Fundamental Values

Don't let politics ruin good things. 

With the Presidential election just two weeks away, this is especially salient advice. 

Over the years, I've lost many friends due to ideological differences. Many of my right-of-center friends have also encountered this. 

I refuse, however, to give into toxic polarization; if we let trivial political differences fracture good relationships, we will, ultimately, come apart as a country. 

Remember: we have, in some capacity, always been politically pluralistic. The Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians; Whigs and Democrats; Democrats and Republicans; libertarian-oriented Republicans and their paleo-conservative counterparts. I can go on and on... 

One's own politics - which, if you are anything like me, are constantly evolving - should be of little import. There is only one thing that we should take into consideration when it comes to relationships: fundamental values. 

Earlier today, I read a beautiful piece by David Spereall in BBC.  He tells the story of a group of Englishmen who, since 1968, have been meeting for pints every Thursday. That's 56 years of regular meet-ups! Can you imagine that?

Even during COVID, the group continued their tradition via Zoom. 

But, what about the political make-up of this group? Are they ideologically monolithic?

"Everybody is different, " one of the ole blokes remarked. "We have incredibly contrasting political views, which leads to the most incredible, illogical arguments."

So, that should be it, right? A politically diverse group could never possibly endure in the long-run! Well, according to Brian, "We are quite different people but I suspect we’ve all got the same fundamental values." Huh... Could this be?? "If we argue with each other, it’s not about critical things."

What do ya know, it looks like people, whether they be Labour, Conservative, Democrat, or Republican, can actually get along just fine. 

But, this begs the question: what are these fundamental values that trump political trivialities? Well, I can give you my answer: respect for animals, the surrounding community, and me. That's it. If someone holds doors for others, tips their waiters and baristas, refrains from any sort of littering, and cares for God's creatures, that's all that matters to me. Their views on immigration or economic policy, on the other hand, are utterly meaningless, albeit potentially interesting.

Speaking of political depolarization, I was actually profiled by photojournalist Paola Chapdelaine in the Guardian last week. See here. She did an awesome job. 

The Need for High-Quality Public Spaces

 

The importance of robust public spaces cannot be overstated. 

I've always believed that the quest for social connection was, first and foremost, something that had to come about through a sort of internal spiritual awakening. That is, a collective understanding that we can not go it alone as purely self-maximizing individuals; we need each other. While I still believe that to be true, I do think that, in the past, I've downplayed the vital role of external environment and the affects it can have on us as social creatures. 

People-friendly spaces, as opposed to sterile spaces devoid of engaging amenities, can facilitate social connection and much-needed weak-tie relationships

It's pretty intuitive, actually: if people are not physically around each other, their prospects for social connection are not very good. 

Public places in and of themselves, however, are not enough to combat our current plague of social atomization. 

As Shawn McCaney writes for Governing, people need more "high-quality public places where Americans can connect." The operative word here being, high-quality

A high-quality public space must have eclectic amenities, robust programming, places to sit and converse, and walkable paths. Perhaps most importantly, these spaces must be maintained. Many of the parks and baseball places I used to frequent with my father when I was a child, for instance, are now unkempt and encumbered by weeds. This is an example of a low-quality public space. 

Other communities, however, have re-purposed dormant and abandoned infrastructure, turning them into vibrant and fecund social spaces. 

McCaney uses the example of Philadelphia's new Rail Park, an erstwhile railroad viaduct that had been left unused and functionless since 1984.  Now, thanks to community efforts and innovative design, it is a place to connect and unwind. 

Philadelphia's Rail Park

Though the park is only in phase-one of its rollout, it is already offering exciting events, including a "Three Mile Vision Tour," which aims to explore the "past, present, and future of the Rail Park, highlighting the potential for this project to connect thousands of Philadelphia residents and visitors to green space and each other." 

You can find a 9-minute YouTube walk-through of the Rail Park, with it's unique swinging benches, here

We need more spaces like this that are conducive to connection. It will require inventiveness, a willingness to re-purpose unused infrastructure, and active community-backing. Cities across the country, fortunately, are proving that civic life can be restored. 

The Appeal of Neo-Luddism

 

I, like you, have a smartphone. Sometimes, though, I wish I didn't. 

