Reading The Washington Post article late Saturday evening on Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell’s 1989 thesis, I decided to withhold judgment until I could read the thesis myself. (The article – edited for space – was reprinted on the front page of The Virginian-Pilot.)
So I settled down Sunday evening to read the 67-page (not including footnotes – pdf) missive. What I read was horrifying – and quite sad.
McDonnell and I are not that far apart in age; in fact, he shares the exact birth date of one of my sisters. Neither she nor I would fare too well in McDonnell’s world. For that matter, hardly anyone I know would fit into Bob’s world. His is a world of “Leave it to Beaver,” where Dad goes off to work each morning and mom stays home to raise the kids and take care of the house.
For the first 13 years of my life, I lived in that world. My father went off to work each day and my mother stayed at home. Although we struggled, we managed to make ends meet. That world was shattered when my father died. My mother, never in good health, hadn’t worked since my parents were married, some 23 years earlier. Birth control was not an option for my parents, with the pill having only been approved the year I was born. As the result, my mother had eight kids to take care of at the time of my father’s death.
In Bob’s world, my parents had done the right thing: one wage earner, Mom at home, no use of birth control. But after my father’s death, we were a single-parent household, not a family according to Bob. And because we were poor, Bob thinks that were were dependent and irresponsible.
We were raised to believe that education was our way out of poverty. In Bob’s world, schools need only provide a minimum level of self-sufficiency; in fact, in Bob’s world, children should not be compelled by the government to attend school. He questions the validity of public school and thinks the teachers are too ignorant to teach what he calls “character.” I don’t know, Bob. I think the public schools did a pretty good job of teaching me and my siblings. The school, by the way, had nothing to do with the so-called “breakdown” of my family.
In Bob’s world, the government has almost no role, handicapped, if you will, by the idea that it is to be “a minister of God to execute judgment and encourage good.” Of course, since we have the government in place already, in Bob’s world we just need to replace those who don’t believe as Bob does with those who do.
And that’s the part that is the scariest.
When you believe, as Bob does, that everything stems from a religious base – and a quite specific religious base – then there is no room for dissent, disagreement or difference. Government should discriminate against you – period. Doesn’t matter if the circumstances are not of your own making: being born black (the latent racism in this thesis is amazing), poor, female or gay, you just have to buck up and deal with it.
Bob says this paper was an academic exercise:
The purpose of this decades-old academic paper was to discuss societal changes in the nation in the 1960’s and 1970’s and what government policy could do in regards to them.
He says his views have changed in the intervening 20 years and wants us to judge him on his 14 years in the House of Delegates and almost four years as Attorney General. OK, I’m game. Over the next few days, I’ll be comparing Bob’s record to that of his fifteen thesis proposals. The first, which talks about working for the passage of strong anti-abortion laws, has already been discussed ad naseum. It is clear that part of his thesis was not just an academic exercise. We’ll see how much of the rest fell into that category.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Bob’s world sure doesn’t leave much room to chance does it? People evolve over time but McDonnel’s voting record certainly indicates he still holds to his old standard.
Pres. Obama’s school papers are sealed. Why is that?
Every time I see this comment, I wonder why it is that the poster wants to talk about Obama, who is not on the ballot, instead of McDonnell, who is.
Diversion won’t work here, Mouse.
It was a rhetorical question anyway, I did not think you would have an answer.
I love this statement: “The real enemies of the traditional family – materialism, irresponsibility, feminism, lust and ultimately selfishness…” Feminism, the big, bad evil that is destroying traditional families. Wow!
I’m working on a post about this of my own, but the thing that strikes me about this is that Bob McDonell found women working new, controversial and largley a matter of choice IN 1989! I was born in 1958, my mom, all her friends and mosot of my female relatives worked outside the home. That wasn’t a choice. That was what was necessary for their families to get by. A lot of families were lifted out of poverty and into the middle class by female labor. This is something McDonnell disappoved of? Also, if he was interested in policies that would keep women at home raising the children and out of the workforce, we had one. It was called welfare. His party hated it. He voted to basically end it in Virginia.
Right, 1989. He’s trying to say that he was looking at the 1960s and 1970s, but a)the title of his paper belies that and b) even if he were, there were already a lot of women in the workforce in the 1960s and 1970s.
“But after my father’s death, we were a single-parent household, not a family according to Bob.”
I do not see in his paper anything that could be taken to mean that he does not consider your single-parent household a family.
It will take some digging to find again, but I remember reading somewhere that the children of single mothers who were widowed do not experience, as adults, the social and economic problems that those of divorced or never-married mothers experience. This has been attributed to the selfishness and abandonment that the fathers of latter group exemplify to their children.
Go back and re-read page 12 of the thesis. