It Takes a Village

America is in crisis!  No, I am not talking about the threat from ISIS.  Nor about the breakdown of law and order.  Nor about our sputtering economy.  Nor about our racial divisions per se.  I am instead referring to the continuing erosion of marriage and the family.

Today, approximately half of all marriages end in divorce and soon half of all our children will be born out of wedlock.  This is a disaster!  No society can survive if it does not replace the current generation with a competent future generation.  We, however, pretend that this is irrelevant.

Why this matters is that children raised in stable two parent households do far better than those who grow up with a single parent.  They are better educated, get better jobs, have better health, and enter more secure marriages.  The evidence of this is unequivocal.

What is more, the devastation wrought by illegitimacy and divorce is concentrated among the lower classes.  This means that, as Charles Murray has alleged, we are becoming a nation arrayed into two hostile camps.  The volatility created by such a division is already being felt, yet its repercussions are apt to increase.

Nonetheless, neither of the political parties stressed this predicament at their national conventions.  This was especially odd for the Democrats who pride themselves on being the compassionate protectors of the poor.  Why they did not do so is revealed by Hillary Clinton’s legacy.

During her tenure a first lady, Hillary accomplished very little.  But one of the things she did do was undermine marriage and the family.  Of late, her supporters have said little about it, yet their candidate wrote a well-publicized book entitled “It Takes a Village.”

The theme of this monograph was derived from an African proverb.  Its point was that for children to grow into capable adults, not just their parents, but other members of the community must protect and nurture them.  Hillary argued that we in America ought aim at nothing less.

And yet most of us do not live in villages.  We instead reside in a mass techno-commercial society.  Rather than surrounded by a few people whom we recognize and trust, we are encircled by millions of strangers.  We do not know them, nor they us.

So why would we entrust the fate of our children to these outsiders?  How could we be sure that they have their best interests at heart?  In fact, we are not—hence we caution the young to be wary of strangers.

  So what did Hillary have in mind?  She plainly assumed that the government would—and should—take over many family responsibilities.  Its schools and welfare agencies would provide the supports that parents do not.  This way every child would get an equal break.

Except that the people who run our schools and welfare agencies do not care about children as much as loving parents.  How could they when there are so many—and they come and go?  The results, as we know, are often dismal.

In other words, in minimizing parental responsibilities and providing financial support for illegitimacy, Hillary has helped deprive millions of youngsters of the love they deserve.  She tells us that she cares, but somehow she does not notice the devastation left in her wake.  The fact is that when you detract from families, you detract from us all.

As the first female nominee for president, we are assured that Hillary’s rise is an historic breakthrough.  Although she stresses her motherhood, the indicators (e.g., notes left behind in a drawer for Chelsea) are that she was frequently absent.  Is this to be the model for all women?

Obviously callous ambition has been more important to Hillary than family.  Bill’s Bimbo eruptions point in the same direction.  And yet this attitude apparently worked for the Clinton’s.  Is it, however, the prototype we want for everyone?

Hillary says that hers is a life dedicated to service.  But if this service is not informed by the needs of ordinary men, women, and children, how is it supposed to benefit us?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University