Something was said during Sunday’s GOP debate that reminded me of my days as a conservative and of former Republican senator and vice presidential (1976) and presidential (1996) candidate Bob Dole, from my home state of Kansas.
I met Senator Dole here in Joplin in 1988. He was campaigning for the GOP nomination against Vice President George H. W. Bush and I went out to see him at Northpark Mall. There was quite a crowd, with big-time news cameras everywhere. I was a rabid conservative at the time, and like a lot of rabid conservatives, I tended to distrust the “compromising” and witty insider. Newt Gingrich once said of him: “Bob Dole is the tax collector for the welfare state.” That sort of gives you an idea of what conservatives thought of him.
Dole—who served more than 35 years in Congress— had a reputation for being a savvy pol, and one who would work with Democrats to get things done. You see, he thought that was why he was in Washington: to get things done. He didn’t really think he was sent there to make ideological points and watch the country fall apart in the mean time, a fact about him I failed to appreciate in those days.
After Dole finished his stump speech, I made my way toward him and got to “talk” to him. As I shook his left hand—his right arm was paralyzed from an encounter with a German machine gun in 1945—I said, “Don’t forget us conservatives.” The knock on Dole on the far right was that he was not “one of us.” He was a phony conservative who would let us down, and I wanted to 
make sure he got the message that we were out there and we were watching. I also asked him to consider appointing Jeane Kirkpatrick as his Secretary of State. She was the foreign policy darling of the right at the time and was a Dole supporter.
Dole, with the enthusiastic crowd pressing on him, looked at me and said, “I am a conservative.” There was something about the way he said it, above the noise in the crowded space, that sort of made me feel sorry for him. The man had spent a good deal of time answering his conservative critics, trying to convince them that he was one of them, mostly to no effect (he lost that Missouri primary race to Bush 42%-41%, and then lost to uber-conservative Pat Buchanan in the 1996 Missouri primary 36%-28%).
In any case, I thought about Bob Dole after I heard this comment from Rick Santorum at the NBC GOP debate on Sunday:
I haven’t written a lot of books. I’ve written one. And it was in response to a book written by Hillary Clinton called It Takes A Village. I didn’t agree with that. I believe it takes a family. And that’s what I wrote.
Clinton’s 1996 book, which was fully titled, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, shouldn’t have been controversial, since it was based on common sense: not only do kids need parents to flourish, they als
o need good neighborhoods to grow up in, good schools and teachers, and access to health care, among other things. She did not advocate that “the state” raise our children in some kind of socialist utopia (that’s pretty close to the conservative critique of the book at the time), but she did argue that the health of any society could be measured by the way it treats its children.
And who can argue that whether we like it or not, parents are not the only influence on children as they grow up? The village plays its part, for good or for ill.
Bob Dole, long before Rick Santorum wrote his 2005 book, had already shamelessly pandered to conservatives who feared the Clinton’s “socialism” (sound familiar?). In his GOP nomination acceptance speech in 1996, he said,
…after the virtual devastation of the American family, the rock upon this country—on which this country was founded—we are told that it takes a village, that is, the collective, and thus, the state, to raise a child.
The state is now more involved than it has ever been in the raising of children, and children are now more neglected, abused, and more mistreated than they have been in our time. This is not a coincidence. This is not a coincidence, and, with all due respect, I am here to tell you, it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child.
That wasn’t one of Dole’s finest moments (nor was the entire speech, which reads like it could have been written by almost any radical right-winger today), mostly because he went on to contradict himself:
If I could by magic restore to every child who lacks a father or a mother, that father or that mother, I would. And though I cannot, I would never turn my back on them, and I shall as president, promote measures that keep families whole.
Huh? He would, as president, “promote measures that keep families whole“? You mean, as the village chieftain? It takes a village, indeed.