Up until my sophomore year of college, I used a Verizon Octane, a neat little flip-phone with a horizontal keyboard. 

Verizon Octane

Being a student in 2016, however, required me to use certain apps which I was unable to access on my clunky dumb-phone. So, out of necessity, I caved and purchased an iPhone SE. I was soon addicted. I downloaded every app from Instagram and Facebook, to games like Plants v. Zombies and The Sims. I have, like so many other people my age, become tethered to my phone. 

But not everyone has capitulated.

In an article for The Lamp, a thoughtful Catholic publication, Peter Tonguette describes himself as a "proud, almost-exclusive user of landline phone-service." It is mystifying to think that, in 2024, people can function without a smartphone. Peter doesn't disdain our contemporary smartphone culture; he just finds no need to abandon what is tried and true: the ole landline. 

To be sure, there isn't much you can do with a landline: you can call, leave voicemails, and... well that's pretty much it. 

But Peter doesn't need all the frills of new technology. He is perfectly content with the reliability of the one-feature phone. 

What's more, those who choose to forego smartphones - or at least prevent their intrusion into every aspect of our daily lives - exist in the moment in a way that we, the smartphone-using masses, are not. I - again, like you - am guilty of firing off text messages or checking my email while out with friends. In fact, there is a word for this activity: phubbing. Look it up!

Peter, on the other hand, is not at his phone's every beck and call (no pun intended.) "When I am away," Peter explains, "I am truly away."

Peter's two phones are in his office and the entry way of his home. Impressive. 

Phone-tower

While it is, I think, pretty unrealistic for us all to revert to landline use only, I do think there is some merit to leaving our smartphones stowed away and out of site for prolonged periods. Maybe, during your commute to work, try reading a physical book. Or, when out to dinner with your friends, start a phone-tower. That's when everyone at the table stacks their phones on top of each other. 

It's worth a shot!


 

Loneliness v. Solitude

 


It is important that we do not conflate loneliness and solitude; while the former connotes a sense of yearning and discontent, the latter describes a much-needed time of introspection and recombobulation. 

A good communitarian will strike a healthy balance between extroversion and self-reflection. Without ample time to engage in solitude, we deprive ourselves of essential cognitive development. Before we express our outward-facing selves to others in the realm of civil society, we must first work to better understand and enhance our inner-beings. While the practice of solitude may seem simplistic, it can actually be quite arduous, requiring the self to, at times, drift into boredom and embrace that boredom as a naturally-occurring and integral component of being happily alone. 

Sherry Turkle - in her important book, Reclaiming Conversation - writes that, "children can't develop the capacity for solitude if they don't have the experience of being 'bored' and then tuning within rather than to a screen." 

Today, though, many of us are incapable of embracing boredom. We are ensconced in a perpetual state of sensory stimulation. By fidgeting and turning to our phones when we feel boredom creeping up on us, we shirk a feeling that may be, at least initially, uncomfortable. 

We must force ourselves to sit still. 

By sitting still, without the aid of our iPhones, we can activate our creative minds. Conversely, when we watch mindless Instagram Reels - which, in full transparency, I've been known to do for extended periods - we put our minds to sleep. In small doses, this is harmless; in large doses; it will surely retard our social selves. 

You'll notice that none of this connotes loneliness, but rather, contentment with time alone. While loneliness is something we've all felt, it is an unproductive state of being. When we are lonely, we seize to be in the moment and, instead, hyperfocus on what is, at least temporarily, unattainable. We yearn for what we don't have: company and companionship. 

The distinction between loneliness and solitude is an important one, but we've all experienced both. 

Please tell me: What are some of your solitary activities? 

Caring for Our Fellow Citizens, Just Like Hamilton Did

 

How can we truly become, as the late Amitai Etzioni put it, a "community of communities?" Or, put differently, how can we reclaim a kind of patriotism that engenders feelings of togetherness and societal cohesion? 

In an essay for the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, Walter Russell Mead extols the virtues of a Hamiltonian-inspired patriotism. "Then, as now," Mead writes, "Americans must embrace a duty of care toward one another... And just as individual Americans have duties and ties to their family members that they do not have to the public at large, they have obligations to their fellow citizens that do not extend to all humankind." 

