Who Needs the Family?

For most of human history the family was the basic social unit of the species. It was a retirement plan that you paid into by keeping your children alive long enough for them to grow up and support you. It allowed the individual to pass on his ideas to people who would care about them because they were part of their heritage. Family was a collective endeavor, small enough to reflect the individual. It was a practical and philosophical aim that made life beautiful and meaningful.

But who really needs it anymore?

Governments have come to serve as undying guardians of human society, ushering new life into the world and ushering old life out of it. New parents are as likely to turn to the government for help as they are to their extended family. When their child is old enough to look around for a career, it is the government that they expect to provide the education and the jobs. And when they grow old, the child can keep on working at his government job and paying off his student loans knowing that the government will be there to make all the difficult and expensive decisions about their care.

With all that taken care of, who needs parents or children anyway?

People once had children to pass on wealth, genes and beliefs. But wealth is now thought to be the collective property of society, which is taxed to death or often just given away on some quixotic quest to stamp out disease in Africa or illiteracy in Antarctica. The thought of passing on genes carries with it a tinge of racism for the European and European-descended populations whose birth rates are dropping, but raises no such concerns for minority groups with high birth rates. That only leaves beliefs, which are also thought to be the collective property of the society and the state. Public education, mandatory in some countries, means that the best way to reproduce your beliefs is not to have children, but to get a job as a teacher.

The family has been displaced and replaced. In some places it is even repressed. Like an old station wagon, it idles by the side of the road, while its former owners drive away in their new sleek electric government compact car built for two or a micro-car built for one into a wonderful childless future of unfunded pensions, social collapse and death panels.

Marriage rates have dropped sharply. Not only is divorce more commonplace, but many couples aren’t even bothering to marry at all. And many of those who do marry don’t bother having children. Childfree is the new Zero Population Growth, not on behalf of the planet, but on behalf of the self. Modern society has made the price of children extremely expensive and many couples have found it easier to end the family with their own deaths.

The future of the West has been aborted or never conceived. It has been broken up, divorced and never married.

The state gave its citizens the impression that it could fulfill all the functions of a family far better than the real thing. Its appeal was the power of bigness, the stability of a system too big to fail and rooms full of experts working night and day to improve on the fallible family. Unfortunately not only can’t the state do any of these things better than the family, but it can’t do them at all without the family. And the family has collapsed, falling apart into disassociated lonely individuals, looking for their father and mother, their children and their future, in the great soulless body of the state.

“The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else,” Fredrick Bastiat wrote. At its most basic the state is a pyramid scheme into which everyone pays into and from which everyone expects to extract more than their fair share. At the very least they expect the state to function like a wise investment fund, taking their taxes and investing them in ways that will maximize their social return.

Unfortunately the state is more like an actual pyramid scheme whose schemers squander as much of the money as they can while pressuring the suckers to throw in more and more, promising big returns and parading around the model investors who made a fortune as their success stories.

Invest more in education, the schemers of the state urge, presenting as an example a few individual students from the diminishing percentage of college graduates who are actually able to find a full-time job based on their degree. Invest more in healthcare they cry, trotting out the elderly and the children who depend on social services, even while those same schemers are robbing those services blind. Invest in foreign aid, in the war on poverty, in infrastructure and the environment and a thousand other social funds, they cry, even as all the trillions of their former investments have gone up in smoke.

Money however is replaceable. Children are not. And nowhere has the pyramid scheme of the social state schemer proven more disastrous than in the collapse of the family. The state has usurped the family, but it depends on the family to crank out industrious little taxpayers, small men and women who will work the shops and factories, toiling night and day, paying their fines and fees dutifully while raising the next generation of taxpayers. Without the family, the pyramid scheme of the state faces a demographic collapse.

In 1848, Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto fearsomely declaring, “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.” At that time the birth rate in Germany was five children. Today it isn’t even two. The spectre of Communism is no longer haunting Europe. It has come and gone. Under Socialism, it is the spectre of demographics that haunts Europe. It is the dead children, no longer killed in factories or protests, but in clinics and for convenience’s sake, that float aimlessly through the streets of Munich, London and Paris. Europe is no longer haunted by its dead, but by those who were never born.

