1

"1. We believe the family is the basic unit of society. "

Wrong....the individual is the basic unit of society.

"2. We believe that from birth we are initiated into the community structure of the family. We are not thrust into a state of radical individualism but rather into the most basic form of community. We are created to be both individuated persons and members of a community; neither can be reduced into the other."

there is no reason why anyone cant be an INDIVIDUAL first and foremost...it is not incompatible with the making of a good society,who's primary purpose,let us not forget,is to serve the INDIVIDUALS that composes it

"3. We believe the heart of the family is the pre-political institution of marriage, a “one-flesh union” of sexually complementary spouses who cleave to each other in permanent commitment, loyalty, and fidelity and that this one-flesh communion is naturally ordered to the good of spousal unity, to procreation, and to the nurturing of children. "

well,that was some thinly veiled gay-bashing...as if gay couples had not allready demonstrated REPEATADLY their ability to nurtur children within the confines of their perfectly natural relationships...you ve been hanging around the FRC too long Joe...you re allready parroting their fascist propaganda.

"4. We believe it is a self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of human flourishing. "

Funny how you right wing cultists types always hated the original wording of that last one...Life,Liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS...

"5. We believe in protecting the intrinsic dignity of all members of the human family, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., and believe that they must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status."

unless of course they fall outside of the narrow confines of what your FRC nazi buddies consider a NATURAL human being,hey joe?

"6. We believe the interaction between people in community has lead naturally to societal pluriformity and the formation of various social structures. Families interact with other families to create distinct communities such as the tribe, the city, and the state and that the various tasks and requirements for living has lead to the formation of churches, schools, businesses, civic unions, etc."

indeed...all kinds of families do that and they do it very well too...out in the REAL world i mean...

"7. We believe that each of these structures or spheres of influence has its own autonomy and responsibility and is sovereign within its own sphere. Each also has its locus of sovereignty which is derived not from another structure from God alone. This forms a non-hierarchical structure where all authority is ultimately derived from our Creator."

theres the cultist hogwash creeping in again...*sigh*

"8. We believe that parents have the primary sphere of authority and influence over the upbringing of their children and that this role may not be usurped by other institutions unless necessary to prevent the child from suffering harm."

such as removing a child from any families that would send their children to places like Jesus camps to get nazi training or have them attend "hell houses" to traumatize them into an antiquated cult belief from the late bronze age? count me onboard for that last one.

"9. We believe that while parental authority is primary, other institutions have an interest and a duty in protecting the welfare of children and should do what they can to create and preserve a moral ecology that is conducive to creating virtuous citizens."

And i ll just bet you have a very set idea as to which cult...er...sorry,"institution" would be best suited for that...but why stop at morals...lets make sure their biology classes are also purged of non cult...err...."institutional" knowledge

"10. We believe that while social structures are non-hierarchical, the family should be considered “first among equals” and given special consideration in making decisions about public policy."

grat,as long as we dont forget that the individual,being the purpose of society's existance to begin with is always given the greatest special consideration in making decisions about public polocies.

2

While I'm most certainly in line with the social conservative movement, I do think it is a mistake to treat as non-conservative those who are of the other dimensions of the movement. Many fiscal and small-gov partners, and even the Goldwater types, may differ on the matter of family and other social matters, but their partnership is critical for any incremental advances that need to be accomplished. To neglect them would be short-sighted.

3

Most people, even the above detractor, would agree that community is very important. Not all people place the family at the center of that community. The former commenter, along with people like Oprah and Hillary, support the idea of a society made up of tribes or communities. For them, however, what binds us together is not our love for each other as families, but our respect for each other as individuals. There is a big difference. Human dignity outside of the concrete bond of family has no solid basis. It is founded on a whim. What better reason could I have for respecting someone than the fact they belong to a blood-tied family structure?

4

Great post. If a candidate ran on a "Family First" platform similar to what has been outlined above, he would probably fare pretty well, although he would have no chance of actually winning (at the national level, anyway) because Americans value one thing above family: money. We value our economic security first, and then, if possible, fancy things like intact and healthy families.

5

Who is my brother? Who is my neighbor?

6

While the spirit of this post is admirable and I agree with all of it in detail, giving this stance the over-arching label of "family friendly" is oversimplifying. i.e. #5 is really calling for the protection of individuals, but you shoe-horn it in by saying that individuals are also members of "the human family".

Unfortunately when some people say "I'm for a family-freindly society", what they really mean is, "I want a society where my kids will pick up moral values from the landscape, because teaching them is hard".

7

To compare Rudy Giuliani to Andrew Sullivan is an insult to the very concept of comparison. One of the reasons he is leading in almost every poll for the Republican nomination is that many or most conservatives see him as conservative enough. If you look at his record governing NYC, much of what he did was right in line with family-first conservatism. It is unfortunate that he isn't pro-life, but the reason I will consider voting for him is because he isn't a liberal when it comes to judges. I think most conservatives would agree with me.

8

Wrong....the individual is the basic unit of society.

True, the individual acts as a check on the family. The reason our society rejects things such as 'honor killing' and forced marriages is that at the most fundamental level the individual is the basic unit and the individual is free to leave and reject a family that does not fit his or her needs. Because of this the family is kept 'on its toes' and prevented from being too overbearing.

