I see where you are getting at, that one ought to take the "how does it benefit or hamr families" perspective into every decision. But isn´t claiming "all policy being family policy" a little too far fetched? Like the question whether to build a highway crossing town A or B. Does that too involve family policy?
Good point. I don't mean to say we should go as far as "where we choose to build this highway is all about family policy!" Of course family policy is not the sole/primary issue with every policy question. But the point is to start thinking about all policy in terms of the effect on the family.
Does the highway going through Town A destroy a vibrant neighborhood? Does running the highway through Town B improve commute times for a community that is thick with family housing? Even the location of the highway has implications for the formation and stability of families.
The fundamental problem is that for much of politics its effects on families is so indirect that thinking about it in terms of family policy isn't helpful.
Yeah, I disagree with that statement. What are the major political issues? Foreign affairs/war, tax policy, infrastructure, education policy, censorship, etc.?
What are you classifying as "much of politics" that doesn't have a direct effect on families? I'm not following.
Napa gets funding from Charles Koch (who is neither Catholic, socially conservative, nor pro-life). "Family policy" from conservative/libertarian aligned sources will always be weak sauce compared to proposals coming from the left ("Cutting Medicaid and SNAP actually helps families...") This is why this article mostly avoids direct discussion of social spending, taxation, labor policy, etc.
I see where you are getting at, that one ought to take the "how does it benefit or hamr families" perspective into every decision. But isn´t claiming "all policy being family policy" a little too far fetched? Like the question whether to build a highway crossing town A or B. Does that too involve family policy?
Good point. I don't mean to say we should go as far as "where we choose to build this highway is all about family policy!" Of course family policy is not the sole/primary issue with every policy question. But the point is to start thinking about all policy in terms of the effect on the family.
Does the highway going through Town A destroy a vibrant neighborhood? Does running the highway through Town B improve commute times for a community that is thick with family housing? Even the location of the highway has implications for the formation and stability of families.
The fundamental problem is that for much of politics its effects on families is so indirect that thinking about it in terms of family policy isn't helpful.
Yeah, I disagree with that statement. What are the major political issues? Foreign affairs/war, tax policy, infrastructure, education policy, censorship, etc.?
What are you classifying as "much of politics" that doesn't have a direct effect on families? I'm not following.
Let's put it this way. There's a reason "won't somebody think of the children" eventually became a punchline.
Often the indirect effect on families is much more important in the long run.
Napa gets funding from Charles Koch (who is neither Catholic, socially conservative, nor pro-life). "Family policy" from conservative/libertarian aligned sources will always be weak sauce compared to proposals coming from the left ("Cutting Medicaid and SNAP actually helps families...") This is why this article mostly avoids direct discussion of social spending, taxation, labor policy, etc.