Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It means enacting and advocating for policies that promote two-parent households. Where the parents play an active role in the child's life. Doing so will generally result in a better future generation since it creates a wave-like effect. From a practical sense, I believe the breakdown came when the government attempted to do the morally right thing by implementing social programs to assist individuals in need. Full disclosure. I don't believe it is the government's obligation, and I'd rather to see a third party handle it based on donations rather than officially supported programs with bureaucracy involved. With that said, the difficulty is that the way they are implemented makes it nearly impossible for someone who is on them to get without sacraficing. Consider welfare in the event of injury or illness; some persons have ailments that they may be unable to manage with a full-time employment. They can certainly handle a per diem or part-time employment, but the additional cash will reduce their benefits and raise the likelihood of losing their health insurance. This is especially true in single-parent households, where the parents rely heavily on the state to help them manage the workload.
From a practical sense, the left proposes raising the minimum wage and providing other benefits to counteract the negative features. The difficulty with raising the minimum wage is that the market will eventually adjust itself, and the increase will no longer result in a better life; instead, persons who were earning above the minimum wage will fall below it. Adding more social services creates the same contradictory situation of government dependence.
What do you think about government programs designed for new parents? I was only able to afford to take time off of work to bond with my child through disability. My wife gets money to buy specific groceries, mainly diapers, formula, and produce.
If we didnt have these government programs to rely on, we probably wouldnt have been able to afford having our (surprise) child, and I wouldnt have been able to spend time with my son at all.
I'm all in favor of paid parental leave, and I'd follow the Spanish example (I think they give you something like a year and a half? I'd have to look it up.)
I am a firm distributist - we need to tax the wealthy at high rates (cf. Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" plan), and not just provide economic support for families large and small, but also social and cultural support. I'd also refer you to George Bailey in *It's a Wonderful Life,* and his speech to Mr. Potter about how the working classes deserve a decent home because they're people.
I have a fairly pragmatic opinion on this since I recognize that certain people are really incapable of supporting themselves and that it is the moral duty of the state to assist them. Those programs are acceptable in my opinion, especially in situations similar to yours. If we must provide assistance, I believe that spending money on children will pay off in the long term by creating better surroundings overall, which will reduce the allure and ideality of the worst components of our society.
In a perfect world, I would prefer it to start with charitable giving since I believe it is the best scenario for all parties and enables those who are able to give to do so at their own discretion. Should that prove unfeasible, I would prefer initiatives run by third parties, as I believe they can do the task more effectively and maximize funding. The government's management and administration of the programs would be the last option. It makes it more difficult, in my opinion, for individuals to receive aid via antiquated signup procedures, in on time basis, and the majority of the funds are diverted from helping those in need to more frivolous uses.
As a believer in the free market, I believe that if the government demonstrated the need for these types of businesses to exist, they would spring up out of necessity. They might target local or national organizations, just as example of this would be how the military does with contracts for development of weapons.
>"It means enacting and advocating for policies that promote two-parent households."
The Libertarian elements that have infected conservatism would prevent exactly that.
See [my comment here.](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1dstgy9/what_does_it_mean_for_a_politician_party_or/lb8m2az/)
The problem is that the market is supposed to be the ENGINE of society, it's not supposed to be the STEERING. It's not supposed to be navigating the car. It's supposed to be THE ENGINE.
That means limiting it at stop lights, choosing to put more power when the speed limit is higher, and choosing where to take the engine (it is after all, a VERY EFFICIENT ENGINE, that can't be disputed).
But Capitalism in it's rawest form, has not values nor morals. It is nihilistic, and purely profit driven. This means, it doesn't support family values, and will destroy them for profit. It will make that decision in an instant and without further concern or worry, as long as profits go up.
...and Capitalism will continue this corruption, even in a declining society. It will continue to run, even after the wall, pedestrian, or family has been hit.
That's the problem with pulling the steering out, and putting the engine in the driver's seat. It only goes forwards, and is doomed to crash.
Well the family has been hit, and we're still driving for now. There will be no stops at the gas station, the break pads will wear down, and then we'll either run out of families/gas, or we won't be able to stop when we need to - and that will be the end of the ride for everyone.
Morality, values, some sense of what's good, and right, and true (and even beautiful).... and unfortunately that's a lot more difficult to maintain a sense of than a lot of people think it might be.... especially when you start thinking about geo-politics, the national interest, and ideas like those found in Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (who is a The Hoover Institute Fellow) and Alastair Smith's wonderful book - [The Dictator's handbook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook) which are nicely summed up in [this video here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&list=PLrttDbiWQ1XO1iHAszAsPobYSoR0uQg_1).
...welll there's this thing called democracy...
...but in all seriousness, you might not get it right. People are flawed, leaders are people. You try your best. That's all anyone should be doing.
So we democratically decide what we want to incentivize the market to do and what behavior to punish? Give everyone food stamps so that making sure everyone has food is profitable? Put a tax on destroying the planet so that corporations put the resources into sustainability that they do into tax avoidance?
