Love Vacation

I'm finding conservative arguments about the centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems in the United States increasingly compelling. The trouble is that few conservatives seem to have policy proposals that are reasonably likely to make a serious dent in the problem. And then there's Finland: "A proposed bill before Parliament would grant Finnish workers, already entitled to 25 paid days of vacation a year and as many as 10 paid public holidays, one more week of 'love vacation' to reduce, its sponsor said, a high divorce rate and revive passion in a population whose workdays are growing longer."

At least one member of the center-right Christian Democratic party says he might be willing to sign on if you made it unpaid leave.

Comments

I'm finding conservative arguments about the centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems in the United States increasingly compelling.

Please elaborate.

Posted by ML | April 18, 2008 1:40 PM

And you are so blinded by your own "voice" that you cannot see that additional "policy proposals" can never fix the problem. It is the so-called progressive policies of the past that have created the problem. Undo your welfare state silliness and most of the problem will heal itself....

But, then again, you wouldn't have anything to blog about.

Posted by robertl | April 18, 2008 1:42 PM

The trouble is that few conservatives seem to have policy proposals that are reasonably likely to make a serious dent in the problem.

Which might make a more skeptical person wonder if they're properly describing the problem. See, e.g., conservative descriptions of Iraq from any point over the last six years.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 18, 2008 1:43 PM

I would too if they hadn't been pushing one form or another of that argument since at least 1968 (which is when I first became politically aware). After 40 years of hypocritically ignoring the personal excesses of prominent conservative leaders, lay and religious alike, and convenient looking past such indicators as divorce rates in the Bible Belt, I have trouble seeing it as anything more than crass opportunism, (except of course when it comes in guise of race-baiting),

My particular take on this was captured by this double trivia question:
"What was the only trivia question included in the original Canadian edition of Trivial Pursuit that was excluded from the US edition?"
And the answer IS:
"How many weeks pregnant was Nancy Davis when she walked down the aisle to marry Ronald Reagan?" (Apparently there was some hitch with the divorce from Jane Wyman).

Even then the double standard and media control was in place. IOKIYAAR. Not an invention of the 1990s, its origins go far further back than that right to the days of Silent Majority.

Posted by Bruce Webb | April 18, 2008 1:51 PM

centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems

My take is that we haven't allowed our notion of family to evolve. They're right that you can't tear down the notion of family and put nothing in its place. We tore down reliance on "extended family" in the 1940s-1950s and replaced it with the highly-artificial, brittle, and restrictive "nuclear family". Now that has largely broken down, and we have nothing to replace it with -- there are ad-hoc choices, but we haven't as a society recognized a better alternative.

There are alternatives - we could choose any of several - but the fact that we haven't chosen any, or moved toward encouraging any, and instead have tried to cling to nuclear families as an ideal (when they don't work in a lot of cases, and never did), has indeed caused serious problems.

The conservatives are right in that societies have a strong need for "family". They are wrong in that they don't recognize that their notion of "family" is something that is, basically, a paleomodern artificial construct.

Posted by eyelessgame | April 18, 2008 1:56 PM

centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems

My take is that we haven't allowed our notion of family to evolve. They're right that you can't tear down the notion of family and put nothing in its place. We tore down reliance on "extended family" in the 1940s-1950s and replaced it with the highly-artificial, brittle, and restrictive "nuclear family". Now that has largely broken down, and we have nothing to replace it with -- there are ad-hoc choices, but we haven't as a society recognized a better alternative.

There are alternatives - we could choose any of several - but the fact that we haven't chosen any, or moved toward encouraging any, and instead have tried to cling to nuclear families as an ideal (when they don't work in a lot of cases, and never did), has indeed caused serious problems.

The conservatives are right in that societies have a strong need for "family". They are wrong in that they don't recognize that their notion of "family" is something that is, basically, a paleomodern artificial construct.

Posted by eyelessgame | April 18, 2008 1:58 PM

I think some of what Matt calls conservative arguments is a bit of a mishmash. Liberals want strong families too, but it's expressed differently. Conservatives want to turn the culture back to the movies' version of the 50's. Liberals don't give traditional families as much lip service, but support more policies that support families.

