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
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Bill McGurn
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.
Bill, perhaps the term "lesser citizen" is imprecise, but one constantly hears people say that those who are childless by choice are eternal adolescents, selfish and foolishly hedonistic. I hear it on talk radio all the time and I've encountered it here on Ricochet many times.
The meme among some parents seems to be, "We're creating America's future and you're not, so your views on certain things are irrelevant."
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Kenneth, "I hear it all the time" is not an answer. In fact, the precise statement in the original post by Meghan Clyne was this: 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.
In other words, she explicitly said the opposite of what you accuse social conservatives of saying. If we are going to have a debate, and we are going to accuse people of accusing others of being lesser citizens, I think it only fair to point to a specific statement and not just fling out a charge about "the meme among some parents" or "one constantly hears," etc. That's creating a convenient straw man; which is a susbstitute for a real argument. Especially in a case where the original writer went out of her way to rule that out.
Jul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Bill McGurn: Kenneth, "I hear it all the time" is not an answer. I
In other words, she explicitly said the opposite of what you accuse social conservatives of saying.
Bill, I should have said, "...some social conservatives...".
Challenging me to quote specific comments I've heard on radio (particularly from Laura Ingraham, who makes a fetish about it) or online isn't very realistic, but take a look at this thread. You'll see numerous comments that are typical of what I hear.
And I wasn't critiquing Meghan Clyne at all. My comment affirms the two sentences you quoted from her post. I was responding to another Member's rather uncivil comment.
May '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
I'll be Kenneth's example.
I think it's wrong for a married couple to not even try to have kids... for the same reason it's wrong for an adult to remain in his or her parents' home, even if he or she is not a burden to them... for the same reason it's wrong for someone not to seek work, even if that person doesn't need work to pay the bills. Some things we need to do not just to survive or to fulfill social obligations but to grow as individuals. That is the purpose of life, afterall — to grow as individuals (to know and love God).
One can certainly become a responsible, admirable adult without having children. George Washington is a clear example. But I think choosing not to have children is as foolish as choosing not to get a job (regardless of one's finances).
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Kenneth, My point is that you tend to tar with a broad brush. For example, I might say "I'm just sick of the meme" or "I've encountered it here on Ricochet many times" that some people always seem to be whining about something they imagine others accusing them of. Instead, I will confine myself to something precise: no one here had accused you, or others who opt to be childless, as a "lesser citizen."
I will say something else precise: You wrote that you "pay higher taxes to subsidize other people's children. Let them be grateful for that." True enough.
If, however, the implication is that this is a one-way street, that's flat wrong. As I mentioned, if you worry about high taxes, take a look at what it means for a country when those other people don't have children.
At the very least, we all benefit from the hundreds of thousands of other people's children who are out on the front lines, at times giving their lives, to keep us safe from our enemies. I would say that's a pretty good deal for all of us.
Sep '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
George Washington is a clear example. But I think choosing not to have children is as foolish as choosing not to get a job (regardless of one's finances).
Aaron, your example is a good one and I note that Washington served as a military leader. One can certainly develop moral virtue outside of having children and there's no guarantee that having children (even a veritable herd of them) guarantees the development of virtue, but I think Washington's example is a reminder that those virtues need to be learned in some kind of vocation that demands it.
The folks that Bill McGurn is referring to -- particularly in Europe and Asia but also here -- are not late in life marrieds, but, rather, people who never transcend an eternal adolescence. Its particularly striking in the upscale shops of downtown Athens to see the plethora of well to do hipsters and the evident lack of children, anywhere.
Jul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Bill, if you'll look at my responses to you, I've already acknowledged that I should have said, "...some social conservatives..." and addressed the imprecision of my original phrase, "lesser citizen".
To repeat, my original comment to which you objected was a response to another Member's comment, which disparaged me.
But the core of my argument is valid: there are lots of people out there - and they are, for the most part, social conservatives - who believe that couples who choose not to have children are selfish and frivolous.
I certainly do not question the decisions of those who choose to have children. Unhappily, some of them see fit to question mine.
Jul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Pseudodionysius:
people who never transcend an eternal adolescence.
