidate is a father--and if he seems to have done a passable job of it--why wouldn't you weigh that in his favor? I'd take a tax-cutting bachelor over a socialist father of ten any day--policy still comes first. But wouldn't fatherhood say something important about a candidate's character?
Oct '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
More lefty whining from the NYT elites. The only thing they hate more then marital fidelity is people who have large families. Nihilism, pure and simple.
Jul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Peter Robinson
Kenneth
JohnBoy:
Before the fisticuffs break out--or Diane has to read the Code of Conduct--a question for my friend Kenneth:
Sure enough, the mere biological act scarcely distinguishes us from gerbils. But the act of fatherhood? Of providing for a family? Of instructing, and correcting, and encouraging offspring for 18 or more years?.... But wouldn't fatherhood say something important about a candidate's character? · Jul 5 at 10:43pm
Peter, I've often seen you write about your love of your children and I respect you greatly for that. But when it comes to making a selection among candidates, I just do not see it as determinative.
And, quite nakedly, as a man who has chosen not to have children, I'm just sick of the meme on the social conservative side that I am somehow a lesser citizen than those who have made the choice to procreate. I pay higher taxes to subsidize other people's children. Let them be grateful for that.
Oct '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Kenneth
JohnBoy: When I hear people say they "couldn't care less how many children a candidate does or does not have" - that tells me a lot about the character of the person speaking (or writing, as it were).
There are few questions more important to an individual or an entire civilization than the number of children produced and trained. Read "America Alone". · Jul 5 at 10:23pm
Yeah, yeah, I know. Performing the same biological act as, say, a gerbil, is somehow a morally-elevated, selfless act? · Jul 5 at 10:29pm
As Peter has already said, there's a world of difference between fathering offspring and the commitment to raise them to adulthood. That commitment is what matters.
Mar '11
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Oratorical contraception. I thought we had a CoC violation on our hands when I read those words the first time. Whew, near miss that.
Mar '11
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
As to the substance of the matter, I think Bruni is on to something in this regard: Conservatives can't on the one hand publicly argue that a family is firm evidence of someone's qualifications for office and then on the other hand claim that family is off limits from any kind of scrutiny.
I think in the interests of preserving some semblance of common decency and with the goal in mind of ensuring public offices are not solely inhabited by ambitious scoundrels, it is probably best if we err on the side of keeping families out of politics. Therefore, it is best not to make arguments that our candidates are qualified based on whether or not they have a family, and instead focus on other (and more worthy in my judgment) qualifications.
That doesn't preclude each of us in the privacy of our home or voting booth from making a character judgment about candidates based on family.
....But I'm a crotchety New Englander given to strange notions.
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Peter Robinson: For me personally, one of the most impressive aspects of Sarah Palin is her commitment to motherhood--including her profound attachment to her youngest, who has Down Syndrome. Michele Bachman? She raised five children of her own--and, over the years, opened her home to 23 (if I have the number right) foster children. Hugely impressive--just hugely. These women are strong. They have character.
Yet as much as many of us on the right respect Palin and Bachmann for their virtues as mothers, to that very same extent, I sense, their motherhood unnerves and offends the left. Do you see that? Or at least sense it? Can you explain it? · Jul 5 at 10:20pm
Edited on Jul 05 at 10:37 pm
I am generally suspicious of all politicians and don't care one whit whether they're parents or not, to be honest. Good and bad politicians can have zero or many children. But this meme -- which sounds as if it is written by a man who has never procreated -- is really about denigrating the very important work of mothers.
May '11
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Yes on both counts. I'm reminded of something Jules Crittenden wrote regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan:
"I’d add that President Obama seems bent on packing the court with people who never had children, and would suggest that if you haven’t had your sleep disturbed for years on end; haven’t subjugated everything in your life to someone else’s interests … as opposed to subjugating everything to your career interests … and never changed a diaper except, say, as a boutique experience; if you haven’t seen your hopes and dreams grow up, charge off in their own direction and start talking back to you; if you haven’t dealt with abuse of authority and human rights issues sometimes encountered in dealings with obtuse school officials, class bullies and town sports leagues; then there’s a high risk your understanding of life may be somewhat … academic. It’s a humbling experience, parenthood. As well as an inspiring one that gives life meaning. It also, as a friend of mine once put it, makes you sane. Even while it drives you crazy. Put another way, it’s part of the maturation thing."
Edited on Jul 6, 2011 at 7:33amRe: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Kenneth
[A]s a man who has chosen not to have children, I'm just sick of the meme on the social conservative side that I am somehow a lesser citizen than those who have made the choice to procreate. I pay higher taxes to subsidize other people's children. Let them be grateful for that. · Jul 5 at 10:55pm
Kenneth, I'd be curious: where did anyone say that people who are childless are lesser citizens? I have not seen that.
As for respective contributions, it might be illuminating to spend some time in a country with a declining population -- eg. Japan or Italy or Greece -- and see how pleasant that is, and what it implies for taxes and the future.