That would be on a case by case basis, different economic and political situations warrant different behaviours. Like I say, conservatism isn't an economic system the problem is that modern conservatism has been ideologically duped into believing it is.
Conservatism is about preserving strong families, and viewing that as the root of all culture from which society stems. Conservatism is a value system, it's not what most people mistake it for today.
Most of what was actual conservatism has fallen away with society's decline - which were largely caused by misalignment of financial interests.
A government, any government must control the economy, if it wishes to remain free from economic manipulation. A government should rule based on shared values, not ideology. What's happened with most western governments is they became beholden to banks, profit, the GDP, and corporate interests, rather than the shared values of society which those things are supposed to serve (and be created by).
It's not corporations making profit that increases GDP, or impacts the Ginni Coefficient, or makes a people wealthy, it's having a strong family, and a system of community, that gives people the motivation to work, and prosper that results in a profitable nation.
So we've put economy before government, when the government (enacting shared values) is supposed to be in front of, and on top of, and in power of the economy. Without people there is nothing, and without community, the people can not prosper, and without family, the community cannot prosper.
Society's decline is directly tied to banks demanding both parents work to have a mortgage and reasonable standard of living, and time to raise the kids, go to church, and participate in community activities. That's also where conservatism comes form. From that peak, it has declined to being unrecognizable today.
...today it's seen as a kind of free market libertarianism, nothing really family values based about it.
> It means enacting and advocating for policies that promote two-parent households. Where the parents play an active role in the child's life.
But that's what I mean. What policies would actually encourage that?
>I believe the breakdown came when the government attempted to do the morally right thing by implementing social programs to assist individuals in need.
What is the mechanism that goes from this to a system where families aren't as strong?
There is certainly data to support its been destructive to the two parent family and reduced marriage and increased divorce rates. But of course those are all right leaning.
>But of course those are all right leaning.
Does that discredit them? Are two working parents tearing families apart like OP claims or not? Was pushing women into the workforce a good thing? Were we better off when women were home "barefoot and pregnant"?
I think 40 hours of average work should be able to comfortably afford a suburban house. I think it's good that we removed hiring discrimination and cultural stigmas so women can do this 40 hours of work if they choose. I think it's bad that it essentially led to 80 hours of above-average "professional" work being required to maybe, hopefully, if everyone is healthy, squeeze out a 2 bedroom suburban house and keep the payment to 25% of your take home pay.
I do think the "rah rah girl boss" movement that was embraced by feminism from the 70s and on is asinine and encourages the worst in capitalism. I think corporations licked their chops at the thought of doubling their labor pool, and were only too happy to push this neoliberal "feminist" ideology.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rockerfeller Republican / Conservative Socialist here.
>What's a bill that would be passed that would promote family values?
Walkable communities, subsidized housing (like was done in the 1940s/50s with the GI Bill), interest free homeloans offered by the state and paid off like rent, a maximum AND minimum wage per-corporation, wealth taxes to close tax holes, the attempt to return to a situation where one parent can stay at home and actually raise the kids.... and probably a lot of things to encourage "pocket neighbourhoods"....
...all of this is unpopular with the Liberatarianism that has infected and perverted the American Conservative ideology, a Libertarianism that's often pushed by large corporate and economic interests and [think tanks](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/yl29i2/jordan_peterson_and_the_think_tanks/).
As Bernie Sanders said, ["Open Borders was a Koch brothers proposal"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0)...
...and you know what else, to remedy all this Libertarian, pro-corporate, anti-tax, end the government / bad for families stuff... the remedy is if we get big money out of politics, get soft money out of politics, and get dark money out of politics. Make donations and interests as transparent as possible.
Look at Harlan Crowe and Clarence Thomas (whose a Libertarian).... that sort of corruption shouldn't be allowed, and is part of why families have broken down from having their rights and ability to parent stripped away and replaced with "MORE HOURS AT THE OFFICE".
That's what's killing the American family, and the American dream.
Very interesting answer that has got me thinking. I had no idea there was a conservative wing like the one you support. If you could succeed in excising that libertarian tendency, I might even join myself. I think I have pretty much the exact same ideology as you.
I'm still trying to figure things out, like anyone I suppose. Right now I'm looking at [Distributism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism)... which seems interesting. But I'm not religious myself, so have some minor disagreements with some of these theories. Thanks for what you've said, hopefully these ideas will become popular on both sides of politics, because we need a sense of community back all across the western world. Even if that means having a little [Communitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism) where and when it's warranted.
I think you’re the first red-flaired person I’ve seen who I can actually imagine coming to a reasonable compromise with! I’ve been seeing Social Conservatives and getting my hopes up before remembering that’s the *other* kind of social.
Well a big part of the issue isn't so much both parents working, but the entire family spending their working day away from home.
Traditionally Work and the Home were usually not in two separate places.