Conservatism today, in contrast to the kind of small-c conservatism embraced by Hamilton, is too often conflated with a obligation-free libertarianism. While the former puts emphasis on responsibility and duty, the latter jettisons all of that in favor of maximum autonomy and un-ordered liberty. 

A country of individuals pursuing their own self-interest without any conceptualization of the common good, however, will further fragmentate. We will continue to see our fellow citizens as strangers with little in common, save the pursuit of material maximization. If there is to be no spiritual re-evaluation of our civic priorities, we will descend into a Southern Italian-style amoral familism. 

"Hamilton," Mead continued, "risked his life for a nation that was just being born." But are we, nearly 250 years later, still determined to preserve this awesome inheritance through civic duty and a shared sense of patriotism? 

This will, firstly, require us to see each other as neighbors in a common fight for the creation and preservation of community. And, secondly, to view each other, not as ideological combatants, but as members of a uniquely pluralistic family. 

I'll admit, I was encouraged to see myriad displays of the American flag and chants of "U.S.A." at the Chicago Democratic National Convention. Democrats, I think it's fair to say, have wrestled with, what I call, a "patriotism problem." That is, they are often characterized as having an overly critical view of America, one that can almost be seen as disdainful. 

Here is a video of Ella Emhoff - daughter of Doug Emhoff and Kamala Harris - affectionately referring to her father as "Mr. U.S.A." 

This is a positive development. I hope it is sincere. 

Reclaiming Hamilton's vision is, I think, well within our ability, but it will require work. 

Some of my friends and colleagues, while appreciative of my writing on communitarianism and de-polarization, think this is all pie in the sky. I think they're wrong. Though I agree that we are at an emotionally over-wrought place in our shared American story, I do believe that there are greener pastures ahead. 

Give it time and patience, my friends.   

Raj Chetty and Economic Mobility

 


Raj Chetty is an unsung hero. 

When it comes to the area of social capital, his exhaustive and trailblazing research is unmatched. 

My first article for National Review, Conservatives for Community, written in August of 2022, was inspired by Chetty's study on social capital and economic mobility in Nature. 

To quote myself:
The study, which breaks down social capital into three categories — economic connectedness, social cohesion, and civic engagement — found that children have a much greater chance of being upwardly mobile if they reside in communities with high levels of “economic connectedness.” Economic connectedness (EC) refers to the integration of people from different economic backgrounds. The study concludes that levels of EC vary depending on one’s geographical residence. Impoverished inner-city areas, for example, have remarkably low levels of EC, since most residents occupy the same socioeconomic stratum. Conversely, an area with a healthy combination of high-income and low-income residents increases the odds of economic success for low-income individuals.

While this was eye-opening to me at the time, I had no idea that Chetty had been a prolific researcher in this field for years. 

I recently finished re-reading J.D. Vance's magnum opus, Hillbilly Elegy (a book that is especially pertinent now), and was surprised to find mention of Chetty's work from 2014:

In a paper analyzing the data, Chetty and his coauthors noted two important factors that explained the uneven geographic distribution of opportunity: the prevalence of single moms and income segregation. Growing up around a lot of single moms and dads living in a place where most of your neighbors are poor really narrows the realm of possibilities.  

Chetty - and this was less surprising - was also cited in Robert Putnam's Our Kids, probably my favorite of Putnam's books. 

I actually had the opportunity to see Chetty speak in-person earlier this year when the Royal Society of the Arts awarded him their Benjamin Franklin Medal for his years of paradigm-shattering work. Chetty - with the aid of some instructive PowerPoint slides, chock-full of exciting new data - reinforced his thesis that economic connectedness is, in fact, the key explanatory factor for upward mobility. Other types of social capital, he explained, were less important. 

Vance, by explaining Chetty's thesis about economic mobility in layman's terms, really drives the point home: When everyone around you is impoverished, it is very hard to escape. When individuals of lower socioeconomic status forge connections and relationships with others of higher socioeconomic status, conversely, it is hugely advantageous to the former group. The later brings a lot to the table: professional connections, robust social networks, and a culture of hard work and high expectations. 