Bob Dole’s attempt to use an issue—implied socialism—to authenticate his conservative bona fides, to attempt to convince the true believers in his party that he was one of them (sound familiar?), was sad enough. But now all these years later comes along another candidate, Rick Santorum, and like Dole he contradicts himself after making the identical point that “it does not take a village to raise a child“:
We– we know there’s certain things that work in– in– in America. Brookings Institute came out with a study just a few year– a couple of years ago that said if you graduate from high school and if you work and if you’re a man, if you marry, if you’re a woman if you marry before you have children, you have a 2% chance of being in poverty in America.
And to be above the median income, if you do those three things, 77% chance of being above the median income. Why isn’t the President of the United States, or why aren’t leaders in this country, talking about that and trying to formulate, not necessarily federal government policy, but local policy and state policy and community policy to help people do those things that we know work and we know are good for society?
As a former conservative, it is now so very hard to understand how I once could have thought like that. How I could have denounced on one hand the “it takes a village” idea of Hillary Clinton (it was not, of course, original with her) and on the other hand extolled the virtues of “community policy to help people do those things that we know work and we know are good for society.” If “community policy” is not the village then what is it?
Such embarrassing contradictions, made in the service of an irrational conservative ideology, are why this blog is one of repentance for past ideological sins. Obviously it takes a village to raise our kids. And it takes a village to put out our fires, patrol and pave our streets, build our bridges and dams, check our food and our skies, treat us when we are sick, shelve books in our libraries, and teach our children arithmetic and science and good citizenship.
Bob Dole knew that in 1996. Rick Santorum knows it today. But the right-wing ideological herd, trampling reason underfoot, doesn’t want to hear about villages and social responsibility and government. In Dole’s day they wanted to hear this, which he provided:
It is demeaning to the nation that within the Clinton administration a corps of the elite who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned, should have the power to fund with your earnings their dubious and self-serving schemes.
And today they want to hear that Barack Obama is, in Santorum’s words,
working exactly against the things he knows works, because he has a secular ideology that is against the traditions of our country and what works.
That’s what a majority of Republicans want to hear today. That’s what they wanted to hear in 1996. And I suppose it is what they will want to hear in 2016 and beyond. But what they should be told, what they should understand, is that it does take a village—villagers—to make o
ur country work, and to help raise our kids.
It is hard to improve on greatness, so I will just quote John Donne, the English poet-priest who famously wrote of the interconnectedness of humanity and the tolling of the church bells at the death of a villager:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
ansonburlingame
/ January 10, 2012Duane,
I am sitting here pondering what you wrote above. I know where you are coming from and going in your remarks as first a “radical” conservative and now as ??? liberal. Pretty big swing in views over a lifetime depending on how you define both “radical” and ???.
I was “taught” (actually had it pounded into my head) the following when I was a young man, about 23 years old. “When something goes wrong and you cannot point your finger at THE MAN (ok, add woman, singular) that is responsible, then you have never had ANYONE really responsible”. Yep, old Admiral Rickover himself told me and many others just that.
Now take a newborn child. Who is responsible for bringing that child into the world and raising the child to become a productive member of society?
Well you seem to tell me it is the responsibility of the village. Well first question becomes just how large is the village? And who exactly in the village bears the responsibility for that child to society?
You and I both know you would call the federal government the “village”. Well if you do so who is responsibile for the actions, day by day of the entire federal government as it relates to the child?
Crazy line of thought, right? Well no it is not if you think about it.
We have a situation today in our country where NO ONE bears any responsibility and is held accountable for that single child and thus of course, we really and in fact, as a society, uitimately have NO RESPONSIBILITY for children. We just spread it all around the “village” with everyone blaming everyone else and no one helping the child learn to become a productive member of society.
Now go back (if you could) and ask just about any Founder who exactly would be responsible for the newborn child and how the child was raised and nutured to enter society as a productive member. You know the answer as well as I do ..THE PARENTS OF THE CHILD.