The state replaced the family. It told men and women that they no longer needed to make permanent commitments to each or to their parents and children. So long as they paid their taxes, the state would bear the burden of their commitments. And so men and women gave up on each other, parents gave up on their children and children gave up on their parents, the family fell apart and now the state that took its place is also falling apart.

When a civilization destroys its families, then it destroys itself. A society cannot destroy its own capacity for life and regeneration, and continue on blithely occupying itself with the wars on obesity, poverty, racism, cough syrup and gendered pronouns. The state may seem impressive, but it is only a scheme by which people pay officials to make life better for them. When the number of people begins to decline while the number of officials increases; then the state dies.

American cities and states have built up a vast social infrastructure of schools and hospitals that there will not be enough children to use. From Detroit to California, the future is four teachers to an empty classroom and eight nurses to an empty hospital. The state that is too big to fail has grown bigger than its people. Like Saturn, the progressive revolution has devoured its own children leaving behind only the empty hallways and empty treasuries of the state.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


    "F" the Left.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The pushing of the gay agenda, and the (mis)education in the school system, is of piece with the deconstruction of the traditional family. Once this is done, the implosion of western civilization is much quicker. In other words, if the pillars of Judeo-Christian culture are put asunder, then everything is on the table. This is what socialists/Marxists/communists do.

    If the above wasn't the case, would the radical left, in charge of the public school system, allow the following: http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/25/first-they-ca

    Case closed.
    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Glennd1

      What is the "gay agenda"? You do realize the homosexual population is not growing, that it is not spread as an idea or something, yes? Are you aware of the current state of science on this topic? I doubt it. The bottom line is that homosexuality is a result of fetal exposure to hormones. Gay men are exposed to very high levels of estrogen. They are naturally attracted to men as a result, and that's why they act feminine – to be attractive to men. Notice that they are not attracted necessarily to other effeminate gay men. Hence the development of top-bottom in gay culture, with bottoms being actual homosexuals and many tops being straight men who dally in this way.

      The acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate way of being in society has cause us no problems – homosexuality isn't on the rise or corrupting us.. Judeo-Christian culture has brought at least as much suffering as it has light, if there even was such thing in the first place. Our morality doesn't stem from christianity, it's reflected by it. Our liberty stems from the non-spiritual ideas of the Greeks and Romans, not the Talmud or the preaching of Jesus.

      You and many others here just lump so many things together as 'radical left' when in fact the world is just much more complicated than that. But hey, at least you managed to drop some more blog links…

      • objectivefactsmatter

        What is the "gay agenda"?

        Is this a serious question?

        "You do realize the homosexual population is not growing"

        Their influence and demands are growing.

        " that it is not spread as an idea or something, yes?"

        Wrong. You're saying some politically active gays don't have ideas about how we should run our government and society base on ideas about their sexuality (which they define as gay)? Don't ask don't tell…no, there is no gay agenda. Of course not. There are multiple gay agendas.

        "The bottom line is that homosexuality is a result of fetal exposure to hormones."

        Really? Wow. Even if that turned out to be true, what does that matter? We don't have a problem with "gay urges" or "gay desire" but "gay politics is the problem. It's the ideas about how some of the most vocal radicals expect us to mold society to accommodate their agendas.

        "homosexuality isn't on the rise or corrupting us."

        Political homosexuality is.

        "Judeo-Christian culture has brought at least as much suffering as it has light, if there even was such thing in the first place."

        What a bizarre argument.

        "Our morality doesn't stem from christianity, it's reflected by it."

        It's not like anyone reads those texts eh? None of our ancestors read them. Since you didn't they couldn't have either.

        "Our liberty stems from the non-spiritual ideas of the Greeks and Romans, not the Talmud or the preaching of Jesus."

        LOL!!!!!! That's the leftist-approved post-Christian dogma. You got that much correct. You're clueless about both.

        "You and many others here just lump so many things together as 'radical left' when in fact the world is just much more complicated than that."

        But nobody claimed the world wasn't complicated.

        "But hey, at least you managed to drop some more blog links…"

        Get over your petty jealousy. You're free to do the same but you know very well nobody cares about your rants. Although I personally get a laugh most of the time I probably wouldn't go to your blog.

        • Glennd1

          "Gay politics" is the problem? What problems is it causing us, exactly? Please tell me. Fyi, I'm not gay but really can't stand people are are bigoted against homosexuality.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            ""Gay politics" is the problem? What problems is it causing us, exactly?"

            Gays adopting children. Gays demanding "equality" based on cultural hegemony. They don't want equal opportunity, they want the government to ensure that all others treat them with the respect they expect. It's based on their expectations and feelings.

            Most of it flows from those problems.

            "I'm not gay but really can't stand people are are bigoted against homosexuality."

            I defend gay rights, but only those that truly exist. They have the same rights I do.

  • Chezwick

    Another sterling contribution from Daniel….whose added presence has dramatically invigorated FPM.

    This article gets to the very crux of our civilizational quandary….not to mention that there's some great prose here folks….such as "stamping out…illiteracy in Antarctica". And if the sarcasm of that one is obvious, how about the "war on…gendered pronouns"…!!! Imagine someone from the 70s transported here via time machine and reading this article. He/she would assume such a "war" was a metaphor for something else….and would be dumbfounded to learn that Daniel was referring to something literal.

    What an age we live in…..with Orwellian monstrosities multiplying daily. Thank God we've got Daniel and FPM to help us sort it all out.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Thank you.

      I suspect someone from the 70s who spent enough time around the left wouldn't be that surprised. It's usually the ordinary people minding their own business who don't see the agenda coming.

      • Jay


        I saw a documentary whose name I cannot recall. In it there were women paid by the left to go around college campuses in nthe late 60s & early 70s & preach ZPG and having very few kids.

        Do you know the name of the women, project etc?

        It is surely a morality tale. I wonder if they are like the woman, who brought her suit to the supreme court & got abortion legalized. I wonder if they have any 2nd thoughts or regrets

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The pushing of the gay agenda, and the (mis)education in the school system, is of piece with the deconstruction of the traditional family. Once this is done, the implosion of western civilization is much quicker. In other words, if the pillars of Judeo-Christian culture are put asunder, then everything is on the table.

    IF the above wasn't true, would the following take place under the guidance of the leftists in charge – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/25/first-they-ca

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Mary Sue

    one of the first things I learned is that the Devil HATES the family, and all those who serve him either willingly and knowingly or not, seek first and foremost to destroy the Family. And Communism does exactly that. So does socialism and general leftism.

  • Billyb9

    Isaiah 9:20

    On the right they will devour,
    but still be hungry;
    on the left they will eat,
    but not be satisfied.
    Each will feed on the flesh of their own offspring

    • Red47

      But, I thought we'd get cake!

  • Western Spirit

    But first they declared God dead. That was the beginning of the death of the family. Now Society itself is dying as death reigns supreme.

    There is no recourse to all this death except to let it run its course and the end is not in sight. If the Supreme Being doesn't intervene nothing good can come from so much prevalence of death. The Phoenix rising from the ashes is more likely to be a monster than otherwise.

    The Phoenix rising from the ashes

  • Questions

    Generalization upon generalization — that's the now-prevailing style at FPM. The notion of "anti-family" progressives is an easy straw man. But is it really accurate? Leaving aside the innocent lives damaged or destroyed by violent, dysfunctional families over millenia, let us look at the many recent-vintage conservative and libertarian thinkers/pundits — many of whom I admire, by the way — who, by all accounts, never married and/or never had kids: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, Murray Rothbard, Becky Norton Dunlap, Robert Welch, John Attarian, Richard John Neuhaus, Wes Pruden, Warren Brookes, Samuel Konkin, Jim Boulet, Richard Weaver, Ayn Rand, Isabel Patterson, Robert Bradford, Rose Wilder Lane and a good numebr of others. Not a Leftie among them.

