A Word from London

Herbert London

      Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and is John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U.

The Declining Nuclear Family

      For several years analysts of various political persuasions have maintained that indices of social pathology suggest a leveling effect and, in some instances, dramatic declines. Examples abound.
      The murder rate nationwide has decreased significantly; the rate of illegitimacy has not increased in the last several years. Surely this would appear to be good news or, at least, hopeful news.
      But a recent Census Report reveals another snapshot of America. It was pointed out that the number of single mothers in America increased three times as fast as married couples. Nearly 13 million women were raising children without a husband in the home; 10.6 million were in that position a decade earlier.
      It would seem that the traditional "Leave It to Beaver" family with two parents and two kids under 18 is a declining minority in the nation. Only 23.5 percent of U.S. households fall into this category.
      The marriage decline is one of the most telling statistics about the changing face of America. And this decline has occurred despite an increase in the number and percentage of available men. This is hardly surprising since the stigma once attached to illegitimacy and divorce has been effectively removed.
      What this means in effect is that the nation is presently going through an epidemic of fatherless children. It is not coincidental that 87 percent of incarcerated felons come from fatherless homes. Nor is it surprising that drug use is on the rise with one-quarter of all high school seniors users of illegal drugs.
      At the same time, marketers on Madison Avenue are hungry to tap into this vein of potential consumers in the 76.5 percent of fatherless households in America, thereby reinforcing a disturbing trend.
      Moreover, celebrities speak openly about the "joys" of single parenthood without the unnecessary encumbrance of a husband in the home. Rosie O'Donnell invariably waxes lyrical about the pleasure of raising kids on her own. And Madonna, before her recent marriage, was quite blunt about needing a man only to sire a child but not to help raise one.
      Needless to say, neither O'Donnell nor Madonna suffer from the high rate of poverty that disproportionately affects female-headed households.
      While feminists have spoken routinely of single mothers raising children without husbands, the social detritus has washed up into living rooms across America. A crisis is building whether it is defining deviancy down or emulating deviancy on high.
      Raising kids alone is a risk. As most parents will tell you, having two parents in the home is better than one.       While some indices of social concerns may show improvement or leveling, I do not think these statistical measurements can improve so long as fewer than one-quarter of all families have husbands in the home.
      It is one thing to discuss the blessings of matrimony as personal fulfillment. Maggie Gallagher has noted that married people live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives than their single counterparts. Perhaps more significant, however, is the social effect of intact marriages and intact families.
      There is substantial evidence that even with the difficulties families often confront, there isn't an adequate substitute for mom and dad in the home, notwithstanding a widespread cultural belief that divorce does not have a baneful effect on children.
      The decline in the nuclear family should give all Americans pause. It is the equivalent of having a live explosive in the nation's psyche. Perhaps it is not fashionable to contend that America would be better off if we could somehow restigmatize illegitimacy and divorce. I'm persuaded, however, it just might mitigate the effect of social pathology and the moral breakdown the Census Bureau statistics reflect.