NOWHERE did the Founders ever suggest that the federal government was a village responsible of every child in the village and they did NOT construct a government to bear that responsibility. They left that responsibility to familes and individuals.
And today our Constitution remains unchanged in that regard to make the federal government a “village keeper” responsibile for everything going on within the village. The Founders felt that the States themselves would care for each state’s villages as determined necessary by individual states and villages within such states as well. The federal government would simply stay out of such matters, in villages, so to speak.
In an interesting back and forth this morning on my blog with Herb van Fleet and “Nonny” I asked the following question. Who specifically is responsible for the quality of the education received by a given child in any public school? Bring it down to “us” right here. Who, exactly is responsible for the education of a single child up to the point of graduation from Joplin High School?
Now if you tell me “the village”, I will agree that you have missed my (and Admiral Rickover’s) point in all of the above. You see it is impossible to hold an entire village accountable and thus should never so loosely define such responsibility. The only result is no one is actually held accountable and look at our schools today, just as an example.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ January 10, 2012Anson,
1) I don’t understand at all what you are trying to say about Rickover’s comment, which seems utterly simplistic to me. Who is responsible, say, for putting the space shuttle in orbit? Huh? Is it one guy or gal? Man. Education is a collective endeavor, Anson, not an individual one. Why is that hard to understand?
2) As usual, you are reading-challenged. You said,
Perhaps you scrolled over this part of what I wrote (I will emphasized the part you need to not scroll over):
The parental need is assumed, Anson. No one is arguing that the state or the village take over that “responsibility.”
3) You wrote:
a) the Founders had no conception of 21st century life, Anson. It is, obviously, an environment much different from the one in which they raised their kids. Thus, I would not seek child-rearing advice from a guy who lived 250 years ago. Don’t you think we’ve learned something in all that time?
b) In any case, and having said that, have you ever read any colonial history? Huh? Kids came into this world via other women in the community helping out, like midwives. Then the kid was “baptized in the meetinghouse.” What is a meetinghouse? It is a place where the villagers gather. And get this:
The truth is that, as social animals, our kids are subject to socialization, which means that the village around them participates in their development. It is pretty simple and it has not a thing to do with the Constitution.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ January 10, 2012I would also add, and as Jim, I think recently pointed out. Is it no wonder that home schooling for many kids is on the upswing today?
There is a clear acceptance of responsibilty of that part, education, of bring a child from birth into society later on as a productive member of any society.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ January 12, 2012Homeschooling is relatively popular among evangelicals and fundamentalists, I am sure. But that has more to do with their desire to insulate their kids from “ungodly” curricula. I mean, after all, the earth is only a few thousand years old, don’t you know.
And you point about education makes the point about the village, since even those who homeschool use materials produced by others and often use tutors for certain subjects.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ January 10, 2012Duane,
As first said above, your blog was thought provoking, for me at least. Janet and I were working together this afternoon on a project and I brought up the subject of “villages”. She of course as a liberal gave me essentially the same response that you just did.
Now I am not “ranting” herein. It is a serious subject. It involves the whole and important debate today over the role or RESPONSIBILITIES of the federal government. What exactly is our federal government suppose to be responsible for doing.
My point of course is that the Founders in their wisdom (despite Herb column today in the Globe which still has me sputtering) created, on purpose, a federal government with LIMITED roles or responsibilities. There were poor and starving kids in America in 1787 just like there are now. But the Founders gave NO RESPONSIBILITY to the federal government for poor and starving kids and no one has changed the Constitution to add that as a federal responsibility.
No the federal government has simply “assumed the responsibility” for such matters over time. Thus we march down the path of good intentions with terrible unintended consequences.
The Rickover slogan is pertinent only in that with great responsibility comes great accountability. That means when bad things happen, despite the intentions to only do good things, somebody gets FIRED or at least publicly humiliated.
When was the last time you saw a public figure fired or humilated even because too many kids graduate without the basic skills to be productive citizens, as a simple example.