The bottom line is that social connection is a powerful tool. Individuals do not exist in a vacuum; we are, inherently, a apart of our environments: our families, friend groups, professional networks, and so on 

Not even the most ideological libertarian actually thinks we can go it alone. 

Coconut Conservatism and Communitarianism

 


Is Kamala Harris channeling her inner-Amatai Etzioni? Let's take a closer look...

Harris is known for being a rather confounding orator. Often times, it does appear as if she is trying her hand at a sort of avant-garde slam poetry. Former President Donald Trump - whose name I don't believe I have written before for this blog - quipped in an interview with Tucker Carlson that Harris "speaks in rhyme." This, I think, is an apt descriptor of her unorthodox rhetorical style. 

But perhaps we ought to give her some credit. Maybe she is actually saying something?

Andrew Day, a staff writer for Robert Wright's Nonzero Newsletter, has pioneered a new term that I think beautifully encapsulates Harris's elusive ideological disposition: Coconut Conservatism. 

Day explained, rather convincingly, that Harris's now-viral remarks about falling from a coconut tree are oddly reminiscent of a Burkean, small-c conservatism, or, put another way, communitarianism. 

Crazy as it sounds, I think there might be something to this...

Day:

She was expressing a pretty conservative insight. It's not like left-wing collectivism; it was more like right-wing communitarianism. She was talking about how we exist in a context and how, if you want to help young people, you have to be aware that they're not just individuals; they're shaped by their families and by their educators, so it's like a whole communal framework. 

Kamala's diatribe about context and place could have easily been said my Amitai Etzioni, Yoram Hazony, or Patrick Deneen, albeit much more eloquently. 

This, however, wouldn't be the first time a Left-winger has tapped into the small-c conservative framework. Last year, I wrote a post about Marianne Williamson's communitarian streak. 

Do you recall this exchange between Williamson and Fox News personality Sean Hannity? Skip to 6:00...


Williamson very aptly explained that "we don't feel deeply at home on a spiritual level on this planet because this world is not based on love the way it should be." This, too, is communitarian. 

Libertarian-oriented conservatives, who often come across as cold and overly individualistic, can learn a thing or two from Harris and Williamson.

Coconut Conservatism is the future...


Why America Needs The Ten Commandments to Return to the Public Sphere



To any casual observer of contemporary American politics, it is clear that the United States is at a serious cultural crossroads. In the figurative sense, America today is like a ship without a sail or a vessel without a destination. Historically founded upon Enlightenment-Era principles rooted in Judeo-Christian values, the country prospered socially and fiscally primarily due to the virtuous characteristics of many communities comprised of families and individuals who sacrificed and contributed for the greater good. While changes have been gradually occurring in American society over the last six or more decades, the realities of social decline within the nation are today arguably at their most glaring point in history. This deterioration is, at root, most visible at the "micro" level- in family units and individual households, communities and states. Make no mistake: these various "micro" spheres of social composition are not small in relevance or weight- in fact, they guide the "macro" trend, or the larger diagnosis of the cultural health of the nation. In my recently published book, American Restoration, the vital importance of the American community is discussed among other things when examining the cultural deterioration that has occurred in the country over the last several decades. Ultimately, the health of communities consistently erodes in any society when the social, fiscal, and moral integrity of the families that comprise them declines as well.

One glaring statistic that cannot be ignored is the near-death of the American nuclear family. The "nuclear family" unit was the dominant traditional familial social structure that existed in the United States from its conception through the near-present and in much of the western world throughout history. In this structure, two parents (typically a husband and wife) live in a single residence with one or more children. According to statistics published by Pew Research in a 2023 report, in 1970 67% of American adults aged 25 to 49 lived with a spouse and at least one child. By 2021, that number had declined to only 37%. Yes, at present, the majority of Americans no longer live in a Nuclear Familial Structure. Marriage rates have also declined precipitously, and less and less young people are getting married- these realities are outlined in a recent report published by the National Center for Family and Marriage Research. 