The reason liberals lose some of the perception battle about caring for the family is that liberals care for all families, not just the TV Walton family. It's unfortunate that homophobia is often represented in the media as 'pro-family', since it isn't pro-family.

Another part of it is that often saying (for example) "you two should settle down before having kids" is sometimes said as (by some people), or interpreted as (by other people) "for shame, you bad girl." So, because liberals want to let people live their personal lives without governmental interference, it's tricky to figure out a way to express pro-family sentiments.

Anyway, I'm personally always happy to see good things about Finland, since it's the second-best country in the world.

Posted by American Citizen | April 18, 2008 2:02 PM

centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems

My take is that we haven't allowed our notion of family to evolve. They're right that you can't tear down the notion of family and put nothing in its place. We tore down reliance on "extended family" in the 1940s-1950s and replaced it with the highly-artificial, brittle, and restrictive "nuclear family". Now that has largely broken down, and we have nothing to replace it with -- there are ad-hoc choices, but we haven't as a society recognized a better alternative.

There are alternatives - we could choose any of several - but the fact that we haven't chosen any, or moved toward encouraging any, and instead have tried to cling to nuclear families as an ideal (when they don't work in a lot of cases, and never did), has indeed caused serious problems.

The conservatives are right in that societies have a strong need for "family". They are wrong in that they don't recognize that their notion of "family" is something that is, basically, a paleomodern artificial construct.

Posted by eyelessgame | April 18, 2008 2:03 PM

The R's are right in identifying the problem (nominally), but have all the wrong solutions. The reason is that they aren't interested in healthy families, they're interested in white, patriarchical families. The best thing you could do to address the family breakdown issues in the United States would be to end the war on drugs. Because you could call it a war on inner-city black family formation and it would be just as accurate. Finland is way ahead of us here. We're not even in that league yet. I'm not even sure we're playing the same game.

Posted by mpowell | April 18, 2008 2:15 PM

These government programs interfering with the private lives of citizens are a ridiculous solution to the problem. What does the government know about "family values"? I suppose since I'm single they would send me off to the funny farm.

Posted by LT Nixon | April 18, 2008 2:20 PM

Would the vacation come during the "midnight sun" part of the year or the "holy shit, will the sun ever rise?" part of the year.

Posted by CJColucci | April 18, 2008 2:21 PM

Just focusing on the work/family issue, it seems that we as a society have collectively decided to put more of our time into work and less into family and other social bonds.

That's fine as far as the choice goes, but we shouldn't be surprised when those other aspects of life suffer when we don't make the time for them, or don't allow others to.

Posted by Just Another Greg | April 18, 2008 2:23 PM

"I'm finding conservative arguments about the centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems in the United States increasingly compelling." -- Matt Yglesias

Well, as the kids used to say: DUH!

Indeed, if you're the daughter of a young single mom who likes to party and her "boyfriends" are constantly trying to molest you when you're only 14 . . . well, yeah, Matt, that can be a big problem. Go figure.

Makes it hard to want to stay home and do your homework and, you know, do what needs to be done to get ahead in life. A very big problem indeed.

And it's one for vast swaths of the country.

But the Republicans offer nothing beyond this brutal insight. After that they're just greedy, hypocritical and pathetic.

Sadly, most progressives are so provincial (or attached the old dogma) that they're utterly useless. You're finally discovering what life is life in much of America, Matt. Congratulations to you. (Sure, the fact that all your knowledge seemingly comes from "studies" or HBO is a little amusing, but so be it. At least you are learning.) Now you have to explain life to ML and SomecallmeTim and the other provincial, ignorant knee-jerk lefties. Good luck on that front.

And, of course, it's much more complicated than anything the Finns face. Though what they're doing would be a good, if tiny, start.

HINT: really well paying jobs (union jobs?) for uneducated men would seem to be key!

But, of course, we'd then have to think about illegal immigration and some other scary stuff too. It's all rather complex and, frankly, no one wants to deal with it. The Republicans don't want to think about birth control and safety-nets and rampant capitalism and the war on drugs and the decline of unions and healthcare. The Dems don't want to think about family and fathers and illegal immigration (millions being paid less than minimum wage) and drugs and the general popular culture.