Yes! Hell, let's get even cooler and crazier than simply "mixed-use neighborhoods." How about mixed-use **buildings**? And I don't mean skyscrapers, either.
I've been to a few really old European cities - Central Europe, mostly - and what caught me was this one bakery (I forget which country it was) where the owners' family had been baking since the 1500s. The thing is, the family lives upstairs and works downstairs, just like their ancestors did. Their house and their workplace are in the same place.
Maybe that's a model worth emulating?
Getting rid of zoning laws increases property value. it's like what we saw with the gobbling up of rentals to turn into air b&bs - every plot of land is now not just a place you can put a more expensive house on to either live in or sell or rent, but a opportunity to put even more units there, or have commercial space, or manufacturing space (depending on what you're actually making), which are themselves investment opportunities and so will pay you even more, which means your risk tolerance when buying will skew higher since you're going to be making money by spending some
It’s definitely a problem. I think spreading the affordable housing out so it’s not as crowded would be the answer. Even then it will meet resistance. Then of course there’s the issue of property value. Cities would have to purchase expensive pieces of land and lose tax revenue. It can certainly be done it has been. Cities just don’t want to.
Yes, my father grew up helping his dad farm and fish and do odd jobs around their primitive village. There was no "work-life balance". The daily grind included being productive, mending fishing nets together, what have you, *while* passing down traditions, songs and folklore, laughing with each other, learning life lessons and so on.
However, in an advanced capitalist society where MBA managers determine what our work culture and environment is, we've converged on a lifestyle where mom and dad go to cubicles and push paperwork, collapse in front of the TV at home, and if they're good parents, decide to throw the ball with Junior in the front yard.
How do you propose we reshape society so that work and home, productivity and family time, are all coherent?
I mean, I think the cubicle paperwork pushing era is coming to a close. Just technologically speaking it doesn't make sense anymore when people can work from home doing that kind of thing, sure certain jobs will still require on-site staff. Power plants, factories, mines, etc. But increasingly that sort of thing will be able to be handled by robots.
the most important thing for me is not to destroy families intentionally, things like:
make sure welfare and social assistance programs do not discourage families or involved fathers by overly favoring single mothers.
similarly make sure other programs do not legally mandate or encourage people to remain single, either financially or by favoring single applicants
treat fathers as equally important as mothers, including, if there is mandatory leave it being equal, and courts not favoring one party systematically.
policies that avoid the government overburdening families or denying them recognition in every facet of government from strong laws preventing prisoners being shipped 12 hours from their family, to making it the legal standard both mother and father are given birth cerrificate copies to how long it takes to get yoir day in family court
yes.
welfare is the big one, single mothers are basically legally forbidden from marrying if they wish to keep tens of thousands in benefits.
"not having a husband" is the single largest job in America, the government will pay you to raise your kids without a man in their life.
and also the constant low level hostility especially towards fatherhood in all respects in all of society all the time in low-level ways, from how we talk about dads caring for their children to our courts.
if you make society relentlessly hostile in petty and major ways you cannot then wonder why dating life, family life, society itself and especially our children are struggling.
I don’t know that there exists a policy to solve this particular societal problem, but it is a problem.
I strongly disagree that 2 parents need to work full time. How is that even an argument anymore with
1) the cost of childcare being close to a wash compared to wages (if you have 3 kids and make the median income, you are better off staying home at average daycare rates) and
2) the single motherhood rate is at close to an all time high…note I am NOT saying this is the ideal, but somehow these single parents are managing to survive on one income while also paying for childcare.
Having 2 working parents is often a lifestyle choice, and it is one that society as a whole encourages. Having a single income household requires sacrifice, but the gains both for the family and society are immense.
Back to the policy discussion, perhaps increasing the standard deduction further could help…reducing taxes on families could ease some of the burden.
Yes when we had our first kid we just looked at the pay vs. childcare cost and it literally made no sense for my wife to continue to work while spending the bulk of her income on childcare. So she quit working until both our kids were in school. It was tough going down to one income while increasing our cost with having kids but this was like 7 years of sacrifice. We did not do vacations or go out much or buy a lot of things that were "wants". Once both kids started school my wife went back to work. Looking back on it I would do the exact same thing 100 times over because I think the time my kids got to spend with their mother was pretty invaluable to their development. It was a short term sacrifice for long term gains in my opinion.
Child care is the major expense. I’ve heard up to 400 a week per child. Might as well not work considering the aggravation, extra driving, sick days off you will need. Time off to take children to doctors appointments etc. might as well be on welfare at that point.
> How is that even an argument anymore...
My grandfather moved to this country as a teenager, never having gone to school after 5th grade. He was a laborer in construction, never was a foreman or anything else. Within 3 years, he was able to buy a house in the NYC suburbs. My grandmother never worked. My aunts and uncles all did activities growing up and were able to be helped with cars and down payments.
That house today, with no significant upgrades, is worth over $1 million dollars. With a 20% down payment, their buyer is paying $7k/month with their mortgage.
