I had not previously been aware of the “AEI/Brookings Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity,” which brings together scholars from the best think tank on each side of the isle to propose approaches to poverty that can win trans-partisan support. Their new report is discouraging on poverty policy but very encouraging on marriage.
The report addresses three areas of need: marriage, jobs and education. On the latter two, the report offers a combination of unhelpful platitudes and policy solutions that we have tried for years with no record of success. It’s hard to find a policy with a more consistent track record of failure than government job-training programs, but throwing more money at government schools without any structural reform is one of them.
On marriage, however—which the report puts first—the news is very encouraging. Admittedly this is a problem for which there are no quick and easy fixes, so if you want to dismiss what they say here as “unhelpful platitudes,” you can. But I would disagree, because in this case the platitudes are not unhelpful. They establish that we do, in fact, agree on something that a lot of people (who make their livings by engaging in controversy) seem determined to insist that we disagree about.
The report recommends that we, as a society:
- Promote a new cultural norm surrounding parenthood and marriage.
- Promote delayed, responsible childbearing.
- Increase access to effective parenting education.
- Help young, less-educated men and women prosper in work and family.
Again, there is no quick and easy way to do these things. But establishing that the aspiration to do them has cross-partisan support is a big step forward.
I’ve been observing for some time the emergence of a bipartisan consensus that the breakdown of marriage destroys the poor. We may not agree on the definition of marriage, but we increasingly agree that the dissolution of marriage as a bedrock social institution is a bad thing, and hits the most vulnerable among us hardest.
The approach of some of my Christian friends has been to insist that we cannot form partnerships to strengthen the institution of marriage with anyone who disagrees with us about its definition. Admittedly, the plausibility of this path has been hindered by foolish people who surrender on the definition in hopes that this will help them form partnerships to strengthen the institution. That is the fool’s way. The wise way to do this is to build partnerships precisely amidst our disagreement about what we are strengthening. Among other things, it’s the best way to help them realize they’re wrong about the definition.
Greg Forster is the author of six books and the co-editor of three books, including John Rawls and Christian Social Engagement: Justice as Unfairness.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