Confusing the Public Opinion of Morality with Its Essence

      In a recent New York Times Magazine article (March 18, 2001), Alan Wolfe, Professor of Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, argues that just as the nineteenth century was about economic freedom and the twentieth century was about political freedom, this century will be about moral freedom.
      His contention is that we now live in an age in which individuals expect to determine for themselves what is right and wrong.
      Although Professor Wolfe acknowledges that Western thought was predicated on moral constraint as a precondition for freedom, he does not consider the implications in his prediction nor does he offer empirical evidence for his assertion, other than a reference to his research team that conducted conversations with Americans from "all walks of life."
      According to his study, Americans do not generally adhere to traditional ideas of vice and virtue, but they aren't moral libertines. Wolfe contends that moral freedom corresponds to a deeply held populist suspicion of authority and a corresponding belief that people know their own best interest. This is metaphorically "the bend it but don't break it" position.
      The Wolfe view is that in this increasingly complicated world of many choices, most people want to participate in the interpretation and definition of moral rules. He realizes that moral freedom is unlikely to produce a nation of autonomous individuals making sound judgments. But he doesn't explain why this is the case; alas, why it cannot be any other way.
      It is one thing to express displeasure with a moral position with which one may disagree, but it is quite another matter for each individual to decide what is moral.
      Societies exist because of norms. When these norms are frayed or eliminated new ones emerge. A moral vacuum isn't sustainable.
      What Wolfe suggests is quintessential existentialism in which each individual decides for himself which, if any, norms he will accept. Wolfe notes "morality has long been treated as if it were a fixed star…" In this evolving world nothing is fixed, he contends. Yet this is false on its face.
      Norms may evolve or change, but for a time they are the accepted guidelines. To apply Wolfe's illustration in a way different from his use, a gay couple may be determined to legalize the union, but at this time normative ideas don't respect that wish.
      The autonomous person exercising his freedom may decide not to recognize a red light as a stop sign. In the absence of coercion he is free to do so. But if others don't share his decision, accidents will occur, lives will be lost and chaos will reign. This is analogous to moral freedom.
      Surely individuals may disagree with a moral stance and may seek to change it, but if consensus for a revised position does not emerge the prevailing guidelines will prove to be instructive. Morality isn't as fungible as Wolfe's research seems to allege.
      Current practices indicate that many Americans regard the Ten Commandments as the Ten Suggestions. But no one has yet defined the moral posture for this Judeo-Christian civilization as effectively as the words on Moses' tablets. All of the current efforts to redefine faith have failed precisely because they do not have "a fixed star," an article of received wisdom.
      The twenty-first century may be a period of great experimentation. Affluence often encourages hedonism for example. But experimentation is not morality and relative values do not offer guidance on what is right or wrong.
      No matter how much freedom individuals possess, in the absence of consensus which yields norms, it is absurd to discuss moral freedom. Sometimes what people want isn't good for them or realizable.
      I'm not sure Wolfe asked the right questions to his respondents, but even if his research results are incontrovertible, they may not offer a map to the future.
      It is not coincidental that philosophers from Aristotle to Kant and even Camus, a presumptive existentialist, realized that morality was dependent on limits, not freedom. Freedom itself has no meaning in the absence of constraints. The man who is free to do whatever he wants could destroy the freedom of others and destroy himself.
      In the "Yellow Bird," a short story by G.K. Chesterton, the protagonist, filled with libertarian zeal, frees the fish from his fish bowl and watches it die gasping for air. He then liberates his yellow canary from its cage only to see it eaten by a cat. And then he attempts to liberate his mind from the confines of his brain by killing himself.
      Economic freedom, namely free markets, is only healthy when constrained by moral reason, as Adam Smith noted.       Political freedom is only effective when the electorate has the educational background to define the national interest, as Jefferson argued.
      Moral freedom, however, is an oxymoron since morality translates as consensual restraints. Hence moral freedom is a fiction the world is not likely to see and, if it does evolve in some fashion, chaos is the likely result.
      Perhaps Wolfe should have done less canvassing of public opinion and more reading of Western philosophy.       That reading along with an understanding of symbols and the core of twentieth century liberalism would go a long way toward the repair of civil society.