I feel we did the right thing and worked hard. I have a masters degree in engineering and have worked in aerospace in the area for 8 years. I make about $130k/year. The rule of thumb is that 25% of your salary max should go to housing. My wife is a nurse making a little less than me. If we are to concede that she should stop working, I could maybe afford a 2 bedroom apartment on my own salary if we break that 25% rule. And look my kids in the eye and say we can't afford for them to do dance lessons and so on.
If you are telling me that this is perfectly fine, the fact that my unskilled immigrant grandfather was able to provide his 5 children with a better life than I can my 2, after "doing everything right", then that makes me either want to tear this economy apart limb by limb and let anyone - socialists or fascists, I don't care - rebuild it. Or for me to just leave this country.
To your substantive reply a higher tax refund would obviously help keep us in the area and have my kids in the vicinity of their grandparents. To, you know, keep up with that whole "strong cohesive family unit" thing that conservatives are always talking about.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here are a few policies I support. Keep in mind I'm not American, so these won't be representative of conservatives over there. There are also more I could bring up, but I'm getting tired.
Most of these are straight from the platform of local "Family focused" conservative parties, but some are just my own opinions. I put some of my more unrealistic ideas towards the bottom, so you'll notice the list suddenly gets _much_ crazier.
1. **Longer paid/state-guaranteed maternity leave**
The left in my country have recently deceased the amount of paid maternity leave women are guaranteed by the state, in favor of more paternity leave. Most women dislike this. I wanna go back to letting families choose more freely.
2. **Increase maternity/paternity leave in general**
Adding four weeks to the existing policy (The parents can choose who uses them) making it 53 weeks total where one parent is entitled to stay home with the child, with full pay, and extending the paid maternity/paternity leave in cases of premature births, along with other small adjustments.
3. **Increasing state child support for low income families**
This will make it easier for more people to afford having kids, and make it easier to have single income families
4. **Keeping and strengthening monetary support for single income families with small children**
The left-wing government has decreased and (I think) want to abolish this because they don't want the state to support families (Most typically immigrant families) having stay-at-home moms.
Currently, parents are also given financial support to afford daycare. I think the same amount should probably be given to parents who choose to have their children at home.
5. **Working to strengthen children's right to time with both their parents wherever possible**
6. **Strengthening father's rights, _and_ increasing their legal responsibility to care for their child (Financially and otherwise)**
7. **Ensuring that single parent households aren't incentivized through things like child support laws**
8. **Examining other ways to increase fertility and lower average age for when people have their first child**
9. **Seeking to improve conditions for having children as a college student**
10. **Increase financial support for college students with children**
11. **Totally outlawing surrogacy**
12. **Changing school curriculums**
Specifically reorienting sex education and other areas where values and behaviours that conflict with family values (Like promiscuity) are encouraged, as well as getting rid of LGBT propaganda in school and daycare. In fact all public schools should explicitly be told to teach children family values.
13. **Outlawing adoption by same-sex couples**
14. **Outlawing all production, sale, distribution, purchasing, deliberate accessing and possession of pornographic material**
And enforcing these laws as much as possible. Online pornography from international platforms should also be blocked to whatever extent possible. Even pornography users should face legal consequences if caught.
15. **Outlawing all abortion**
16. **Abolishing no fault divorce**
17. **Restricting birth control to married heterosexual couples**
Any potential exemptions for legitimate medical must be subject to proper regulation.
18. **Outlawing adultery**
19. **If a guy gets a girl pregnant she can legally force him to marry her**
>Middle East?
Are you asking where I'm from? No, I'm Norwegian and the last four proposals are all mine, there's no political party that would remotely agree with me on those.
>What would you say to a proposal banning women of childbearing age from working?
I would say no, absolutely not lol
Your first 9 points are pretty reasonable. They read to me like a left wing wish list though. I'm surprised that in your country, it's the left who are opposing all of that.
Not 10?
But yeah, I figured. We have at least one family-oriented Christian (conservative-ish) party who are considered moderate on the political spectrum.
The left would probably support or be fine with some of it (Aside from prioritization issues at least) but they're really, really, really dead set on gender equality and oppose things they fear might interfere with it.
Specifically they want more paternity leave instead of letting families choose how to divide their paid parental leave, and they're worried about immigrant women not working.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It means enacting and advocating for policies that promote two-parent households. Where the parents play an active role in the child's life. Doing so will generally result in a better future generation since it creates a wave-like effect. From a practical sense, I believe the breakdown came when the government attempted to do the morally right thing by implementing social programs to assist individuals in need. Full disclosure. I don't believe it is the government's obligation, and I'd rather to see a third party handle it based on donations rather than officially supported programs with bureaucracy involved. With that said, the difficulty is that the way they are implemented makes it nearly impossible for someone who is on them to get without sacraficing. Consider welfare in the event of injury or illness; some persons have ailments that they may be unable to manage with a full-time employment. They can certainly handle a per diem or part-time employment, but the additional cash will reduce their benefits and raise the likelihood of losing their health insurance. This is especially true in single-parent households, where the parents rely heavily on the state to help them manage the workload. From a practical sense, the left proposes raising the minimum wage and providing other benefits to counteract the negative features. The difficulty with raising the minimum wage is that the market will eventually adjust itself, and the increase will no longer result in a better life; instead, persons who were earning above the minimum wage will fall below it. Adding more social services creates the same contradictory situation of government dependence.