One might ask: Why does this matter? Is it really that "big of a deal" if most American children grow up in single parent households? Many young Americans today put an increasingly small level of importance on traditional family structures. According to a report conducted by the Institute for Family Studies in 2022, only 30% of Americans who are college educated and liberal in political affiliation believed that children were better off if they had two married parents. In stark contrast, 91% of conservative-leaning individuals with a college education believed children were better off in this regard. These realities demonstrate the growing cultural divide in the United States, and the increasingly prevalent reality that vast cultural differences are exacerbating in the country. America can no longer boast that its collective body of people- the citizenry- subscribe in strong majority to a uniform set of shared moral and social values. This great fragmentation within national society all starts at the family level. 

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, most children that grow up in a two-parent household are more likely to enjoy stability which in turn benefits them greatly when taking into consideration academic and behavioral growth and achievement over time. A child who not only has the nurturing hand of a mother to guide and encourage them but also the stern, masculine influence of a father who will lead with "tough love" and honest criticism is objectively at an advantage to the individual who may only be raised by a single parent. Single-parents often lack the time or resources that two-parent households can dedicate to a child due to the subjective realities of the situation they are in. While these statements are generalized and made in a broad sense (the writer does not mean to imply that single-parents are incapable of providing a stable and secure upbringing for children), they do hold truth. Research strongly suggests that two-parent households are strongly linked to the well-being of children in fiscal, social, and emotional regards. In the aforementioned publication released by the Institute for Family Studies, a study was referenced that showed that social misbehavior in an educational setting was twice as common amongst children living with separated or divorced parents compared to those living with married parents. This study also reported that 40% of Millennials (individuals born between 1981 and 1996) who grew up in a two-parent household achieved academic success and graduated college by their mid-20's in comparison to only 17% that came from broken households. 77% of Millennials who grew up in two-parent households reached "middle class" or higher in terms of socioeconomic status by their mid-30's, while  only 57% of those who grew up without two-parents in the home reported the same. 

If the United States is going to return to a place of socio-cultural stability and relative prosperity in average communities across the nation, it must begin with the revival of the individual family unit. Families were and still are the driving forces behind the vibrancy of neighborhoods and communities, and individuals that comprise these communities contribute to societal stability and generate meaningful change. Historically, the traditional American family operated within a Biblical structure. The Judeo-Christian values that formed the bedrock of American culture at the political and social levels even when the Republic existed in its most nascent form in the 1780s (and even prior) were the ethical guiding forces for the American family unit and every citizen. At root, the choice to subscribe to these values was an individual choice; that person could choose to follow the moral principles outlined in the Christian and Jewish faiths, or they could not. While many people did indeed live non-virtuous lives, in previous years however, communities across America boldly adhered to these objective moral principles in the public sphere. People had a strong incentive to abide by these principles- if they did not, consequences often followed. By setting objective moral standards for what was deemed right, and what was wrong, American communities had a clear, concise ethos for all to follow. For example, in years past, it was quite taboo in many American communities for people to act in unruly ways in public. The excessive and open use of profanity was highly frowned upon, individuals (especially women) were expected to dress modestly and to lead faithful, non-promiscuous livelihoods. The consequences for such behaviors that went against these expectations (while not always legal in nature) were often social. A persons reputation mattered greatly in close-knit communities like small towns or tight city neighborhoods, and once that reputation was tarnished in a serious and legitimate way, the repercussions were often irreparable. Today, there is no longer a "built-in" deterrent for questionable or improper personal conduct in many communities across America because there is no longer an objective standard of morality that exists in the nation in a large sense. In truth, America has increasingly become a society based around "moral-relativism" and subjective notions of morality. Moral relativism can be defined as the idea that there are no objective or absolute moral principles. History has shown that this never ends favorably- in societies that have moved away from the objective adherence of Judeo-Christian values and the objective sense of public morality that these values provide, horrific atrocities have often been committed (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia under Stalin, Mao's China, etc). 