    Kinf of upsets the narrative of "Leftists don't have kids."

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The narrative isn't leftist don't have kids. They actually do. The narrative is that leftist social policies have penalized families and wrecked family life at the working class and lower middle class level.

    • Mary Sue

      it's sort of disingenuous to whine about some of those not having kids. Particularly ANY of those who are UNMARRIED WOMEN. Because unwed motherhood IS a bad thing, they know it, ergo they don't have kids.

      Rose Wilder Lane grew up in an era without birth control. Her mother could only have her, lost another baby and remained infertile for the rest of her life. It is probably the case that she herself inherited infertility.

      Rush Limbaugh is specifically career-driven for a reason; his sacrifice of not having kids is for the greater good in his mind. Besides which, his brother David has kids so he doesn't have to worry about the family line dying out.

      Being never married isn't always the person's "fault" or any sort of conscious decision. Sometimes it just never happens, and you can't force it. So really you're not in any position to judge them.

      • Danny

        Limbaugh has no kids "for the greater good"? Is there something we should know about his gene pool?

        • Galveston

          not everyone wants kids, regardless of politics. Rush isn't against having kids – he's strongly pro-life – he just doesn't want them himself. It's not a crime.

          • Questions

            Nobody says it is a crime. But given the main thrust of the article — that the Left is making war on the family as an institution and setting bad examples in the process — my list is highly appropriate.

            Speaking of great American conservatives who do have kids — Ted Nugent has six of them. And four of them are from women not his wife. So you tell me: What do we make of this?

          • Glennd1

            Stop trying to be rational here. Don't you understand? Every bad thing in society is the fault of leftists and muslims – who are really one in the same. Every idea emanating from the left is bad. Everything Zionists do is good. All who oppose are communists and dhimmis and must be eliminated along with all the rest of the trash.

            See my comment on homosexuality above, in response to the ever present, thuggish Adina.

          • Questions

            I'm actually a longstanding Ted Nugent fan with a few questions. Get real.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm actually a longstanding Ted Nugent fan with a few questions. Get real."

            That's your argument to show you're not confused?

            I rest my case. Try reading carefully and analyzing what is actually written. But don't despair, it's likely with a little discipline you can easily overcome your tendency to get confused. When we look for examples, we try to think about saliency. When speaking about statistics and generalizations one can always find counter-examples. What's so confusing about that? Ted Nugent is only an archetype of someone who loves the A-chord. He's not a model for much else, other than turning his fame for A-chord mania in to a larger-than-life image you seem to be impressed by. No problem there, but what is the relevancy to the conversation here?

            What do we make of this?

            Nugent is OK. I saw him live when he still had long hair and I was very, very young.

          • Western Canadian

            You’ve stopped being rational to such a degree, that the rest of us have to be to keep the universe in balance.

        • Mary Sue

          so that he may better concentrate on spreading the message of conservative, you doofus. His brother is perpetuating the line which is good enough.

    • stevefraser

      AFDC is the most destructive of all the Left's attacks on the family.

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    "The family" is not a panacea. See http://clarespark.com/2013/01/17/bondage-and-the-…. "Bondage and the family." Families differ over time, and inside a specific society. Glorifying the traditional family will hardly solve all our problems, any more than excessive statism will.

    • Glennd1

      You're in trouble now – don't try to bring critical thinking into a dialog like this. In fact, the truth is that neither the left nor the right have any idea what the optimal social structure is. Consider that we are maybe 50 years away from transferring our consciousness to a digital environment. Consider that we are able to clone and create organs from stem cell, can engineer genes and create bio-mechanical devices as well. We are on the threshhold of eliminating cancer – again thanks to genetics. There is real hope to cure Alzheimers. In 100 years it might be entirely feasible to live for hundreds of years. When you consider virtual identities, the possibilities become mindnumbing.