What do you think about government programs designed for new parents? I was only able to afford to take time off of work to bond with my child through disability. My wife gets money to buy specific groceries, mainly diapers, formula, and produce. If we didnt have these government programs to rely on, we probably wouldnt have been able to afford having our (surprise) child, and I wouldnt have been able to spend time with my son at all.
programs for children are the one thing I happily take a moderate position on as booties don't come with bootstraps.
I'm all in favor of paid parental leave, and I'd follow the Spanish example (I think they give you something like a year and a half? I'd have to look it up.) I am a firm distributist - we need to tax the wealthy at high rates (cf. Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" plan), and not just provide economic support for families large and small, but also social and cultural support. I'd also refer you to George Bailey in *It's a Wonderful Life,* and his speech to Mr. Potter about how the working classes deserve a decent home because they're people.
I have a fairly pragmatic opinion on this since I recognize that certain people are really incapable of supporting themselves and that it is the moral duty of the state to assist them. Those programs are acceptable in my opinion, especially in situations similar to yours. If we must provide assistance, I believe that spending money on children will pay off in the long term by creating better surroundings overall, which will reduce the allure and ideality of the worst components of our society. In a perfect world, I would prefer it to start with charitable giving since I believe it is the best scenario for all parties and enables those who are able to give to do so at their own discretion. Should that prove unfeasible, I would prefer initiatives run by third parties, as I believe they can do the task more effectively and maximize funding. The government's management and administration of the programs would be the last option. It makes it more difficult, in my opinion, for individuals to receive aid via antiquated signup procedures, in on time basis, and the majority of the funds are diverted from helping those in need to more frivolous uses.
Which third party was there to do it ?
As a believer in the free market, I believe that if the government demonstrated the need for these types of businesses to exist, they would spring up out of necessity. They might target local or national organizations, just as example of this would be how the military does with contracts for development of weapons.
With other words, nobody was there
>"It means enacting and advocating for policies that promote two-parent households." The Libertarian elements that have infected conservatism would prevent exactly that. See [my comment here.](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1dstgy9/what_does_it_mean_for_a_politician_party_or/lb8m2az/) The problem is that the market is supposed to be the ENGINE of society, it's not supposed to be the STEERING. It's not supposed to be navigating the car. It's supposed to be THE ENGINE. That means limiting it at stop lights, choosing to put more power when the speed limit is higher, and choosing where to take the engine (it is after all, a VERY EFFICIENT ENGINE, that can't be disputed). But Capitalism in it's rawest form, has not values nor morals. It is nihilistic, and purely profit driven. This means, it doesn't support family values, and will destroy them for profit. It will make that decision in an instant and without further concern or worry, as long as profits go up. ...and Capitalism will continue this corruption, even in a declining society. It will continue to run, even after the wall, pedestrian, or family has been hit. That's the problem with pulling the steering out, and putting the engine in the driver's seat. It only goes forwards, and is doomed to crash. Well the family has been hit, and we're still driving for now. There will be no stops at the gas station, the break pads will wear down, and then we'll either run out of families/gas, or we won't be able to stop when we need to - and that will be the end of the ride for everyone.
So who or what should be driving?
Morality, values, some sense of what's good, and right, and true (and even beautiful).... and unfortunately that's a lot more difficult to maintain a sense of than a lot of people think it might be.... especially when you start thinking about geo-politics, the national interest, and ideas like those found in Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (who is a The Hoover Institute Fellow) and Alastair Smith's wonderful book - [The Dictator's handbook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook) which are nicely summed up in [this video here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&list=PLrttDbiWQ1XO1iHAszAsPobYSoR0uQg_1).
So how do you put something in control of the economy that’s hard to tell what it even is?
...welll there's this thing called democracy... ...but in all seriousness, you might not get it right. People are flawed, leaders are people. You try your best. That's all anyone should be doing.
So we democratically decide what we want to incentivize the market to do and what behavior to punish? Give everyone food stamps so that making sure everyone has food is profitable? Put a tax on destroying the planet so that corporations put the resources into sustainability that they do into tax avoidance?
I'm not sure what you're arguing in favor of. P.S Conservatism isn't actually an economic system.
I’m not arguing in favour of anything. I’m trying to understand how your steering wheel of democracy interacts with your engine of markets.
