Ozzie And Harriet Don't Live Here Any More

You know, I'm not so sure that the 1950s nuclear family is the best model ever envisioned of how people should live their lives --especially for women. But Harold Myerson, in today's WaPo, notes that the conservatives sure do talk as if that's what they thought. Yet, ever since Regan (divorced father, estranged from his children), they haven't been exactly walking the walk.

Myerson notes that the "decline of the American family" has hit the working class with far more force than it's hit those college-educated hippies: Taking into account all households, married couples with children are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of incomes, Harden reported. Their incomes have increased 59 percent over the past 30 years, while households overall have experienced just a 44 percent increase. Then, he keys in on one of the biggest differences between 1950s America and America in the aughts: I don't recall a single episode [of The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet] in which the family had to do without because Ozzie had lost his job or missed taking David or Ricky to the doctor for fear he couldn't pay for it. I could add others. For example, it was possible for the entire 1950s family to live on the income of one wage-earner. (Yes, it sucked that women generally were forced to stay at home, but I know lots of families that would like the option for one spouse to stay at home, at least while their children are young. But that's simply not a choice for many modern families.)

Myerson notes that the same conservatives who piss and moan about "the decline of the American family" also cheer the decline of unions, the "globalization" of the economy (aka shipping Ozzie's job to India). [T]he very conservatives who marvel at the efficiency of our new, more mobile economy and extol the "flexibility" of our workforce decry the flexibility of the personal lives of American workers. The right-wing ideologues who have championed outsourcing, offshoring and union-busting, who have celebrated the same changes that have condemned American workers to lives of financial instability, piously lament the decline of family stability that has followed these economic changes as the night the day.


He concludes that: Problem is, disperse a vibrant working-class community in America and you disperse the vibrant working-class family.

Which is how American conservatism became the primary author of the very social disorder that it routinely rails against, and that Republicans have the gall to run against.

The party of family values? Please. If that's the banner that Republicans continue to wave, then they should certainly make Rudy Giuliani, who couldn't bestir himself to attend his son's high school graduation or his daughter's high school plays, their presidential nominee. No candidate could better personify the sham that is Republicans' and conservatives' concern for the American family.

Myserson also concludes that conservatives are "a house divided against themselves." I think he's wrong about that because he fails to grasp how cynical they are. They know what they're doing and they know what results it has. But continuing to beat up on individuals for their personal lives (strangely, those who are less secure about their economic futures tend to be less likely to commit to a marriage -- go figure), helps to shift the blame from conservative economic policies. And, if you can keep people mad at those damn feminists, they're less likely to notice who is really to blame for their lack of pensions and health care.