      None of that means I don't understand the centrality of family formation to the well being of our society. For a very substantive treatment of the subject, read Charles Murray's Coming Apart for a treatise on the topic. I just object to constant oversimplification of it. And while I think that welfare programs should not encourage the destruction of the family, I also think that the govt has no business weighing in at all on the topic. I don't need to be told about it all the time. Part of this is also a reaction to the industrial and now information age, the urban trend and the move away from an agrarian society. Longer lifespans also contribute as people delay child rearing.

      I guess we are in the wrong spot for intellectual conversation. Hectoring and hysteria and agit prop are the order of the day. Sigh…

      • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

        There will still be mothers and fathers and siblings. I find it hard to imagine a techutopia that will conquer Oedipus, Eleketra, and the rage to kill/kiss our little rivals.Unless all babies are grown in test tubes by anonymous donors and brought up in carefully structured communes.

    • David of Edinburgh

      "Solve all our problems"?
      Meanwhile the animal kingdom continues to function within the parent/sibling family structure unabated. A structure that is free from the ravages of the intellectual vanity possessed by man which has created the needless problems affecting the same family structure.

  • antisharia

    The left has always been trying to redefine family. Marx called for its outright abolition in his manifesto. The family can stand as a bulwark against the state and the filth that it produces. That's why leftists undermine it at every turn. Anything that can take loyalty and devotion from the god state must be crushed. That's why families and churches are under constant attack.

  • HJM

    Possible?? 250 years from now, no more male or female, only "humanoids", created in a maturation chamber, in perfect health, planted to work in sectors needed. After useful time period, put to death. Family? What's that? Ancient history? Ah, what a lovely future! Only hope for mankind is the dawing of the Kingdom of Adonai!

  • Luis

    Brilliant article.


    First: Baby boomers' generation. No god with kids. bob Dylan generation
    Second: X generation. NO god and no kids. Nirvana generation
    Third: Video games' generation. no god, no kids, no jobs. Fake/no music e.g. Jonas bros.
    Last: Facebook generation. ringtones and Justin beaver. No god, no kids, no music, no jobs and no country (islamization)

    • Questions

      News flash, Aizeta: Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love had a daughter together. Yeah, I know, they were screwed up. But "the Nirvana generation" is still an odd label to hang on their age group.

      Funny, but every time I go to Bed Bath & Beyond I see a few baby strollers with real live babies inside. Less anecdotal, our nation's population is now in excess of 310 million. Compare that to the 178 million counted in the 1960 Census of Population — you know, the last Census before "selfish" youth took over. That's an increase of over 130 million. Someone besides Mexicans and Salvadoreans must have had all those kids.

      Wild generalizations based on crude stereotyping don't make for a sound arguments.

    • stevefraser

      You forgot the growth of a huge central state which defines reality and is always right.

  • BLJ

    If Obama and the Left have their way we will become the United Statism of America. America was once a great place. I can't say that with any conviction anymore.

  • Civilus Defendus

    In "Age of Delirium: The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union" David Satter describes the shattering of the grip of government on every aspect of the people's lives. They stood in shock and apprehension at the loss of the protective state and at their new and uncertain liberation to think and act for themselves.

    We will have such a moment, when the Demagogue-in-Chief is gone, when socialism is finally discredited sufficiently to no longer be vogue, when PC censorship is rejected, moral and cultural equivalence are accepted as demonstrably false… a time when American exceptionalism expresses itself in a myriad of ways, dead white men are read and appreciated, personal responsibility is less burden and more liberation. Americans will value their nation, their culture and citizenship and their children.

    There is much yet to be done, but that vision is there, just out of reach.

  • cxt

    To praphrase….."there is no "group" there are only groups of individuals. And when you sacrifice an individual for the "good" of the group…….you sacrifice the group one part at a time."

    The family–however one defines it is the building block of civilaztion (sp) to destroy it is to break a freakishly hard to achive stable civilazation (sp ) by the time the Left figures that out and discovers that doing so has seriously damages the fabic of the nation, it may be to late to fix it.

