What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.

Sep. 4 2009 - 4:42 pm | 316 views | 0 recommendations | 5 comments

Bob McDonnell’s pro-family thesis (extreme! offensive!) isn’t totally crazy

Robert McDonnell talks with Jeri Thompson, wife of former Sen. Fred Thompson

Robert McDonnell talks with Jeri Thompson, wife of former Sen. Fred Thompson

Robert McDonnell completed his master’s thesis 20 years ago, and now he’s being vilified as a political dolt. The GOP’s candidate for governor of Virginia wrote “The Republican Party’s Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade.” After he told reporter Amy Gardner of The Washington Post about the paper, she found out that it contained, well, more than a few politically incorrect terms and ideas:

he described working women and feminists as “detrimental” to the family. He said government policy should favor married couples over “cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.” He described as “illogical” a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.

The thesis also contained other controversial ideas: public funding of private schools, protections for parents who spank their children, abortion restrictions, less rigid separation of church and state, and federal tax credits for child-care.

Cultural liberals got wind of these ideas and terms, and they whacked him for it. Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly called the paper politically “extreme.” Hanna Rosin dismissed the paper, implying that it was so politically stupid as to not require a serious response (an uncharacteristic response from a sober-minded writer):

You have to feel sorry for poor Bob. He didn’t write anything different than you could have read in 100 books—and no doubt college theses—during what was the birth of the Christian pro-family movement. It “was simply an academic exercise and clearly does not reflect my views,” he told the Post.

Mounting a political defense of all of the ideas and terms in McDonnell’s paper is impossible. Legalized artificial contraception is enormously popular, despite that its early adherents question whether it caused more harm than good. Using the term “fornicator” makes a politician look like a prude, although Andrew Sullivan invoked it to criticize an author in a New Republic column around the time that McDonnell wrote his thesis. And attacking working women, if not feminists, arguably is the single dumbest thing a politician could do.

McDonnell himself has backed away from his thesis, dismissing it as the work of a young man, even though he was 34 when it was finished. Yet McDonnell and his critics go too far in assailing the thesis tout court. Not all of his ideas were politically stupid. Or to borrow a phrase from the immortal Hud Bannon, “Don’t shoot all the dogs just cuz some of ‘em got fleas.”

Two of the thesis’ proposals might well be politically popular. One is that federal child-care subsidies are unwise, as they encourage young mothers to enter the workforce. This position did not enjoy a large constituency twelve years ago and it enjoys less of a one today. As my wife would be too happy to point out, most young mothers don’t want to work to full time; they want to work part time or not at all. As a 2007 study from the Pew Research Center noted,


To be sure, perhaps McDonnell as a 34 year old opposed young mothers working even part time. But unless someone is intrepid enough to travel to Regent University’s library and photocopy the thesis, we won’t know.

The other popular idea is that government policy should privilege married couples over singles. Or at least the idea is popular among certain scholars, thinkers, and politicians.

On the left, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco proposed a few years ago that the city spend $43 million to build family-friendly housing, one of the proposals from his family initiative. In the center, demographer Phillip Longman called for a “family-based social contract,” while scholar and writer William Galston urged repealing no-fault divorce laws for couples with young children. (In fact, at the time, Galston was President Clinton’s domestic policy advisor). And on the right, as Reihan Salam notes, many academics have argued in favor of pro-family policies.

Whether those proposals represent a groundswell for pro-family policies is hard to say. Certainly they challenge the idea that city officials should appeal primarily to members of the “creative class,” which is to say singles.

McDonnell is distancing himself from his thesis, so he likely thinks it’s politically radioactive. Don’t want to offend those Northern Virginia soccer moms! But it sure would be nice for him to defend the parts of his paper that are, you know, not just politically palatable but also wise policy.


5 Total Comments
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    Mr. Stricherz,

    You write “[I]t sure would be nice for him to defend the parts of his paper that are, you know, not just politically palatable but also wise policy.” However you do not identify any of his policies form his paper that might be “wise”, only two that might “popular”. While I am not such a snob as to suppose that something that is popular cannot be wise, they are hardly the same thing.

    Of fhe two policies that you believe Mr. McDonnell should defend the first is..” that federal child-care subsidies are unwise, as they encourage young mothers to enter the workforce.” Who precisely thinks that this is either popular or wise? To begin with, young mothers do enter the workforce because they compelled to do so by tax subsidies. They do so because they have to earn a living and tax subsidies make that easier. You may well be correct that most young mothers would rather stay home (or work only part time) but whether they do or do not has nothing to do with tax subsidies.

    The second popular and wise policy is that “government policy should privilege married couples over singles”. He might have added that government policy should favor apple pie over all others, I know it is my favorite (although I did once have a fabulous coconut cream pie in Kauai but a single fluke should not be the basis for public policy). While he was at it he might thrown in government polity favoring rainbows and little girls with pony-tails in calico dresses.

    Please pardon the sarcasm but if that is the best defense possible for Mr. McDonnell’s thesis, I think it best that does indeed run away from it as fast has his plain Republican shoes can carry him.

  2. collapse expand

    It’s “extreme” and it’s “offensive” but you’re going to push it anyway, kind of like “conservative porn” isn’t it? It’s easy to imagine you and your ilk drooling over your keyboards as you lean in closer to the monitor as you read this kind of filth.

  3. collapse expand

    What McDonnell wrote 20 years ago seems to me far less significant than what he’s done and said (or not done & said) since. Though it’s been a long time since I called Virginia home (and Lord has the state been thru changes since then!) my question on the above would target his “family values” issues: There are families, and there are families. How willing is he to protect and promote those who are outside of the mainstream-voter-Mom/Dad-2-kids-white-folks model?

  4. collapse expand

    I’m a feminist but one of the failures of women’s liberation was that it did not raise the status of motherhood. Or parenthood, for that matter. What happened when women entered the job market is that wages or wage growth was suppressed. Now there is little way for an average family of four to get by on one paycheck. Add to that the suppression of wages due to the the high levels of immigration and what you got, as the hapless Lou Dobbs properly puts it, is a war on the middle class.
    Kids need parents to be present. The more good parenting they get the better they turn out. Any ideas for how to return to the days when there was a parent around, be they “homosexuals, cohabitators, fornicators” or Harriet Nelson reincarnate?

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook

My T/S Activity Feed


    About Me

    Mark Stricherz is the author of Why the Democrats are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People's Party (Encounter Books, 2007). He was born in San Francisco in 1970 and raised in the Bay Area. He graduated from Santa Clara University and the University of Chicago (M.A. in Social Sciences, '97). In between, he worked, as part of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, for an inner-city housing agency in Baton Rouge, La. His work has appeared in The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard, among other publications. He, his wife, and two daughters live in the Washington, D.C. region.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 41
    Contributor Since: February 2009

    What I'm Up To

    My Book

    cover“Sadly, it’s all true.”
    Melinda Henneberger, editor of Politics Daily

    “A (true) account”
    Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland

    “Masterful …”
    Brett Decker, editorial page editor, Washington Times

    “How … the parties switched places on cultural issues … still seems a puzzle, and, in his new book … Stricherz has provided a crucial piece for solving that puzzle.”
    Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for National Review