Unsplash\/Benji Aird<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nFor the last few decades, it seems that when it comes to the social science concerning the family, progressives have modeled well the famous observation of the late Arthur Conon Doyle, the beloved British writer and physician best known for creating Sherlock Holmes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is nothing more deceptive,\u201d he once wrote, \u201cthan obvious fact.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Facts concerning the family have been self-evident for years: strong nations are comprised of healthy and secure families \u2014 and secure families are made up of married mothers and fathers who devote themselves to one another and their children.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But then along came the sexual revolution and all the norms that served society so well for so long were questioned, challenged, and in many cases, upended and outright discarded. The \u201csuccess sequence\u201d \u2014 the belief that education, marriage, and then children, should flow in that order \u2014 was cast aside as some relic of a distant era.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Today, more than 40% of children are born outside of marriage. It’s far worse in the black community.<\/p>\n
The cumulative effects have been devastating. At first the consequences may have seemed minor, but like so much, negative things happen little by little and then all at once. Social conservatives have been warning about the developing storm for a generation. In return, we\u2019ve been mocked, marginalized, and even labeled bigots for our efforts.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Until now.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In a welcome admission last week,\u00a0New York Times\u00a0columnist Nicholas Kristoff suggested liberals have suffered from a \u201cblind spot\u201d when it comes to the deterioration of the two-parent family. That data is in \u2014 and he admits it\u2019s devastating:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cFamilies headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty as married-couple families \u2026 Children in single-mother homes are less likely to graduate from high school or earn a college degree. They are more likely to become single parents themselves, perpetuating the cycle \u2026 Almost 30% of American children now live with a single parent or with no parent at all. One reason for the sensitivities is large racial disparities: Single parenting is less common in white and Asian households, but only 38% of Black children live with married parents.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Mr. Kristoff qualifies the construct of a two-parent household as a \u201cprivilege\u201d \u2014 but he\u2019s wrong about that, at least in the sense of how we traditionally define privilege, i.e., a \u201cspecial right\u201d or \u201cprivilege.\u201d<\/p>\n
Every child is entitled to both a mother and a father. It should not be considered a luxury or special advantage. My heart breaks that it\u2019s quickly becoming the exception, and I share that as someone who knows the pain and ache that comes from growing up in a broken home.<\/p>\n
Poverty, single parenting and divorce aren\u2019t Republican or Democrat problems. That\u2019s why the work we do \u2014 giving singles the tools they need to establish healthy marriages, offering couples in crisis hope and help to save their marriage, and equipping parents to raise thriving children \u2014 shouldn\u2019t be red or blue solutions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
We can work together \u2014 we\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0work together \u2014 to help families in need. If you reduce the divorce rate, you inevitably reduce poverty.\u00a0<\/p>\nSome would argue that our approach is flawed \u2014 that as a culture we\u2019re hopelessly \u201cpost-marriage,\u201d or that society\u2019s efforts would be better spent focusing on economic factors as causes and remedies for poverty. They would be wrong.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Advocating for policies and personal behavior that result in robust marriage and family is a more productive solution than robust social support.\u00a0Since President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964, more than $25 trillion in taxpayer funds has been spent to fight it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However noble and well-intentioned, the campaign has failed miserably.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Government is rarely (if ever) the solution to a problem, especially when it comes to eradicating social decay.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Instead, we need to pour ourselves into the task of strengthening families by promoting the beauty and sanctity of marriage.\u00a0<\/p>\n
How do we go about doing that?\u00a0<\/p>\n
Unlike a Sherlock Holmes mystery, there are no secrets or fantastical solutions to this societal conundrum. As it has been from the very beginning, we must strengthen marriage by first investing in our own relationships. We must model the God-ordained institution well by remaining faithful and committed in our own unions. We must also encourage our children to choose well and do the same \u2014 and we must champion policies that entice others outside our families to marry and do the same.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In other words, harkening back to Arthur Conan Doyle: \u201cElementary, my dear Watson.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
Jim Daly is president of Focus on the Family and host of the daily “Focus on the Family” broadcast heard by more than 6.3 million listeners per week on more than 1,000 radio stations across the U.S.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n