    Maybe they should think it through–if a person does not really care about those that SHOULD be closest to them–then why should they care much about anyone or anything else?????

  • Anonymous

    I think the situation in Canada is even worse than in the United States. The notion of the nuclear family — that is, husband, wife, children — has been defunct for decades. For years income tax rewarded common law couples (under Liberal regimes common law couples paid far less in taxes than married couples. They taxed, penalized, those who married.) Now with gay marriage, it is considered a gender crime to employ on a marriage certificate the terms "husband" or "wife" — we must all be asexual entities. As I laugh. And geniuses who devise such things are typically members of Canada's ultra-Leftist Supreme Court — these justices are who actually rule Canada.

  • Anonymous

    Forgot to add, that the next step for Canada will be the legalization of polygamy. Because, for Supreme Court Leftists, polygamy is just so wonderfully Third World! (Never mind that it will spell the end of Canada's welfare system.) Such is "progress" in the Great North.

  • FrontPgSubscr

    Essential family structure goes … it's OVER. The left, spearheaded largely by
    the traditional Jesuit Order (founded by Ignatius deLoyola (ex-Spanish soldier),
    officially, in 1540AD for the purpose of countering and, if possible, destroying
    the Reformation which began in October of 1517AD. This counter reformation
    continues to this day!!! They are the REAL originators of communism (Karl Marx,
    Joseph Stalin, and Fidel Castro were (among) their pupils)), having originally
    set up that system (in the 'missions') called 'reductions' in the 'indigenous indian
    populations of Paraguay in the mid-late 1800s. Much of this kind of information
    will NOT be found in the history books, revised and republished by American
    Historical Society which was set up by the large non-profit foundations during
    the 1920s.

    • Questions

      Luther, unless I'm wrong, had no kids while a Roman Catholic priest. He created quite a brood with his wife after he initiated Protestantism.

      • FrontPgSubscr

        The CRITICAL matter is: The kind and quality of upbringing this -brood received.

    • stevefraser

      The primary goal is not to destroy the family but to grow a huge central state that defines reality and is always right…The traditional family is an impediment to this goal…..which is why Marx hated the family, along with Hitler. See "Liberal Fascism" by J. Goldberg for the historical details of the growth and deification of the State.

      • FrontPgSubscr

        John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1834-1902 (aka Lord Acton):
        “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

        "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and
        lose his own soul?" – Matthew 16: 26

  • SuicidePrevention

    Daniel, how goes your quest to have a family?

  • Miriam

    I don't think you can just blame the 'left' for all of this although definitely Stalinism was a nail in the coffin for Russia. Too much war, too much insecurity, too much being treated like cattle. People do give up if they rightly perceive that they , or their offspring, are only of use as cannon fodder and serfs to those who want them to breed . If they can see no path to dramatically improve their own lives, let alone their descendants. If there was a sudden withdrawal of social security, you might see birthrates diminish even further if the economic insecurities are not addressed. If those on the right of the spectrum feel that it is declining birthrates that threaten our civilization, I think they need to have a good look at why some actions in the past have led to those who do not share their beliefs having less. Anyway, even Muslims in the West have less children after a while.

  • Stonewall

    “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain….The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital." Karl Marx – Communist Manifesto

    • stevefraser

      But the bourgeois family is a cultural/social evolutionary advance. Marx hates it because he deifies an insane society defined by no private property (another social/cultual advance), no money, no family structure and no markets. Hate is at the core of the Left, a true death cult.

  • Miriam

    Stonewall: Well, that's true, the average person does not have much capital at all and those that do have a lot of capital don't have a lot of children themselves (maybe two) but expect others to …

  • Willy Rho

    The Red Green Alliance has dramatically moved the destruction of the West into High Gear. The Kenyan Born, Muslim, Communist, Illegal Alien that is the President of the USA has a goal of completely Collapsing the Current Government and the Economy of the United States before the end of his second term. With the Aid of the Main Stream Propaganda Ministry, he is succeeding. He has put in place an Election Stealing Machine that realy showed its capability in the 2012 Elections. I expect by Nov 2014 it will be completely impossible for any one else, except his Cabal to win any election anywhere, except maybe Dog Catcher in Fairbanks, Alaska.