Make no mistake- the writer is not calling for a unification of church or state, or for a "forced" conversion of Americans to Judaism or Christianity. What must be said, however, is that America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, and throughout national history these values provided the figurative pillars of social, political, and cultural support that allowed the nation to thrive. In the simplest of terms, these values can be outlined through the Ten Commandments which are found in the Hebrew Bible (the Torah) and the Old Testament in the Christian Bible. Appearing in distinct Books (Exodus and Deuteronomy), these commandments were (according to Christian and Jewish tradition) given to Moses by God at Mount Sinai after he delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and established a new covenant (or social agreement) with God. These commandments were then, and are still today, rules to abide by in order to lead a virtuous and moral life. For thousands of years, nations across the western world have socially operated in at least a general adherence to these commandments as they set  objective standards for what is right, and what is wrong. These commandments along with the seven deadly sins (pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth), defined in 375 A.D. by the Christian Monk Evagrius Ponticus created a uniform and universal notion about righteous and unrighteous living for societies to follow. This created a "cement-like" foundation, and individual adherence was paramount; for if one did not follow these commandments and routinely engaged in ethically questionable activities, they were not only hurting the community and their families, but God himself. 

America is at a crossroads. A country without an objective moral compass cannot remain a country at all. And a people without a shared culture, stable families, or a sense of common decency and etiquette, possesses no possibility of maintaining social cohesiveness or healthy communities. Now, more than ever, America needs the Ten Commandments. By returning to the basics and the foundation of western society, only then can the country begin to face the many social, fiscal, political, and over-arching cultural problems it so desperately needs to address. 

Spatial Awareness and Old Gadgets

 

What do we miss out on when we fail to notice?

I recently re-read a brilliant piece by author Elizabeth Stice in Front Porch Republic: The Power of Place: Payphones. 

Stice is a self-described "payphone flaneur." In other words, she traverses areas off the beaten path in search of old payphones. This new hobby, she explains, has significantly augmented her sense of place and spatial awareness. 

Here are just a few payphones that Stice has photographed:

You can find a plethora of such photographs on Stice's Instagram page, @phoningpalmbeach. She updates this account regularly, with her last post from just a day ago. 

From Stice:

The value in seeing payphones is the way it develops a practice of seeing. So often we are driving or walking down streets, unaware of what serves us no purpose or where we aren’t heading. Looking for things forces you to notice things.

I'll admit: I shut off my peripheral vision when traveling to work, or even when going to meet a friend. I am, in many ways, a utilitarian walker, with my sights set on the destination, and the destination alone. But, in doing this, I am missing out on my surroundings: trees, people, architecture, animals, and, yes, even relics from the past. 

Do you ever notice these signs?

Fallout shelter sign on building

These are, of course, relics from the Cold War. During a time of collective paranoia about a potential nuclear holocaust, these signs indicated that a building had a basement that could, if needed, function as a fallout shelter. Surely, you've come across at least a few. 

Sadly, though, much like the payphone, these signs are being torn down and discarded, as their utility and practical use has obviously waned. 

I was, however, pleased to discover Fallout Five Zero, a site dedicated to keeping the memory of these once ubiquitous signs alive. 

Remnant from a fallout shelter sign on Bishop Cheverus School in East Boston.
 
Look at the sad, pale shadow of where this fallout shelter sign once was. You can find many similar photos on the Fallout Five Zero page here.  

How often, though, do we notice things like this? I can tell you, pretty matter-of-factly, that I would have walked right past this sign remnant. Sad, really. 

We (and by we I, of course, mean me too) have to pay closer attention to our surroundings. Many of our communities are replete with rich, historical nuggets. They die when we stop noticing them. 

Stice's article also got me thinking about old technology, that we would today consider obsolete. When, for instance, is the last time you saw a walkman?  

I just purchased one, and have been thoroughly enjoying the hunt for cool cassette tapes to play on it. I'm loving this one from jazz saxophonist, Coleman Hawkins. 

My new Coleman Hawkins cassette (The Golden Hawk, 1979).

These cassettes have, no doubt, been accruing dust for decades. By listening to them today, I am, in a way, keeping them alive and breathing. 

My main extrapolation here, I suppose, is that we benefit from 1. being cognizant of our surroundings and 2. appreciating what has been forgotten. 

My father recently reminded me of this Ernest Hemingway quote: "Every man has two deaths, when he is buried in the ground and the last time someone says his name." 

Let us strive to keep our communities - payphones, fallout shelter signs, and all - alive...





The Need For Intact Families

The societal salience of two-parent households used to be obvious. Today, however, this social structure has been labeled reactionary, an antiquated norm from a bygone era. 

