Traditional Family Values – Their Implications

I have written two blogs recently; the first titled ‘American Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam – Two Sides of the Same Coin’ and the second titled ‘Using Religion as a Weapon in Class Warfare’. I used these two articles to put a shot across the bow of conservative forces that would change our society to their ideal of a religious utopia. What really requires discussion are the fundamental principles and suppositions of their world view.

The first of these is the ideology of Traditional Family Values. The history of this term came from the 1980 Republican Presidential Platform and was in reference to the reestablishment of structures of 1950s and pre World War Two America. It was much in reaction to the social unrest of the 60s and 70s and an appeal to those who felt so disaffected by social change, primarily those with social conservative beliefs. To unify those who were so dissatisfied into a single cause, which was predominately the white middle class, overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christians and threatened by change; the organizing forces selected elements of the traditional American mythos.

A key supposition is the concept of the traditional nuclear family as the most basic element of American society and stability. Based on that, any change to the nuclear family is seen as threatening the wellbeing of all of society and in particular Americanism.

The Traditional Family Values concept called for a return to the following:

• The promotion and support of traditional marriage

• The elimination of sex outside of marriage

• The denial of rights to same sex couples

• The denial of rights to the LGBTQ

• The denial of same sex couples’ adoption

• The support for the traditional role of women in the family

• The support for compartmentalization (the belief that men and women have complementary roles and responsibility within marriage, family life, religious leadership and elsewhere)

• The opposition of induced abortion

• The promotion of abstinence only sex education

• The support for American Exceptionalism

• Unquestioning American nationalism and patriotic duty

• The opposition to any policies that doesn’t support the protection of children from obscenity and exploitation

• The return of religious expression and prayer to public schools

• The teaching of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as a theoretical alternative to the “Big Bang” and Darwinian Evolution

• The return of sovereign individualism

• The return of personal responsibility (this turns out to be a coded message opposing all government subsidies and entitlements)

• A full commitment and support of the Free Enterprise economic system

The adoption of these values requires the acceptance of the notion that liberal and secular forces have hijacked and taken control of the major institutions within American society including the institution of government and government bureaucracies. It also assumes that the less government the better, including regulatory control. The assumption also requires the belief that traditional conservatives have become a targeted minority, stripping away their individual rights and restricting their conservative and religious expression.  

It also makes the supposition that the public schools are committed to teaching only secular values and is controlled by forces that are opposed to traditional values and teaching only approved academic subjects.

Those that don’t go along with this notion of Traditional Family Values are routinely characterized as being un-American, immoral, irresponsible, godless, socialistic or communistic and destructive to the survival of the nation. This has led to constant scapegoating and blaming for society’s problems on those opposing the notion of Traditional Family Values.  

 This movement also claims to be a populist movement representing, which has been called at various times the “Silent Majority” or “Moral Majority”. However, is it truly a populist movement or is it a carefully contrived bid for dominant power? In some ways it meets the definition of a populist movement, but in other ways it does not. It would be easier to call this a populist movement if it had grown from grassroots organizations, but it was clearly created, supported and directed from the power structure of the political right.

With the success of social action during the late 1950s, 1960s and the 1970s, much of the conservative movement was “on the ropes”. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was severely defeated in his bid for the Whitehouse and this represented a withdrawal from the national political state for the right, leaving progressives and moderates in charge. The focus of the political right turned to the local and state levels and slowly made gains at controlling the lowest political levels. The turning point for the political right came when the religious right joined them in the opposition to the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade and induced abortion was universally granted. This is the moment that the political right coalesced and created what we know today. The opposition to abortion could be accurately defined as a populist movement as it brought together a variety of divergent groups under one objective. The power of this alliance was felt, for the first time, in the presidential election of 1980, putting Ronald Reagan in the Whitehouse. Traditionally, fundamental Christians had not been politically involved.

One may ask what is wrong with people advocating Traditional Family Values. There is nothing wrong with people advocating these values for themselves and their families. However, it becomes a destructive force when it is imposed on a society that has chosen time and time again to remain not only secular, but to transform into a secular governing structure. It is also sad that those social conservatives have been manipulated like pawns on a chess board by the traditional right, which is controlled by the old elite plutocracy of conservative wealth and power.

It is better to live in a secular society, which guarantees existence, equality and justice, than live in a society of only interpretation of morality and restrictive values.