#5

I notice you forgot to include sexual orientation.

Great post. If a candidate ran on a "Family First" platform similar to what has been outlined above, he would probably fare pretty well, although he would have no chance of actually winning (at the national level, anyway) because Americans value one thing above family: money.

Actually such a platform would probably not win because it is unnecessary. No one really disagrees with Joe's 'platform'. It isn't much of a basis for real life policies because you could use its principles to advocate a host of policies that are contradictory.

9

Boonton,

So you accept Kantian autonomy over Biblical community?

10

Could explain what you mean by that?

11

Many fiscal and small-gov partners, and even the Goldwater types, may differ on the matter of family and other social matters, but their partnership is critical for any incremental advances that need to be accomplished.

Actually the problem with this manifesto is that it is in line with just about everything except itself. Like many 'family values' conservatives they lack true faith in their rhetoric. They hype the family as stronger than steel, more time tested than the pyramids etc. yet act as if all that is needed to destroy it is an accidental airing of an uncovered mammory gland during the Superbowl!

If this institution is so great then it doesn't need a slew of government incentives and punishments to 'strengthen it'. As long as people are free to make choices for themselves most will naturally opt for what is best for them and if the family is it then that's what they will do.

Ironically what you are seeing here is not an expression of strength but of weakness and fear.

12

I would change "suffer harm" to "suffer grievous harm" in #8, to avoid arguments about state intervention on relatively minor matters. The state's authority trumps the parent's authorities if children are being tortured, but not if they're being taken to McDonald's for a greasy snack.

13

I wonder how the following teachings from the Apostle Paul might be translated into law under a "Family First Conservative" Party?

1 Corinthians 7
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none;

14

Jesus on putting family first:

Matthew 19:10
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Mark 3

31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Luke 9
59He said to another man, "Follow me."
But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
60Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
61 Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family."
62Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

Luke 12
51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Luke 14
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18
29"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

Jesus on blended families:

Luke 16
18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

15

B & Ex-P,
The entirety of the NT exists in the framework of Community. It's why "Calling" involved the elders in Antioch and not an autonomous "ministry", why "one another" is so common and has the companion "body", why even marriage and the marriage bed are treated with high regard. Community in the OT is a bit different in framework but still there.
Even with individual conversion there is a baptism into the Body for all of the advantages it has to offer.
The attempts to pit the NT against the family is both shallow and dishonest. You've done much better in the past.

16

Collin,

I'm not sure I'm following you regarding Kant vs. the Bible. My only statement on the matter is that the individual lies as a more fundamantel unit than the family.

In what you just said, those communities formed out of the free decisions of individuals. Individuals who choose to reject their parents religions and join with those with common beliefs.

The individual as a fundamental unit remains a check on these institutions. Should a community stray, individuals are free to leave it and form a new community. Should a family exceed its proper bounds the individual is free to reject their unreasonable demands.

If you want to come back with the 'no man is an island' routine I'd go along with you. People need the fellowship of other people and the communal body. I'll accept that as an argument but the body analogy works both ways. The body works as one but its fundamental unit is the individual cells that make it up.

17

To compare Rudy Giuliani to Andrew Sullivan is an insult to the very concept of comparison. One of the reasons he is leading in almost every poll for the Republican nomination is that many or most conservatives see him as conservative enough.

Then "most conservatives" are either morons, or if I'm being generous, simply faux-conservatives.

Hello Queen Hillary 2008.

18

"Then "most conservatives" are either morons, or if I'm being generous, simply faux-conservatives."

Generosity is not a virtue I associate with conservatives. Go with your first impression. Or, if you prefer, adopt the more nuanced opinion of John Stuart Mill:

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

John Stuart Mill, letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March, 1866)

19

B-,
The difference is this: The individualism of our day was unknown to generations past.

20

Generosity is not a virtue I associate with conservatives.

Under what definition of "generosity"?

21

Generosity is not a virtue I associate with conservatives.

Conservatives tend to be generous with their own resources; liberals tend to be generous with other people's. Which is more virtuous?

22

Then, J.J. I'm a stupid moronic faux-conservative. No doubt calling names and insulting those who disagree with you is a very effective debating point, or you wouldn't be doing it, right?

23

ucfengr:
liberals tend to be generous with other people's [resources]

I'm not aware of any major liberal policy initiatives in which liberals require others to participate but excuse themselves from doing so. Liberals generally expect everyone (including themselves) to pitch in.

24

Liberal? Conservative?

Philippians 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

How about REAL Christians (and most sane adults, actually) who fall in between these two groups, are moderate in our habits (not ludicrous, nor living in a straitjacket), who also believe in individuals before families because families are made of individuals? How about actually reading the Bible while you claim to believe in it, and in Jesus who died for each individual personally folks?
My family was dysfunctional until we all began respecting each other as individuals, and have also mostly become Christian since Christians in my family have begun respecting each other as individuals. Funerals often have this kind of an effect on people in families -- at least on the people with any conscience or hope in Christ. And there has been an increase in funerals among Christians (including Evangelicals) these days too, or haven't you noticed? And why do you all write like your belts are too tight?