But there is no disputing the facts: children raised by both parents are far better equipped for the world than their counterparts from single-parent households. 

While inconvenient for some to hear, this is an empirical reality. 

Robert Putnam in his 2015 book, Our Kids: The American Dream In Crisis, takes this even further with his thesis that kids raised by a mother and father with college degrees have the best outcomes. 

His rigorous research, both qualitative (interviews and anecdotes) and quantitative (graphs and regression models) makes his conclusions hard to challenge. 

But, college education aside, we must concede the point: children from two-parent households are more likely to perform well in school and in their professional careers, and are less likely to become addicted to drugs and commit crime. 

What's more, children raised by both parents perform far better economically. There is myriad data to support this. Author William A. Galston once wrote that "the best antipoverty program for children is a stable, intact family." 

Certain paleo-conservative and traditionalist sectaries, it should be noted, will take the two-parent family to mean the "nuclear family," wherein mom stays at home and dad is the breadwinner. This is, in fact, reactionary and unrealistic. The perceived halcyon days of the 1950s are, whether they like it or not, long behind us. Today, dual-income households are the norm. 

This fact, however, does not diminish the overwhelmingly positive role that both parents play in a child's formative years. 

I am beyond fortunate to have been raised by two incredible parents. I am deeply saddened, however, when I think of all the children who were not so lucky. They started from a severe disadvantage. 

Gen-Z, some of whom are becoming parents now, must inculcate robust family values in their children. We need badly to return to a previous temperament that glorifies the two-parent model. 


Why We Must Feel Responsible for Each Other

This quote from the late Amitai Etzioni has become my new mantra: "...we are not merely rights-bearing individuals, but also community members who are responsible for each other."

While these words sound good on paper, are they realized in practice? 

The answer to that is quite simply: no. 

This, from Joseph Longley in Governing:

In 2023, for the third consecutive year, drug overdose deaths robbed more than 100,000 Americans of their lives, according to recently released data. The scale of this loss — a fivefold increase from the early 2000s — is shocking: Overdose deaths today outnumber fatalities from gun violence and car accidents combined.

Would a nation of people who truly felt "responsible for each other" stand idly by as over 100,000 of their brothers and sisters suffered such miserable and premature deaths? I would think not. 

Longley presents us with some disturbing data:

Despite the crisis we are in, 85.1 percent of people with a substance use disorder didn’t receive any addiction treatment in the past year. Meanwhile, only 43 percent of local jails provide medications for opioid use disorder — basic health care required by federal law. As a result, individuals returning from incarceration are up to 129 times more likely than the general population to die of an overdose.

Rather than offering these people the medication that they so desperately need, many states have doubled down on regressive punitive measures:

This legislative session... at least three states — GeorgiaIdaho and South Dakota — have enacted laws that make providing a deadly dose of fentanyl a homicide, despite evidence showing this does nothing to decrease overdose deaths. Arizona is among states that increased mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking, despite the evidence that mandatory minimums do not deter crime.

Humans require human-centric solutions, not neglect and punitive-posturing from states eager to win political points. 

Longley:

While legislators may be tempted by the political sugar rush of passing tough-on-crime legislation, actually ameliorating this crisis requires patience, persistence and funding. With record federal funding and $50 billion in opioid settlement funds hitting state and local coffers, states and local jurisdictions can absolutely afford to make robust, game-changing investments in the entire continuum of care for substance use disorder: prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery services.

This, though, requires a shifting of temperament from policy makers. They must understand that addicts are people, too. They, probably more than anything, just need someone to walk with them. 

Marvin Olasky - in his seminal work, The Tragedy of American Compassion - emphasizes the importance of suffering with the needy, as opposed to helping them from a distance. 

It seems to me that, to truly help someone in need, you need to suffer with them. 

These states, however, appear to be legislating their way out of an issue that requires real human connection and understanding. 

To be sure, I could never understand what people suffering from addiction are going through. Not the faintest clue. But I do know this: a society that wishes to flourish and endure, must never let their people die such deaths of despair. 


What's More American Than a 24-Hour Diner?

By Frank Filocomo Looks like the 24-hour diner is going the way of the drive-in movie theater.  In the New York Post , Teresa Mull writes th...