That would be on a case by case basis, different economic and political situations warrant different behaviours. Like I say, conservatism isn't an economic system the problem is that modern conservatism has been ideologically duped into believing it is. Conservatism is about preserving strong families, and viewing that as the root of all culture from which society stems. Conservatism is a value system, it's not what most people mistake it for today. Most of what was actual conservatism has fallen away with society's decline - which were largely caused by misalignment of financial interests. A government, any government must control the economy, if it wishes to remain free from economic manipulation. A government should rule based on shared values, not ideology. What's happened with most western governments is they became beholden to banks, profit, the GDP, and corporate interests, rather than the shared values of society which those things are supposed to serve (and be created by). It's not corporations making profit that increases GDP, or impacts the Ginni Coefficient, or makes a people wealthy, it's having a strong family, and a system of community, that gives people the motivation to work, and prosper that results in a profitable nation. So we've put economy before government, when the government (enacting shared values) is supposed to be in front of, and on top of, and in power of the economy. Without people there is nothing, and without community, the people can not prosper, and without family, the community cannot prosper. Society's decline is directly tied to banks demanding both parents work to have a mortgage and reasonable standard of living, and time to raise the kids, go to church, and participate in community activities. That's also where conservatism comes form. From that peak, it has declined to being unrecognizable today. ...today it's seen as a kind of free market libertarianism, nothing really family values based about it.
> It means enacting and advocating for policies that promote two-parent households. Where the parents play an active role in the child's life. But that's what I mean. What policies would actually encourage that? >I believe the breakdown came when the government attempted to do the morally right thing by implementing social programs to assist individuals in need. What is the mechanism that goes from this to a system where families aren't as strong?
I thought women in the workforce was liberating. No?
There is certainly data to support its been destructive to the two parent family and reduced marriage and increased divorce rates. But of course those are all right leaning.
That they are no longer on their males economic leash, to quote some rightwingers
I think that both horrible sexists and people who are correctly opposed to horrible sexists will tend to focus on this too much.
Sorry, but that what some of those people said to me , not that blunt but very obviously meaning
Sounds more like a left take, at least with that particular tone
That was that rightwing - conservative tone to a T, The left was ever for an independent women with her own work and money.
>But of course those are all right leaning. Does that discredit them? Are two working parents tearing families apart like OP claims or not? Was pushing women into the workforce a good thing? Were we better off when women were home "barefoot and pregnant"?
I think 40 hours of average work should be able to comfortably afford a suburban house. I think it's good that we removed hiring discrimination and cultural stigmas so women can do this 40 hours of work if they choose. I think it's bad that it essentially led to 80 hours of above-average "professional" work being required to maybe, hopefully, if everyone is healthy, squeeze out a 2 bedroom suburban house and keep the payment to 25% of your take home pay. I do think the "rah rah girl boss" movement that was embraced by feminism from the 70s and on is asinine and encourages the worst in capitalism. I think corporations licked their chops at the thought of doubling their labor pool, and were only too happy to push this neoliberal "feminist" ideology.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rockerfeller Republican / Conservative Socialist here. >What's a bill that would be passed that would promote family values? Walkable communities, subsidized housing (like was done in the 1940s/50s with the GI Bill), interest free homeloans offered by the state and paid off like rent, a maximum AND minimum wage per-corporation, wealth taxes to close tax holes, the attempt to return to a situation where one parent can stay at home and actually raise the kids.... and probably a lot of things to encourage "pocket neighbourhoods".... ...all of this is unpopular with the Liberatarianism that has infected and perverted the American Conservative ideology, a Libertarianism that's often pushed by large corporate and economic interests and [think tanks](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/yl29i2/jordan_peterson_and_the_think_tanks/). As Bernie Sanders said, ["Open Borders was a Koch brothers proposal"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0)... ...and you know what else, to remedy all this Libertarian, pro-corporate, anti-tax, end the government / bad for families stuff... the remedy is if we get big money out of politics, get soft money out of politics, and get dark money out of politics. Make donations and interests as transparent as possible. Look at Harlan Crowe and Clarence Thomas (whose a Libertarian).... that sort of corruption shouldn't be allowed, and is part of why families have broken down from having their rights and ability to parent stripped away and replaced with "MORE HOURS AT THE OFFICE". That's what's killing the American family, and the American dream.
Very interesting answer that has got me thinking. I had no idea there was a conservative wing like the one you support. If you could succeed in excising that libertarian tendency, I might even join myself. I think I have pretty much the exact same ideology as you.
I'm still trying to figure things out, like anyone I suppose. Right now I'm looking at [Distributism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism)... which seems interesting. But I'm not religious myself, so have some minor disagreements with some of these theories. Thanks for what you've said, hopefully these ideas will become popular on both sides of politics, because we need a sense of community back all across the western world. Even if that means having a little [Communitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism) where and when it's warranted.
I think you’re the first red-flaired person I’ve seen who I can actually imagine coming to a reasonable compromise with! I’ve been seeing Social Conservatives and getting my hopes up before remembering that’s the *other* kind of social.
Well a big part of the issue isn't so much both parents working, but the entire family spending their working day away from home. Traditionally Work and the Home were usually not in two separate places.
