Of course, neither of these writers is Dr. Dobson, or a real religious right type. Etzioni makes a few perfunctory feints in a liberal direction, but his is essentially an apology for a neoliberal family policy. Several of the more admiring quotes are from people overtly to the right of the position he lets you think he takes. People like Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Mary Anne Glenton, Judith Wallerstein. He denies that he wants to abolish divorce, but then says he thinks it needs to be more difficult, that social policy should place obstacles in its way.
In effect Etzioni describes many of the negative effects of the instability of the family and its generally counterdevelopmental effect on many of the children who grow up in the complex and frequently reconstituted families that are now more or less the norm. But does he propose a strong program of universal social welfare measures that would extend support to all children? Even more important, does he recognize that marriage is an institution whose instability is inevitable given fundamental political-economic changes that are integral to contemporary capitalism?
Of course not. He does say fleetingly that it would be nice for corporations to provide paid child-care leave, and that family allowances would be a good thing. These are his feints to the left. However, he goes on for pages on the moral duty of individuals, as individuals, to be personally responsible, exercise care in family life, etc. (Rhetorical hint of the Clinton welfare reform here.). He takes an effectively pro-corporate stance without owning up to it, because the only way not to do this would be to propose real social welfare alternatives.
Wolfe, in a different way, takes a similarly tired liberal privatistic approach to what are really social issues. He, and Etzioni in a more upbeat, pseudo-inspirational way, really seem to be the Tony Blairs of American social policy.
As socialists, we need to do better. For example, both Etzioni and Wolfe strongly oppose day-care, saying that existing day-care is of dubious quality. Often enough they are right, of course, but they go on to insist that children always belong at home. This is a gross example of political defects they share. And their stance has consequences that contradict their supposedly tender concern for children. For example, their kind of thinking gives aid and comfort to the anti-poor right, who, under forced-work programs, must leave their children in really questionable day care.
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: quoted-printable