Thanks for so clearly validating my point.
Good enough for you, Bill?
Sep '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Kenneth
Pseudodionysius:
people who never transcend an eternal adolescence.
Thanks for so clearly validating my point.
Good enough for you, Bill? · Jul 6 at 12:42pm
Perhaps if you reread the points made rather than fishing for perceived slights, you'd follow the distinction that I made. I encounter many couples in my professional life and personal, of varying ages who "choose not to have children". That's a demographic trend that's indisputable and Mark Steyn among others has made the point repeatedly about demographic implosion. Generationally, people differ in their outlooks on why they don't have children, but the fact that some people who make those choices never transcend an eternal adolescence doesn't mean that all do.
The larger point from antiquity, excluding the Melian massacre for example, is that even societies that understood the economic imperative to procreate eventually reached a point where they became more concerned with preserving their existing capital than creating new capital.
But, lets put away those finer sociological distinctions, I didn't meant to interrupt your grievance.
Jul '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Pseudodionysius
Kenneth
Pseudodionysius:
people who never transcend an eternal adolescence.
Thanks for so clearly validating my point.
Good enough for you, Bill? · Jul 6 at 12:42pm
Perhaps if you reread the points made rather than fishing for perceived slights, you'd follow the distinction that I made. I encounter many couples in my professional life and personal, of varying ages who "choose not to have children". That's a demographic trend that's indisputable and Mark Steyn among others has made the point repeatedly about demographic implosion. Generationally, people differ in their outlooks on why they don't have children, but the fact that some people who make those choices never transcend an eternal adolescence doesn't mean that all do.
The larger point from antiquity, excluding the Melian massacre for example, is that even societies that understood the economic imperative to procreate eventually reached a point where they became more concerned with preserving their existing capital than creating new capital.
But, lets put away those finer sociological distinctions, I didn't meant to interrupt your grievance. · Jul 6 at 1:05pm
Oh,no, you didn't interrupt my "grievance". You validated it.
Sep '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Kenneth
But, lets put away those finer sociological distinctions, I didn't meant to interrupt your grievance. · Jul 6 at 1:05pm
Oh,no, you didn't interrupt my "grievance". You validated it. · Jul 6 at 1:23pm
I think that's something we can all agree on.
Oct '10
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Kenneth
Oh,no, you didn't interrupt my "grievance". You validated it. · Jul 6 at 1:23pm
This is a question Western societies will need to face. . .demographic decline is the worst way a society can die. Given that, is it OK if some people who are capable of having children choose not too, when as a simple matter of math that requires other couples to have more kids (or the country can import more immigrants I guess)?
I'd rather not dictate the answers to that question. It's a hard problem, and we won't solve it anytime soon.
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Sorry to return to this so late, but a couple of thoughts. First, it doesn't seem fair to take Bruni's George Washington example at face value. The man may never have sired children, but he certainly raised them: Martha's from a previous marriage, and two of Martha's grandchildren. This gets to Peter's point about the nature of fatherhood: It's not just obeying a mindless urge (gerbil style), but rather making a conscious decision to take responsibility for the development of new human beings, shepherding them into adulthood. Men and women have a choice about whether to take on this responsibility; it's what separates us from animals. But whether that choice happens in the decision to procreate in the first place, or in the moment when one decides to adopt a child or otherwise raise someone else's child (a la Washington), it's functionally the same choice--and says an enormous amount about the person who makes it.
Re: On Philoprogenitiveness and Politics
Well, there's plenty about these women to drive the left batty without their motherhood. That said, I wonder if they confront an issue that affects women more generally. Because of custom and biological necessity, the decision to raise children will almost always require a greater investment of time (and time away from a profession) by the mother. No matter how dedicated the father is, this is just...true.
So when a woman in politics is having her resume compared to a male competitor's, her motherhood takes on a greater significance than his fatherhood. Her parental responsibilities probably consumed more time and effort than his did as they were both building the other qualifications they would need to be president. We should then take her family "resume" into greater account than his when comparing their accomplishments.
This may be why so much of the discussion surrounding Bachmann and Palin focuses on their motherhood.