Allan Carlson gets it. In the current Weekly Standard, he asks if the marriage between social conservatives and the GOP can be saved. His case in point: the bankruptcy bill. Dr. Carlson makes the point that when Republicans had to make the choice between their big business allies and the millions of hard-working families who put them in office, the politicians enthusiastically chose the financial services giants over the families. And he’s pretty hot about it.
Dr. Carlson frames the issue in terms of party politics, a rip at the center of the Republican alliance between big business and small families. But the central point is even larger: Whether politicians represent corporate interests or family interests is a national question, pervading both Democratic and Republican politics.
Dr. Carlson uses as his primary example the 2005 bankruptcy bill. He is willing to allow that some reforms might have been needed, but he sees the bill for what it was: “the GOP’s opting for an outcome that’s good for Citibank’s profits while disregarding the effects on families.” I add a loud “Amen,” and then point out that plenty of Democrats made the same election.
For years, Senator Joe Biden vied with Republican Senators Charles Grassley and Oren Hatch for head cheerleader for this bill. Even as he tried to position his national image as a strong supporter of women, Senator Biden was twisting arms to get the bankruptcy bill through Congress. And a host of other Democratic senators and representatives voted for the bill, creating a bi-partisan coalition to prefer powerful corporation over hard-working families.
To be sure, Democrats were the only ones to oppose the bankruptcy bill, and folks like Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd, Jerry Nadler, and Sheila Jackson-Lee put up a spirited defense. But the Democrats never organized themselves as a party to oppose the bankruptcy bill, leaving Democrats free to do the bidding of the powerful financial services industry.
Dr. Carlson makes clear that there are a group of issues that travel together under the banner “pro-family,” but that family economics are at the heart of it. Whether someone believes that mothers should be at home with their children or should be earning alongside their husbands in the workplace, no one who is truly pro-family would embrace laws that tighten the economic grip on the American family. Putting the family at the mercy of larger economic forces that drive both parents into the workforce just to try to cover a mortgage and health insurance hurts all families, and leaving those families without a safety net when someone gets sick or loses a job devastates families across the political spectrum.
Dr. Carlson recounts the history of the shifting support of Democrats and Republican for family issues, making it clear that no one owns the votes of hard-working families. Politicians in both parties might want to listen to the warning in his words.