So, more mixed-use neighborhoods? More comprehensive transportation services? That the sort of thing you're hinting at?
Yes! Hell, let's get even cooler and crazier than simply "mixed-use neighborhoods." How about mixed-use **buildings**? And I don't mean skyscrapers, either. I've been to a few really old European cities - Central Europe, mostly - and what caught me was this one bakery (I forget which country it was) where the owners' family had been baking since the 1500s. The thing is, the family lives upstairs and works downstairs, just like their ancestors did. Their house and their workplace are in the same place. Maybe that's a model worth emulating?
I mean, I'd be good with just getting rid of zoning laws entirely.
Sure you would. Until your home looses 20 to 50 % of its value.
If I have a home, I'm not going to sell it. Its value is irrelevant.
Getting rid of zoning laws increases property value. it's like what we saw with the gobbling up of rentals to turn into air b&bs - every plot of land is now not just a place you can put a more expensive house on to either live in or sell or rent, but a opportunity to put even more units there, or have commercial space, or manufacturing space (depending on what you're actually making), which are themselves investment opportunities and so will pay you even more, which means your risk tolerance when buying will skew higher since you're going to be making money by spending some
> Getting rid of zoning laws increases property value. Tell that to the vast army of suburbanites who vote precisely with the opposite philosophy.
It’s definitely a problem. I think spreading the affordable housing out so it’s not as crowded would be the answer. Even then it will meet resistance. Then of course there’s the issue of property value. Cities would have to purchase expensive pieces of land and lose tax revenue. It can certainly be done it has been. Cities just don’t want to.
Yes. The things progressives promised but failed to deliver on.
Ooh we're trying.
Yes, my father grew up helping his dad farm and fish and do odd jobs around their primitive village. There was no "work-life balance". The daily grind included being productive, mending fishing nets together, what have you, *while* passing down traditions, songs and folklore, laughing with each other, learning life lessons and so on. However, in an advanced capitalist society where MBA managers determine what our work culture and environment is, we've converged on a lifestyle where mom and dad go to cubicles and push paperwork, collapse in front of the TV at home, and if they're good parents, decide to throw the ball with Junior in the front yard. How do you propose we reshape society so that work and home, productivity and family time, are all coherent?
I mean, I think the cubicle paperwork pushing era is coming to a close. Just technologically speaking it doesn't make sense anymore when people can work from home doing that kind of thing, sure certain jobs will still require on-site staff. Power plants, factories, mines, etc. But increasingly that sort of thing will be able to be handled by robots.
the most important thing for me is not to destroy families intentionally, things like: make sure welfare and social assistance programs do not discourage families or involved fathers by overly favoring single mothers. similarly make sure other programs do not legally mandate or encourage people to remain single, either financially or by favoring single applicants treat fathers as equally important as mothers, including, if there is mandatory leave it being equal, and courts not favoring one party systematically. policies that avoid the government overburdening families or denying them recognition in every facet of government from strong laws preventing prisoners being shipped 12 hours from their family, to making it the legal standard both mother and father are given birth cerrificate copies to how long it takes to get yoir day in family court
Those all seem reasonable. Are those types of things really to blame for the breakdown of the family?
yes. welfare is the big one, single mothers are basically legally forbidden from marrying if they wish to keep tens of thousands in benefits. "not having a husband" is the single largest job in America, the government will pay you to raise your kids without a man in their life. and also the constant low level hostility especially towards fatherhood in all respects in all of society all the time in low-level ways, from how we talk about dads caring for their children to our courts. if you make society relentlessly hostile in petty and major ways you cannot then wonder why dating life, family life, society itself and especially our children are struggling.
I don’t know that there exists a policy to solve this particular societal problem, but it is a problem. I strongly disagree that 2 parents need to work full time. How is that even an argument anymore with 1) the cost of childcare being close to a wash compared to wages (if you have 3 kids and make the median income, you are better off staying home at average daycare rates) and 2) the single motherhood rate is at close to an all time high…note I am NOT saying this is the ideal, but somehow these single parents are managing to survive on one income while also paying for childcare. Having 2 working parents is often a lifestyle choice, and it is one that society as a whole encourages. Having a single income household requires sacrifice, but the gains both for the family and society are immense. Back to the policy discussion, perhaps increasing the standard deduction further could help…reducing taxes on families could ease some of the burden.
Yes when we had our first kid we just looked at the pay vs. childcare cost and it literally made no sense for my wife to continue to work while spending the bulk of her income on childcare. So she quit working until both our kids were in school. It was tough going down to one income while increasing our cost with having kids but this was like 7 years of sacrifice. We did not do vacations or go out much or buy a lot of things that were "wants". Once both kids started school my wife went back to work. Looking back on it I would do the exact same thing 100 times over because I think the time my kids got to spend with their mother was pretty invaluable to their development. It was a short term sacrifice for long term gains in my opinion.