Finding Emotional Literacy in England

      Although it has been argued that the rate of illiteracy in the advanced portion of the globe is a disgrace and that cultural degradation is often promoted, few politicians have considered something called "emotional literacy." But Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, has found his calling, the cultural manifestation of the Third Way.
      Blair feels that the Brits must work on their emotions. A Labor think tank called Antidote led by Susie Orbach, a British-American psychotherapist (what else?), recently issued a report entitled "Manifesto for An Emotionally Literate Society," which the prime minister has embraced.
      Known for her self-help books, such as Fat Is a Feminist Issue, Ms. Orbach explained the intent of the emotional literacy project. "Our aim is to create an emotionally literate culture, where the facility to handle the complexities of emotional life is as widespread as the capacity to read, write and do arithmetic."
      Should anyone dismiss Ms. Orbach's claim as mere psychobabble, it is instructive that she treated Lady Diana, the Princess of Wales, for depression and eating disorders. Diana's televised confessional about her failed marriage may be one graphic example of emotional literacy.
      What this so-called movement actually does is not entirely clear. However, it is designed to encourage dialogue, what Orbach calls "society's energy." "The process of dialogue enables people to develop their thoughts, feelings and values as they come to appreciate those of others," she notes.
      Specific projects include an "Anti-bullying Program," which emphasizes conflict resolution, and "The Marshmallow Project," which draws on "the individual's natural ability to listen and to offer non-judgmental understanding to one's peers."
      Needless to say, not every Brit shares Mr. Blair's enthusiasm for emotional literacy. Some critics note that societies are governed by rules, not by emotions. Others contend that social constraint emerges from reason, not a cri de coeur.
      It would certainly be interesting to hear Ms. Orbach address a group of well-soused British football fans on their way to Germany for the World Cup matches. I wonder how receptive these football fanatics would be to the anti-bullying program.
      Surely Prime Minister Blair responding to the public's outrage over the murder of toddlers just for kicks and assorted acts of perversity that appear on the tube nightly, wants to appear as if he is doing something about the apparent social breakdown.
      By embracing Ms. Orbach's formulation, Blair is creating the faulty impression that dialogue and conflict resolution techniques can address the woes animated by social anomie. It should be obvious that while psychotherapy may have its benefits at a micro level, its effects at a macro level are insignificant, to say the most.
      Ms. Orbach assumes that dialogue encourages a respect for the thoughts and feelings of others. But there is scant empirical evidence to buttress this assertion. Some people like to talk and some like to listen; what actually registers in dialogue exchange is largely unknown.
      Years ago Philip Rieff wrote about the Therapeutic Society. Yet even Rieff could not have anticipated the extent to which dubious psychological theories could come to influence public policy.
      That emotion could trump reason is in itself very telling. It suggests a cultural movement away from law and order to one of expression and acting out. At some point, of course, the excesses of expression lead inexorably to the excesses of control. Societies cannot countenance permanent disorder. Nazism follows Weimar.
      One can't blame Ms. Orbach for trying to sell her brand of emotional literacy to the public. That Tony Blair buys it is what remains truly remarkable. Blair is increasingly the exemplar of the twenty-first century man-emotional, sensitive and empathetic.
      It should not be lost on the British public that the man who leads the nation has vigorously embraced the Marshmallow Project. I wonder what Winston Churchill would think of this matter.

The United Nations Versus the United States

      A new day is dawning at the United Nations. While the past was prelude to present events, in neither degree nor scope is there apt comparison.
      Hostility to the United States has been a hallmark of UN sentiment throughout the organization's history. But in the past that hostility was constrained by the ebb and flow of East-West confrontations and the fear that tilting too far in one direction could upset international equilibrium, such as it was.
      With the end of the Cold War these constraints are gone. The Third World, composed of 133 Asian, African and Latin American countries, is two-thirds of the UN, and a hostile two-thirds to say the least. Even Europe with fifteen members is increasingly anti-American, with French belligerence leading the way.
      In one startling moment these groups came together to take away American seats on the UN Human Rights Commission and the International Narcotics Control Board. The decision made in a secret vote has long-term implications. It is apparent that for the foreseeable future American interests and Third World interests will be in conflict.
      Sabotaging American membership on the Human Rights Commission is largely a reflection of cumulative UN annoyance with U.S. posturing. Of course the American stance on most issues is correct, but what difference does that make when you are outvoted?       To make matters even more ironic than ordinary UN decisions, Vietnam, Sudan, Cuba, Sierra Leone and Algeria are on the Human Rights Commission, nations that have the most egregious human rights record.
      It is also patently obvious that enmity directed at the United States will also be directed at American allies, i.e. Israel. A reprise of 1970s Israel-bashing is on the UN agenda in the new century.
      Recognizing the emergence of this hateful scenario the House of Representatives is withholding a portion of overdue payments. That act has only exacerbated tension.
      Since I do not have any confidence in UN decisions and often contend that American sovereignty should not be held hostage to this multinational organization, its exclusionary policy is irritating, but not critical. As I see it, the U.S. should remain a member of the UN, pay its dues, but use the organization to foster national interests.
      For example, the U.S. should organize a caucus of democratic states, ones that promote the rule of law, voting privileges and human rights. Coalitions can be built and rogue states can be isolated. It might be called the CDS (Coalition of Democratic States) and after a panel of U.S. and British leaders decide who is in, applications for new members will be entertained.
      This is one way to neutralize the influence of Third World nations in the General Assembly and flaunt the hypocrisy that is regnant in the organization. Surely those nations that violate even minimal standards of human decency purport to be democratic. As I see it, the way to put them to the test is through the filter of this democratic caucus or CDS.
      To allow a nation that enslaves a portion of its people to be on the UN Human Rights Commission is an outrage that should upset all fair-minded people. Yet the Sudan is on the Commission, while the U.S. is not.
      As time goes by this risible UN condition will be recognized by most Americans, at least those who haven't been brainwashed by the radical rhetoric of Franz Fanon and other fellow travelers of left-wing pedigree. In the short term, however, American interests will not be promoted by the United Nations no matter what positive spin is applied to the organization.
      The UN should be viewed for what it is: a debating society united by its antipathy to the Untied States and its unyielding desire to be recognized as legitimate even when it routinely engages in illegitimate actions.
      How the United States can spin this orientation to its own advantage is the challenge ahead. The task won't be easy, but almost any change would be better than the status quo.

