In 1960, 44.2% of Americans lived in “Ozzie and Harriet” households, defined as a married couple living with their own children under eighteen. (Okay, so maybe mom was hitting the bottle in her suburban kitchen and dad was smacking the kids around when he came home from golfing with his buddies, but in Ozzie and Harriet time we didn’t ask such impertinent questions. They were married, the kids were theirs, God was pleased. End of story.)
Every ten years, the census delivers a snapshot of America. No one seriously maintains that it is a precise rendition—people clearly get omitted, others supply misinformation, and the data is subject to all of the pitfalls of large-scale studies generally. But the information generated is considerably better than nothing, and ought to inform public policy. It should thus be notable that the composition of the American family has changed dramatically from 1960 to 2000, and in fact, the media and pundits have made much of that fact. Whether they are drawing the right conclusions, of course, is a matter of perspective.
In 1960, 44.2% of Americans lived in “Ozzie and Harriet” households, defined as a married couple living with their own children under eighteen. (Okay, so maybe mom was hitting the bottle in her suburban kitchen and dad was smacking the kids around when he came home from golfing with his buddies, but in Ozzie and Harriet time we didn’t ask such impertinent questions. They were married, the kids were theirs, God was pleased. End of story.)
By 2000, only 23.5% of Americans fell into that category, and the pundits are anguishing over what went wrong.
Well, lots of things have changed. One simple piece of the puzzle is pretty value-neutral: people got older. The life expectancy and average age of the population has increased, and those kids aren’t under 18 any more. More women are widowed. But there are many other contributing factors. Growing numbers of married couples decide, for one reason or another, not to procreate. Maybe mom got the hell out of the kitchen, found out she could make a living and didn’t have to stay any longer in a sterile or miserable marriage. Maybe Dad found the courage to come out, and is living happily with his partner in Upper Sandusky.
Now it is certainly true that two-parent families have more money, and more personal resources, and that money and resources are important to childrearing. In a society that truly valued children, the census findings should motivate us to find ways to help children who are living in poverty, children whose custodial parent is overwhelmed. A number of initiatives come immediately to mind: expanded Day Care and Head Start programs, easier access to Medicaid coverage for children and pregnant women, increased educational and job opportunities for single parents.
Whatever the merits of such programs, they aren’t being discussed. Those things cost money, and we need to save our money so that the richest 1% of the population can have tax relief. Instead, for the poor folks, George W. Bush and his administration want to “provide incentives” for marriage by those receiving government aid. Add a breadwinner to that household, and get government off the hook!
Leaving aside the general lunacy of this new initiative, doesn’t anyone in the Bush administration notice the irony? Marriage, they solemnly proclaim, is the answer to all our social ills. It will provide jobs for the unemployed, make an uncaring father into an earnest and helpful mentor, improve public school test scores and keep people off welfare. (Maybe it will even cure cancer). But don’t let those homosexuals marry!
Two parent families are more financially secure, and have more resources to devote to childrearing. But don’t let homosexual partners in committed relationships adopt children!
Those who bemoan the demise of “the family” refuse to admit that there are many kinds of families, and that many of them are capable of raising healthy children and contributing to the public welfare. Those folks aren’t genuinely worried about children—or adults, for that matter. They are simply intent on seeing to it that everyone accepts their limited and limiting definition of “family.”
Public policy would look a lot different if “family values” meant “valuing families.” Everyone’s families.