  • Miriam

    Okay …. and Bush's military overspending, corrupt cronyism and own election stealing was to save the West?

  • cynthia curran

    Well i'm in the middle, we need to reduce Hispanic birthrates in order to not have the problems that Hispanics have with income and gangs and out of wedlock births. I'm glad that Mexico birthrate is dropping. Some of the high birthrate crowd want a lot of immirgation and high birthrates from Hispancs that have more poverty issues than whites and keeping the birthrates high in Mexico means more illegal immirgants here

  • cynthia curran

    think the situation in Canada is even worse than in the United States. The notion of the nuclear family — that is, husband, wife, children — has been defunct for decades. For years income tax rewarded common law couples (under Liberal regimes common law couples paid far less in taxes than married couples. They taxed, penalized, those who married.) Now with gay marriage, it is considered a gender crime to employ on a marriage certificate the terms "husband" or "wife" — we must all be asexual entities. As I laugh. And geniuses who devise such things are typically members of Canada's ultra-Leftist Supreme Court — these justices are who actually rule Canada.
    Well, Mexico has a lot of common law marriage and Gay Marriage is excepted inMexico City but you here Norquist and company talk about conservative social values with Hispanics.

  • Jeff Bargholz


    this is a very good article. Bastiat was right about socialist elites using the state to plunder a society's wealth while encouraging the masses to try to live off the other guy's dime. Describing it as a pyramid scheme is simple and accurate.

    Obama's handlers have him enforcing this system like a mentally retarded regent because he's much too stupid to have thought of it himself. I think Americans went to sleep as citizens (barely) before he was installed and woke up as employees afterwards. Pretty soon we could end up as proles.

    Do you think America will Balkanize soon, or even worse, cease to exist as the country that was founded on the Constitution? Sounds crazy, I know, but I think the changes the Obama Administration is wreaking with so little opposition are even crazier.

  • KKKK

    and soon, when those nurses and teachers (" four teachers to an empty classroom and eight nurses to an empty hospital") die, there will not be any skilled person to replace them… because they all were aborted or were never born due to the childless policy.

  • Jim_C

    Interesting article. I don't agree with much of it, but it provides food for thought about the direction of future policymaking, and I applaud the effort.

    One of the points I always return to here at FPM is that we really haven't been able to come to grips with the absolutely enormous social, economic, and technological changes of the 20th century. And that rate of change seems to be accelerating every day. The institution of the family is but one institution that has been gobsmacked by these changes. While the article certainly portrays Marx correctly, I disagree that Marx is at the root of the most important of these upheavals.

    The freedoms now enjoyed by women began to come about less than a century ago, and as those freedoms extended into economic freedom, we begin to see the family unit change. For better? For worse? Yes, both. There are many more divorces, many more single parents, and while these things aren't "good," from the standpoint of individual freedom, they're much better than the alternative (Mom and Dad fighting, spousal abuse, abusive parenting, etc.)

    When you think of the halcyon days of the American family, you're thinking about a time when union membership was at its peak, allowing families to grow, save, and better themselves. So "leftism" in that case actually nurtured families.

    The successful family norm, now, entails two working parents. This has allowed for much financial gain–but not necessarily economic security. Most of us live paycheck to paycheck; we are still able to save, but those savings don't go as far given today's costs. So economic pressures are great, and can contribute to marital stress.

    I don't agree at all that the State, in the USA, is "replacing the family," though. The State may or may not be becoming too unwieldy and inefficient and too enamored of selling us a bill of goods. It may be becoming a hindrance in its attempts to solve problems. But it is a long, long way from "taking over" that most important of society's building blocks.

  • Connor Beaty

    great article