By Bryan Iehl and Stephen Baskerville
Gov. Tom Vilsack’s quest for the presidential nomination may not be as quixotic as it appears. Vilsack is in an excellent position to influence the next election and possibly emerge as a leader in the domestic policy debate, which is a traditional winner for Democrats.
The November election showed that Republicans have no monopoly on one of their core issues: the family. Democrats who championed positive family policies outflanked Republicans who offered only rhetoric. Bob Casey in Pennsylvania and Jim Webb in Virginia are the most obvious examples.
Vilsack has already gone further in this direction than Casey, Webb, or any other Democrat. In 2004, he signed House File 22, a bill that put Iowa on the forefront of divorce-custody reform and showed that Democrats can lead when it comes to the family.
The bill, which encouraged shared parenting in custody cases, was not only a step toward gender equality in family policy. It also represented an alternative approach to dealing with one of the most intractable and vexatious problems of American society: the continued rise in out-of-wedlock births and fatherless children.
New figures from the National Center for Health Statistics show that, despite 10 years of welfare reform that was supposed to remedy this problem, out-of-wedlock births are at a record high. The Census Bureau also reports that married couples now comprise less than half the nation’s households. Such news traditionally helped Republicans.
But the Bush administration’s response to the perennial family dilemma has been weak. Questionable programs to “promote fatherhood” and “healthy marriage” have left Republicans ironically open to the charge of promoting big government and “throwing money at the problem.”
A simpler and less costly alternative is the measure Vilsack – in cooperation with moderate Republicans – has enacted to keep fathers involved with their children.
Vilsack has also enhanced his appeal among a potential huge voting bloc. Some 20 million parents (about 10 percent are mothers) have lost their children to divorce and separation. That number doubles if one adds second spouses and grandparents, and the problem touches virtually every family in America. Disproportionately affected are blacks and other minorities, whose traditional loyalty to the Democrats has been strained over family issues.
No political party can ignore a voting bloc this massive. In Massachusetts, 85 percent of voters approved a nonbinding shared parenting referendum in 2004. This year, North Dakota voters narrowly missed enacting a binding referendum only because of massive spending by bar associations.
Republicans are getting hammered hard right now by pro-family groups who feel taken for granted. Few have much enthusiasm for the administration’s family psychotherapy programs. It also isn’t that long ago that many social conservatives were Democrats or grew up with parents who were. Democratic populists with a creative pro-family message have an opportunity right now to regain what was once their constituency.Hillary Clinton is not likely to capitalize on this. With her base among young singles, and her view that “there is no such thing as other people’s children,” she is not likely to energize the heartland as a convincing family-issues candidate.
Vilsack, who can invoke his own childhood in an orphanage and “bouncing between separated parents,” could pull it off much more plausibly.
He could even end run Hillary on gender issues. One of the earliest feminist grievances urged fathers to take a more active role in child-rearing. The National Organization for Women once advocated shared parenting, and moderate feminists remain consistent, such as former NOW president Karen DeCrow, who says that “part of ending sexism involves eliminating the inhuman practice of awarding a parent ‘visitation’ to his or her own child.”
As the family and parenting rise to the top of the nation’s domestic agenda, Vilsack and Iowa could constructively employ the state’s caucus influence to lead this critical debate.
Bryan Iehl is founder and president of IowaFathers.com. Stephen Baskerville, PhD, is president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
This article was originally published in Iowa’s Waterloo Courier.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Roger Knight said,
Scream for the enforcement fo the Peonage Law!
That would close the sale with me.
December 21, 2006 at 3:23 pm
DcFather said,
December 21, 2006 at 5:59 pm
mruffolo said,
“California’s no-fault divorce law was drafted by Assemblyman James A. Hayes and signed into law in 1969 by then-Governor Ronald Reagan. The rest of the nation quickly followed California’s lead. By 1974, forty-five states had passed no-fault statutes of their own. By 1985, every state in the union was a no-fault state. According to Judy Parejko, author of Stolen Vows: The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry, Assemblyman Hayes “was responsible for doggedly pursuing [the no-fault divorce] bill because he was facing a divorce and he didn’t like the rules at the time. Nowadays, his actions would be called a conflict of interest.”‘
“And why did Ronald Reagan, the pro-family conservative, sign such a law? I believe that some of his reasons were personal. Notice that Dad signed the no-fault divorce law some twenty years after going through his own divorce. His wife, Jane Wyman, had divorced him on grounds of “mental cruelty.”
Even though listing grounds for divorce was largely a formality, those words were probably a bitter pill for him to swallow. He wanted to do something to make the divorce process less acrimonious, less contentious, and less expensive.”
http://www.stolenvows.com/TwiceAdopted.htm
The best government governs not at all.
December 21, 2006 at 10:59 pm
wls1 said,
Richard Nixon introduced Title IV-D as the way to end welfare, but not much happened until Reagan’s administration, which initiated deadbeat dad rhetoric, license suspensions, tax-refund interceptions, hiked-up guidelines, enhanced wage assignments, liens, and levies, etc., etc.
By reports Reagan was never himself that much of family man or parent: his relationships with his children were often strained and he appears to have been at best an indifferent, detached father.
The problem with the Iowa joint custody statute appears to be that the presumption is too easily rebutted by a court finding of conflict between the parents. Although the court is supposed to account for the reasoning behind its finding, the law gives a disenfranchised parent no handle to force reconsideration or reversal on appeal.
December 22, 2006 at 4:38 am
KRS said,
December 22, 2006 at 7:50 am
siblingsseparated said,
December 22, 2006 at 10:55 pm
siblingsseparated said,
However, if we actually want to DO SOMETHING about it, we need to organize, unit and display our solidarity come election day.
We need members !!
Steering Committee Member
People for Equal Parenting of Illinois
December 22, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Washington Shared Parenting » Blog Archives » Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack for President? said,
December 28, 2006 at 12:39 pm