The Viacom Effect on the Teen Environment

      For those who conclude that a culprit cannot be found in the massive degradation of culture afflicting America, let me assure these equal opportunity critics that one company is the first among equals. That firm is Viacom, the owner of C.B.S., Paramount and, significantly, MTV and Infinity.
      MTV is the world's most watched television network, reaching 340 million households around the globe. For most teenagers MTV sets the standard in style, clothes, language and what was once quaintly called "manners and morals." Of course the standard that MTV promotes has neither manners nor morals.
      The primary goal of the network is titillation for pre-teens and adolescents who are throbbing with hormone overload. Music videos now push the envelope to a new extreme each week. With performers simulating sexual acts and often appearing half-clad, little is left to the viewer's imagination.
      Yes, the vile language is blipped, but since the video serves as a promotional device for the unexpurgated CD, it hardly matters. Kids from Bed-Stuy to Scarsdale use the f-word as retractable filler in every sentence with a pause.
      In 1999 MTV announced the formation of Original Movies for Television Division, once again appealing primarily to the high school set. The division's first film, 2gether, premiered in February 2000 with strong ratings and the second film, Jailbait, did almost as well. As you might guess the success of these films relied heavily on overt sexuality.
      MTV is seen in 140 countries in every continent on the globe. For many people who have not been to the United States, MTV is the window on the land of opportunity. What they observe, however, is better seen through a peep-hole since the sleazy and the grotesque are incessantly shown.
      Viacom spokesmen put on the defensive invariably cite Nickelodeon and Hallmark Theater (other properties) as evidence of family fare. Yet these positive programs pale in significance to the MTV blitz aimed at the teen population.
      A companion property is Infinity Broadcasting Company, one of the largest radio companies in the United States, as well as the largest outdoor advertising company. With 180 stations serving 41 markets Infinity plays hateful and lubricious rap songs for youthful delectation from morning to night, often promoting the rap videos that will appear on MTV.
      Infinity owns and operates six of the nation's Top 10 stations, including the Number one billing A.M. station and the Number one billing F.M. station. Its billboards featuring young men and women in provocative poses can be found in the nation's largest cities, Canada, Mexico, London, Ireland, Netherlands, France, Finland, Norway and Italy.
      Surely Viacom is not alone in selling cultural kitsch; it is merely the leader, the vanguard of cultural debasement.
      Since it has a virtual cash machine that lubricates political venues very little is said publicly about the company. But its influence is known by every parent who isn't raising his child in a Skinner Box.
      Moreover, despite claims to the contrary, you cannot isolate your child from the cultural decay. Sleepovers, visits to friends, conversations in the school cafeteria all suggest that culture is in the air. One cannot wear a gas mask to escape the osmotic effect.
      One thing that can be done is pointing a finger at the culprit. For parents who worry about the spread of barbarism, Viacom should be a target. Avoid its products when you can, ignore its promos, don't even view Nickelodeon. Let the executives know that the cultural sewerage it creates has a very bad odor and a terrible effect on the environment.

Reinventing Civil Society

      Whether people today consider themselves liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, there is heard a lamentation about the decay of civil society. Most Americans have observed a transformation of society into an anonymous and impersonal mass of atomized individuals and a consequent decline in public spiritedness.
      Some social analysts describe this condition as the "bowling alone" phenomenon.       Daniel Bell, author of Post Industrial Society, describes it as the loss of civitas,

. . . the spontaneous willingness to obey the law, to respect the rights of others, to forgo enrichment at the expense of the public weal. . .