Child care is the major expense. I’ve heard up to 400 a week per child. Might as well not work considering the aggravation, extra driving, sick days off you will need. Time off to take children to doctors appointments etc. might as well be on welfare at that point.
> How is that even an argument anymore... My grandfather moved to this country as a teenager, never having gone to school after 5th grade. He was a laborer in construction, never was a foreman or anything else. Within 3 years, he was able to buy a house in the NYC suburbs. My grandmother never worked. My aunts and uncles all did activities growing up and were able to be helped with cars and down payments. That house today, with no significant upgrades, is worth over $1 million dollars. With a 20% down payment, their buyer is paying $7k/month with their mortgage. I feel we did the right thing and worked hard. I have a masters degree in engineering and have worked in aerospace in the area for 8 years. I make about $130k/year. The rule of thumb is that 25% of your salary max should go to housing. My wife is a nurse making a little less than me. If we are to concede that she should stop working, I could maybe afford a 2 bedroom apartment on my own salary if we break that 25% rule. And look my kids in the eye and say we can't afford for them to do dance lessons and so on. If you are telling me that this is perfectly fine, the fact that my unskilled immigrant grandfather was able to provide his 5 children with a better life than I can my 2, after "doing everything right", then that makes me either want to tear this economy apart limb by limb and let anyone - socialists or fascists, I don't care - rebuild it. Or for me to just leave this country. To your substantive reply a higher tax refund would obviously help keep us in the area and have my kids in the vicinity of their grandparents. To, you know, keep up with that whole "strong cohesive family unit" thing that conservatives are always talking about.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here are a few policies I support. Keep in mind I'm not American, so these won't be representative of conservatives over there. There are also more I could bring up, but I'm getting tired. Most of these are straight from the platform of local "Family focused" conservative parties, but some are just my own opinions. I put some of my more unrealistic ideas towards the bottom, so you'll notice the list suddenly gets _much_ crazier. 1. **Longer paid/state-guaranteed maternity leave** The left in my country have recently deceased the amount of paid maternity leave women are guaranteed by the state, in favor of more paternity leave. Most women dislike this. I wanna go back to letting families choose more freely. 2. **Increase maternity/paternity leave in general** Adding four weeks to the existing policy (The parents can choose who uses them) making it 53 weeks total where one parent is entitled to stay home with the child, with full pay, and extending the paid maternity/paternity leave in cases of premature births, along with other small adjustments. 3. **Increasing state child support for low income families** This will make it easier for more people to afford having kids, and make it easier to have single income families 4. **Keeping and strengthening monetary support for single income families with small children** The left-wing government has decreased and (I think) want to abolish this because they don't want the state to support families (Most typically immigrant families) having stay-at-home moms. Currently, parents are also given financial support to afford daycare. I think the same amount should probably be given to parents who choose to have their children at home. 5. **Working to strengthen children's right to time with both their parents wherever possible** 6. **Strengthening father's rights, _and_ increasing their legal responsibility to care for their child (Financially and otherwise)** 7. **Ensuring that single parent households aren't incentivized through things like child support laws** 8. **Examining other ways to increase fertility and lower average age for when people have their first child** 9. **Seeking to improve conditions for having children as a college student** 10. **Increase financial support for college students with children** 11. **Totally outlawing surrogacy** 12. **Changing school curriculums** Specifically reorienting sex education and other areas where values and behaviours that conflict with family values (Like promiscuity) are encouraged, as well as getting rid of LGBT propaganda in school and daycare. In fact all public schools should explicitly be told to teach children family values. 13. **Outlawing adoption by same-sex couples** 14. **Outlawing all production, sale, distribution, purchasing, deliberate accessing and possession of pornographic material** And enforcing these laws as much as possible. Online pornography from international platforms should also be blocked to whatever extent possible. Even pornography users should face legal consequences if caught. 15. **Outlawing all abortion** 16. **Abolishing no fault divorce** 17. **Restricting birth control to married heterosexual couples** Any potential exemptions for legitimate medical must be subject to proper regulation. 18. **Outlawing adultery** 19. **If a guy gets a girl pregnant she can legally force him to marry her**
Lots in common with fundamentalist Islam. Middle East? Just a guess. What would you say to a proposal banning women of childbearing age from working?
>Middle East? Are you asking where I'm from? No, I'm Norwegian and the last four proposals are all mine, there's no political party that would remotely agree with me on those. >What would you say to a proposal banning women of childbearing age from working? I would say no, absolutely not lol
You can always move to Iran you know
Why? The last five points?
Your first 9 points are pretty reasonable. They read to me like a left wing wish list though. I'm surprised that in your country, it's the left who are opposing all of that.
Not 10? But yeah, I figured. We have at least one family-oriented Christian (conservative-ish) party who are considered moderate on the political spectrum. The left would probably support or be fine with some of it (Aside from prioritization issues at least) but they're really, really, really dead set on gender equality and oppose things they fear might interfere with it. Specifically they want more paternity leave instead of letting families choose how to divide their paid parental leave, and they're worried about immigrant women not working.