Turn me loose to find ONE KID that received a diploma from JHS for example that cannot “count change” or write a paragraph. You KNOW I can find such without even trying. Then ask, Who is responsible for this kid having a diploma but cannot “count change or write a paragraph”.
Then watch the hands NOT go up to accept such responsibiliy. The parents will blame the school, the school will blame the legislators, the legislators will blame the unions or the administrators and in the end no hands or raised, no one feel responsible, no one is held accountable, and thus no one FIXES the mess we are in.
Nope we just rely on the “village” to make things better, whatever the village might be.
Only knowing you just a little as well as seeing your son in only one class years ago, I KNOW who feels responsible for his education. YOU DO. And good for you. I also suspect if your son “went off the deep end” into drugs, etc what YOU might do about it. For sure you would not be looking for some “village” to fix your son’s problems.
Too many people see bad things all around us today and simply blame the “village”. Until we fix that, well we are in big trouble in my view., as a nation and as a society.
Anson
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ January 10, 2012In rereading the above, I need to make one thing very clear. There are MANY things within a village that can make a big difference.
For example, by all accounts the Bright Student (is that the correct name?) system of mentors helping kids in Joplin is working quite well and making a big difference for some kids. THAT is the kind of “village” program that I applaud, loudly.
I do a lot of work in another area of the community with the downtrodden and sometimes that works, one on one and it makes a difference in some lives. Not looking for kudos, simply pointing out that Americans working to improve things can make a difference, in individual lives, where it really counts.
But look at “village” programs run by government, even mandated by government. By and large they are a black hole sucking in all the money possible and producing lousy results, individual results where it counts.
In my area of interest, the addicted, I see all sorts of lousy government sponsored programs that do very little for individuals. Sure all the good intentions are there but they still fail. Why you might wonder. Well to me is seems simple. Government CANNOT demand “tough love” in its programs. Government cannot hold people accountable for lousy personal decisions, unless such decisions actually violate the law.
Government CANNOT “punish” or even withhold food stamps from a mother buying “ding dongs” for her obese kids, just as an example.
Yes, for sure the “village” filled with American compassion can make a difference. But when government tries to dictate the “passion” well everyone shrugs and says “let the government do it”.
Look at it this way. I NEVER give money to a drunk, NEVER. But I will spend all the time needed to show him how to get a job and start making his own money. Government programs do the exact opposite. They give him money, drunk or sober, and tell him the “rich” people are a fault for NOT giving him a job.
So don’t think I am knocking the “village” as I see the village in action. It is a village of individuals working hard to help and sometimes making a differnce. I support that kind of village.
But when Duane writes of such, I believe he is talking about a much different village than the one that I support. His it seems to me is a government run “village” which was NEVER envisioned by our Founders, at least at the federal level, for the things promoted by liberals today.
anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ January 12, 2012Anson,
I appreciate that you have essentially endorsed the “it takes a village” idea, albeit you disdain government’s role in it for the most part. Again, you suggest that I envision some kind of all-encompassing government bureacracy to take care of us from cradle to grave, but that is false and I went out of my way to make that point. But government does have a role, as both Bob Dole and Rick Santorum expressed. It is just that before they expressed it, they had to pander to the extremists in their party.
Next, you wrote,
What part of “promote the general welfare” in the Constitution do you suggest does not include the welfare of our children?
The Founders world, as I said, was much less complicated than is ours. And it is folly to think that they would not support taking care of “poor and starving kids” in a country as rich as ours. What kind of inhumane jerks do you think they were?
As far as Rickover, look, I don’t want to rub doodoo on the image of someone you hold in such high esteem. But it is silly to think that someone should always get “FIRED or at least publicly humiliated” when “bad things happen.” Sometimes the bad things are not the fault of an individual as much as they are the fault of the specific system that individual is working in. I’ve seen that scenario time and time again in my past life.
