[detbuch]

At a Capitol Hill news conference, Sen. Sanders went after Republicans on family values:

When my Republican colleagues talk about “family values,” what they usually mean is opposition to a woman’s right to choose,

Typical broad brush rhetoric--"right to choose." Among the vast rights to choose that women have, they are restricted more by the massive regulatory state, than by conservative constitutionalism. And that goes for men as well. And for the various and growing number of genders and races. It is amazing that someone whose preferred mode of governance is to regulate as much human behavior as possible would argue on the basis of "right to choose."

opposition to contraception,

Is this a straw man . . . or a lie? Republicans are opposed to contraception? Maybe it's just the syndrome of saying BS so much that he begins to actually believe it.

opposition to gay rights.

Another leftist propaganda bullet point. I don't wish to speak for all "Republicans" here, they being such a "diverse" and often conflicting group of opposing members. But "Republicans" of a constitutional stripe are opposed to special rights for special groups which contradict or deny rights to everyone else. And the constitutionalists understand that the vast residuum of rights belong to the people and are unalienable, which the government cannot abridge, and the rights of the government to be limited by the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. It is typical that a progressive socialist, whose preferred notion of a right is that which the government allows, will talk about special group rights. And it is typical that he would divide the people into opposing groups in order to demagogue for or against a group versus another to bit by bit conquer all.

Let me today give a somewhat different perspective on family values – on real family values.

Before we get into Bernie's "perspective," it might be proper to point out a traditional "perspective" of what those values are and for what purpose. I would suspect most "Republicans" would agree with such a traditional "perspective."

For the family to succeed as a cohesive unit it must have common moral and ethical values that breed cooperation and support within the immediate and the extended family. The family values become what Eben might call "the little book" on how, in the immediate sense, to successfully live as a family, and in the ongoing, or future sense, as a training ground for children in order to properly behave and strive as adults outside the family, and how to create families of their own. The family becomes a microcosm of social and individual behavior which enables its members, especially the children, to function in the macrocosm of society at large.

Among those values which make for successful families and translate into success into the world at large would be honesty, loyalty, work ethic, love, morality, and discipline. All of which transcend the limits of family and create the "good" society--or the "fabric" of society.

And now for Bernie's "perspective":

When a mother has a baby and is unable to spend time with that child during the first weeks and months of that baby’s life, and is forced back to work because of a lack of money, that is not a family value. What were the family values that led to such a condition? That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a wife is diagnosed with cancer and a husband cannot get time off of work to take care of her, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. Are there any family values which can be applied to this situation to make it all "work"? When a mother is forced to send her sick child to school because she cannot afford to stay home with her that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. Are there any family values which can be applied to this situation that can make it better? When a husband, wife, and kids, during the course of an entire year, are unable to spend any time together on vacation – that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for.

Notice how he never mentions a single family value, or what a family "is supposed to stand for"? Nor which family values are being attacked.

Sen. Sanders’ agenda is centered around two pieces of legislation, “Senator Sanders’ Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act would provide 10 days of paid vacation for employees who have worked for an employer for at least one year. This legislation would make sure workers have access to minimum vacation benefits that most companies already offer to their white-collar, high-salary workers. So Bernie's perspective on family values goes beyond family, even to all "employees." I'm getting the picture of family, to a progressive socialist, being everybody in the "village." We're all one big family, which is probably why it is futile, or self-defeating for a progressive socialist to name what family values are since he would see all values being family values since we are all in the same family--the family regulated and nourished by the State. The Act would apply to employers with at least 15 employees….Workers in the United States should have at least 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical leave. The FAMILY Act introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand does just that. This bill, which Sen.Sanders is co-sponsoring, allows mothers and fathers to receive 12 weeks of paid family leave to care for a baby. It also allows workers to take the same amount of paid time off if they are diagnosed with cancer or have other serious medical conditions or to take care of family members who are seriously ill.”

And there it is. Family values, whatever they are, are of no consequence on their own. They must be made possible by government.

For decades, Republicans have been calling themselves the party of family values while carrying out an ideological agenda that weakens and undermines the economic security of the nation’s families. Republicans oppose any steps that would strengthen families. Studies have found that the more money a couple makes, the less likely they are to divorce. Economic stability increases family stability.

When a worker has to place economic survival ahead of their family, the family suffers. Republicans have gotten away with disguising their family killing policies as values for too long.

Conservatives hijacked the term family values, but Bernie Sanders is taking it back.

Again, no mention of specific, or even general, family values. Are we to assume that paid medical leaves and vacations are family values? Are we to assume that legislative time and money transfers are family values? Does the article actually talk about family values? Or does it talk about the value of government "assistance" to families? Does it specify how the growing "assistance" to everybody has strengthened the family? Does it dismiss the notion that families become stronger when they do for themselves? That they overcome adversity with the actual values which the article or Sanders never mention, and that by applying those values they become stronger? And does it occur to the only-by-government statists that its nannyism actually makes families weaker and more dependent? As it does to people in general. Perhaps we should believe in the ultimate model of government assistance making families stronger would be putting all families on government dole. Year round vacation with medical assistance and all the weeks necessary for taking care of the baby. Don't we already have such a program, aid to dependent children or some such beneficent sounding name? And it does create a sustainable model for repeating the family unit. And doesn't Obamacare kick in it's two cents worth?


I find it repugnant, and ignorant, when unsubstantiated verbal bombs are thrown such as for decades Republicans have been "carrying out an ideological agenda that weakens and undermines the economic security of the nation’s families." Or "Republicans have gotten away with disguising their family killing policies as values for too long." Really? Republican policies have been killing families?

I would assume, perhaps I'm wrong, that if a married couple didn't want a divorce, a Republican policy wouldn't force them to get one.

And, in that proverbial socialist, class-struggle rhetoric, we are not really self-actuating individuals, but "workers" as in "When a worker has to place economic survival ahead of their family, the family suffers." I also get a kick out of using the plural "their" to refer to the "worker" in order to avoid the politically incorrect use of the male "his." So, naturally, it is up to government to provide for the worker's economic survival so "they" don't have to put it ahead of "their" family. Wow! No actual family values which can pull it together through thick and thin? Wow! Well, there it is again. People simply cannot make a go of it on their own. Either government policy will "kill" their family, or it will save it.

Yes, the State will make your life whole. It will make your marriage strong. It will save you. Damn if that doesn't sound like religion.