Still, if a guy with no highschool degree could show up at an autoplant or steel mill or factory and get a 1969 union job that could support a family for life -- with health care too! -- things would be very, very different!

Yet somehow I don't think the folks at Feministing are going to be posting about how the number of girls -- actual children -- who are raped and molested would be drastically lower if more of them grew up in homes with fathers. (Yeah, there are cases of incest and awful stuff with biological dads, but they're a fraction of the offences committed by the associates and "boyfriends" of poor single moms.) Nor will they be looking at what the prospects of these poor girls would be if they were in stable two-parent homes where the Dad made a living wage.

Ditto Slate. The "feminists" on their XX column have veered into utter yuppie princess parody as they pursue the issue of billing hours for high paid lawyers (do they make things tougher for careering women as they have to go on maternity leave? Keeping fighting the good fight, ladies!)

Posted by Sad Realities | April 18, 2008 2:30 PM

I'm finding conservative arguments about the centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems in the United States increasingly compelling.

So... there were no social problems before the 1950s, or whenever the supposed golden age of family was?

The claim that broken families are the source of society's ills is a way older tradition. Martin Luther, on the Sixth Commandment:
For in this way we might in the course of time bring it about that married life be restored to honor, and that there might be less of the filthy, dissolute, disorderly doings which now run riot the world over.... Therefore it is the duty of parents and the government to see to it that our youth be brought up to discipline and respectability, and when they have come to years of maturity, to provide for them [to have them married] in the fear of God and honorably.

Not to suggest this is limited to Germans (or go argumentum ad Hitlerum), but in the 1930s, the German government argued that the decadence of the Weimar era, and the failures of family structure were dooming the German nation.

Posted by Fats Durston | April 18, 2008 2:47 PM

I'm finding conservative arguments about the centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems in the United States increasingly compelling.

So... there were no social problems before the 1950s, or whenever the supposed golden age of family was?

The claim that broken families are the source of society's ills is a way older tradition. Martin Luther, on the Sixth Commandment:
For in this way we might in the course of time bring it about that married life be restored to honor, and that there might be less of the filthy, dissolute, disorderly doings which now run riot the world over.... Therefore it is the duty of parents and the government to see to it that our youth be brought up to discipline and respectability, and when they have come to years of maturity, to provide for them [to have them married] in the fear of God and honorably.

Not to suggest this is limited to Germans (or go argumentum ad Hitlerum), but in the 1930s, the German government argued that the decadence of the Weimar era, and the failures of family structure were dooming the German nation.

Posted by Fats Durston | April 18, 2008 2:49 PM

Re: Finland's "love vacation"

Don't tell me, let me guess. This has fsck-all to do with love, family togetherness or anything else. It's some bullshit about increasing the national population, proposed by some nationalist a$$hole who believes that Finns are superior human beings to the rest of the world.
So the same country that wants to tell the rest of us what a fantastic, ecologically sound society they are, thinks that, at a time of food running out, peak oil, and global warming, it's a good idea to push political policies that increase population.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is all not going to end with nine billion happy humans using nanotech and biotech to solev their problems. It's going to end with many many many dead people, because scratch even the apparently most enlightened societies on earth, and what you discovers is mass stupidity hand-in-hand with mass bigotry.

Posted by Maynard Handley | April 18, 2008 3:20 PM

My, my, the level of commenters has dropped right off the cliff. Every single one is competing for asshole of the day. What's happening to your blog, Matt?

Posted by Bloix | April 18, 2008 4:52 PM

Many ethnic Conservative Christians who otherwise have little love for the Right's economic policies but flocked there because of the Left's at times derision for the importance of traditional values like family stability would jump on this sort of thing - run with it, baby, just win.

Posted by Vermando | April 18, 2008 5:55 PM

Many ethnic Conservative Christians who otherwise have little love for the Right's economic policies but flocked there because of the Left's at times derision for the importance of traditional values like family stability would jump on this sort of thing - run with it, baby, just win.