That doesn’t mean, though, that the system shouldn’t be fixed, and for that we can hold responsible those that manage it, including administrators, politicians, and in some cases, union leaders. Blaming the teachers is not only counter-productive, it is wrong. In most cases, the teachers are as frustrated with the system as you are.
As for my son and any possible problems with drugs, sure, I would attack the problem very aggressively. But I know this: I would need outside expertise and I would need the rest of the village around him to keep an eye on him when I couldn’t. That would include the parents of his friends, relatives, and so on. It does take a village, unless one wants to lock the children up in their rooms until all their problems are solved.
Duane
LikeLike
brucetheeconomist
/ January 11, 2012Doesn’t this just boil down to what’s the optimal size of village to take on social responsibility.
Too large and no one really feels invested in the product of the village, each individuals contribution feels insignificant.
Too small and fate of every child is totally tied to the ofen random circustances that befall their communit, their parents, or their parent’s fecklessness. There’s no spreading of risk, no social insurance.
LikeLike
brucetheeconomist
/ January 11, 2012To continue, the Santorum vision of the family being the village might have been more practical when families were more extended than they often are in practice now with people moving around and losing touch with relatives and such.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ January 12, 2012Bruce,
That’s a nice point about the “optimal size” of the village “to take on social responsibility.” For different responsibilities, the size would vary. And the federal government is the only entity that can do certain things that ensure we are “one nation” and not a confederation of states or localities.
If you look around at what is happening at the state level, so many states are starving for money and cutting services, to children and to education and so on, while taxation is at record lows. It’s happening here in Missouri, and next door in Kansas, too. And the GOP Kansas governor is proposing more tax cuts!
And the Republicans have made sure that same starvation happens at the federal level, with only about 15% of GDP dedicated to revenues, while we spend about 24%. The only difference is that when the GOP controlled the federal government, they ran up deficits rather then tell people that if they want their taxes cut, they will have to give up services.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ January 11, 2012Bruce,
You still miss my essential point, I believe. Who, exactly, is responsible for marshaling the resources of the “village” and directing those resources to the needy child or adult?
The answer comes back to no one, no single leader or responsible person and thus no one to be held accountable when bad things happen, despite good intentions.
Let’s say the “village” is my family, your family and Duane’s family total, plus one single mom with three kids in real trouble.
MAYBE, combined Duane, you and me could solve the problem by working together, but maybe not as well. Duane might well simply give her money where I would not give her a cent. Yes I would take some good meals to her and stay right there to make sure the kids ate well. But if she goes “back out and gets drunk” I would apply some very “tough love” on HER, but not the kids. I might even let the kids stay with my family, as you and Duane might do as well.
As well I would NOT hire a third party, working only for wages, to take care of the kids either. You see when bad things are done by the “kids” the “babysitter” will claim, I cannot control THOSE kids. Only a really good babysitter could do so and we, together, could not afford her salary in “our” village.
But for Mom, I would let her “go back out” and die if necessary unless she decided to really sober up and become productive in “our” village.
The giving of money to the poor without demanding the right actions in the use of that money by the giver only creates dependency for more money by the poor. They may use that money for all sorts of bad choices and “we” the “village” have no control over her bad choices.
Finally, in the proposed village, you, Duane and me, we could vote to make the decisions about supporting Mom and the kids. You two would out vote me in all likelihood.
But if the “village” was Geoff, me and you, we would out vote you. Add Duane to that village and we would stalemate with a tie vote, sort of like where we are today in the nation and argue forever over how much money to collect and what to do with it.
Now consider the “village” as the nation at large and Detroit as the single mom with kids.
Now do you understand both our differences and why Detroit is so bad today??
Anson
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ January 11, 2012Duane,
This blog and the following string are superb discussions with no ranting or name calling (yet). Great topic and discussion, in my view.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ January 12, 2012Agreed. And I could tell you why but you wouldn’t like it much.
Duane
LikeLike