Pat Buchanan-ism doesn’t solve fatherhood’s decline

A few days ago at First Things’ main blog, Andrew Peach blamed the demise of fatherhood, not just the decline mind you, on rational self-determination:

I would like to propose that the demise of fatherhood is largely the result of a relatively recent and thoroughly unjustifiable faith in rational self-determination. Indeed, nearly all of the culprits that cultural observers have previously identified—contraceptives, abortion, women’s liberation, increased secularity, the usurpation of the functions of the father by the state—can probably best be understood as instances of this more general tendency.

In short, the demise of fatherhood is a product of what Thomas Sowell has dubbed “the unconstrained vision” of man. In this generally optimistic picture of human beings, there is every reason to believe that reason can achieve nearly anything it sets out to do. Every undertaking of the human race should flow from the rationally articulated plans of the individual.

Later in the essay, Peach elaborates on the most destructive instances of rational self-determination: voluntarism, the idea that the individual owes no duties to others save those he or she has consented to; and functionalism, the idea that, in the case of fatherhood, boyfriends or a village can take his place with little or nothing lost. I do not quarrel with his conclusion that those two ideas have harmed fatherhood, though his claim that fatherhood is in eclipse is a stretch. It’s one short step from the idea that because a man did not intend to sire a child, he has no obligations to the same; and functionalism is an easy rationalization for single women who wish to bear children to indulge in.

But rational self determination, properly understood, is not the root cause of fatherhood’s decline. (His definition of fathers is limited to those who are in traditional marriages). If anything, it could be the root cause of its comeback. Already, the arguments of the marriage movement are couched in the terms of rational self determination. Married people have more and better sex! Married people are happier! Married people are healthier and wealthier! Married people produce better kids! These are not arguments on behalf of tradition and custom, which is what Peach believes alone sustain a culture of marriage.

Perhaps marriage advocates are all wrong; perhaps their arguments won’t reverse fatherhood’s four-decade long slide. But I don’t think so. One reason for believing that rational self determination could turn the tide is its string of successes. The anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. The feminist movement. The gay-rights movement. None of these movements appealed to tradition and custom.

Granted, arguments rooted in rational self-determination alone will not restore fatherhood. Marriage proponents will need to come up with a vocabulary, phrases, and stories rooted in common notions of duty, responsibility, and public health. They will need to follow the playbook, in other words, of several successful public campaigns – against drunk driving and smoking, for example.

Yet fingering rational self-determination as the culprit in fatherhood’s decline is not just wrong; it’s also emblematic of much socially conservative commentary. As a rule, social conservatives are good at analyzing social breakdown, but terrible at proposing alternatives to the same; they are like nothing so much as football coaches who assess the opponents’ weaknesses brilliantly but can never come up with a successful game plan. They are Pat Buchanan’s. I like Pat, but his gloom-and-doom brand of social conservatism prevents us from finding workable solutions to the real problems he identifies.