Posted by Vermando | April 18, 2008 5:58 PM

Re: It's unfortunate that homophobia is often represented in the media as 'pro-family', since it isn't pro-family.

I have never yet seen or heard the media support homophobia as pro-family (the media is generally quite pro-gay). Rather the media quotes rightwingers who make that claim. I realize some people here would like to have a total public blackout on any POV they disagree with (and for the record I disagree with most rightwing views) but surely there are better ways of confronting falsehoods than censorship?

Now as to the larger issue here, family breakdown is part of a whole chain of interrelated causes in family breakdown. But if we set aside the myriad personal and individual factors in every failed family, the root of it all is economic: there are too few jobs that pay a breadwinner's wage, and offer the benefits and security needed to start and support a family. This is especially true for the non-college educated. Steve Sailer routinely checks in with his Affordable Family Formation stuff, and he's not entirely wrong, but he ignores the other side of the coin: a high cost of living would not matter if most people could afford it. Raise wages and improve working conditions (including job security) for the lower half of the population and, after about a generation, many of these problems will shrink.

Re: going to end with many many many dead people

There will be "many, many" dead people no matter what happens, because there are many, many people, and none of us are immortal.

Posted by JonF | April 18, 2008 6:29 PM

. The "feminists" on their XX column have veered into utter yuppie princess parody as they pursue the issue of billing hours for high paid lawyers (do they make things tougher for careering women as they have to go on maternity leave? Keeping fighting the good fight, ladies!)

A pretty bad summary, as the majority position appeared to be "Sucks, but that's the way it is for pretty good reasons."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 18, 2008 7:02 PM

I'm finding conservative arguments about the centrality of family breakdown issues to a lot of social problems in the United States increasingly compelling.

Hell, Matt, six more months at The Atlantic and you'll be increasingly compelled by arguments that torture is necessary, cutting taxes increases revenues, and the defense budget is too small.

Posted by KC45s | April 18, 2008 8:45 PM

So, what do you get to do with that time if you're single?

Posted by Lauren | April 19, 2008 2:31 AM

So, what do you get to do with that time if you're single?

Posted by Lauren | April 19, 2008 2:33 AM

"The R's are right in identifying the problem (nominally), but have all the wrong solutions. The reason is that they aren't interested in healthy families, they're interested in white, patriarchical families. The best thing you could do to address the family breakdown issues in the United States would be to end the war on drugs. Because you could call it a war on inner-city black family formation and it would be just as accurate. Finland is way ahead of us here. We're not even in that league yet. I'm not even sure we're playing the same game.

Posted by mpowell | April 18, 2008 2:15 PM"

Very true. After all, wasn't it a Texan Republican in the House who introduced a bill about 10-15 years ago making it legal for a husband to rape his wife? You also have guys like Trent Lott who basically think interracial families like mine don't count as real families. Republican elites just feel bad that the world is changing around them without their permission because other people aren't happy being boxed into the small area of what Republicans constitute as normal.

Posted by Reality Man | April 19, 2008 3:57 AM

Matt,

If you are interested in hearing innovative policy proposals about alleviating family breakdown, talk to philanthropist Jim Woodhill. He may be the most crazy/creative policy thinker out there.

Steve

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 19, 2008 7:13 AM

Don't tell me, let me guess. This has fsck-all to do with love, family togetherness or anything else. It's some bullshit about increasing the national population, proposed by some nationalist a$$hole who believes that Finns are superior human beings to the rest of the world.

The politician behind the "proposal" is not even of Finnish ethnicity. He's from the Swedish minority. And he's a Social Democrat.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with anything except the guy himself. He switched careers from poet and general TV celebrity to politician. It isn't a serious proposal, it's his usual attention seeking and image building. He knows it'll get nowhere and then he gets the chance to to talk about how he's the lone romantic idealist trying to fight all those boring right-wing people.

So your guess couldn't really be any worse.

Those of us who are nationalist assholes who believe that Finns are superior to all other peoples in the world are of course not very fond of him - although he's not that bad for a Social Democrat, since he doesn't seem to actually have any politics beyond silly histrionics.

Posted by jaakkeli | April 19, 2008 12:08 PM