      We would like to thank the following people for their generous contributions in support of the publication of this journal: Beverley H. Adams, Leroy Anderson, William D. Andrews, Jake F. Angell, Gary L. Ashcraft, John M. Baker, Dirk Anthony Ballendorf, Nancy M. Bannick, Frank Barrera, John G. Barrett, Pamela Barton, Frank J. Bartz, Charles A. Bauer, Charles Benscheidt, Ronald G. Benson, Floyd A. Bishop, James L. Billie, Joseph H. Boop, Jackob K. Bos, Walter I. C. Brent, Robert P. Bringer, Mitzi A. Brown, Richard R. Brown, James M. Broz, William Buchanan, Georgia L. Buchta (Revocable Trust), William L. Burns, Frances G. Campbell, Dino Casali, James R. Cavanaugh, Cliff Chambers, Dale F. Christian, Arthur F. Cipola, John Alden Clark, W. Collingwood, Dan & Sara Collyar, Timothy Cowen, Charles F. DeGanahl, Robert D. de Lisser, Robert M. Ducey, Nickolas Falco, L. A. Farmer, Kathryn Hubbard Rominski (The Hubbard Foundation), Etha Beatrice Fox, James R. Gaines, Robert W. Garhwait Sr. (Cly-Del Manufacturing), Jane Talbott Gerken, Carol J. Gilmore, John W. Godbold, Mr. & Mrs. Lee E. Goewey, Thad A. Goodwyn, Charles V. Greffet, Hollis J. Griffin, Richard P. Grossman, Anthony J. Guresz, Aalene D. Haines, Daniel J. Haley Jr., Weston N. Hammel, Anthony H. Harrigan, Frederick Harris, Clark Harvey, Paul J. Hauser, Arthur Hills, Ronald E. Hoffman, Basil Hone, John A. Howard, Patrick R. Huntley, David P. Ihle, Donald C. Ingram, Joseph M. Irvin, William R. Jackson, Burleigh Jacobs, Don Johnson, O Walter Johnson, Robert R. Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Michael P. Kaye, Robert E. Kelly, William M. Keogh, Robert E. Kersey, Gloria Knoblauch, Mary Kohler (Windway Foundation), Donald O. Krier, Karen Kuhn, Geraldine Kulczysky, Mark S. Laboe, Robert E. Lane, Harvey & Mary Larsen, Joseph L. Laughlin, James E. Lee, Eric Linof, Selley G. Lodwick, Francis P. Markoe (Aquacide Company), Roger W. Marsters, Howard S. Martin, Lloyd W. Martinson, Anna C. Marx, Thomas J. McGreevy, Leonard C. McGuire, Ben McMillian, Roberta McQuade, Eugene F. Meenagh, Aubrey A. Melton, David P. Mitchel, Robert A. Moss, David Murphey (Murphey & Sons Inc.), Dwight Murphey, Tom S. Murphree, Joseph M. Murray, Wendell L. Nelson, William J. Nolan, William J. O'Brien, King Odell, Eugene F. O'Brien, James S. O'Brien, B. William Pastoor, Daniel D. Payne, Arthur, J. Perry Jr., David Pohl (Margaret Rivers Fund), Bernard L. Poppert, Paul R. Rangel, George B. Reed, Jeanne I. Reisler, Cecilia J. Rekay, Frances S. Richardson, Mark & Beth Richter, Willard E. Rogerson, Howard J. Romanek, Michael J. Ryan, W. E. Saunders, R. P. Schonlan, Irene L. Schultz, Harry R. Schumacher, William Schummrick, Howard A. Shaw, Gordon Shearer, Norma H. Slade, Harry L. Smith, John D. Sours, Charles B. Stevenson, Samuel E. Stocks, Clifford W. Stone, Carl F. Talafous, John West Thatcher, Donald F. Theodore, Lovic C. Thomas, Paul B. Thompson, Jack E. Turner, M. R. Twining, Willard J. Van Singel, Don Coin Walrod, Thomas E. Warth, Jim Weber, James A. Weber, Robert D. Wells, Thomas L. Wentling Jr., James J. Whelan, Robert C. Whitten, C. V. Wilhoit Jr., Gaylord T. Willett, Max L. Williamson, Charles L. Wilson, Lowell M. Winthrop, Gilbert N. Woods, Mrs. James P. Woolf, Elena A. Zahnd.