> Quoth Jim D, in part: > > > So instead of saying "we're in favor of the family" and then > redefining the > > "family" as any set of two or more individuals who live together (or > > whatever), the point is that we're in favor of helping and protecting > > children, providing health care to everyone (whether they're in > a "family" > > or not, whether they're "domestic partners" or not), etc. Of > course such a > > program cannot simply be [im]posed on the scattered and small > > insurgent-left-progressive-populist-socialist-feminist-antiracist > > movements. It has to be agreed to democratically. > > Establishing policy tie-ins is the least of it, Jim. . . . In the same vein, it's not simply about economic provision, but about the values one would impart to children and the ethic of responsibility (both individual and communal). In a less positive vein, it's implicitly about breeding for the nation. On the whole, the pro-family advantage remains something that the left needs to appropriate. MBS
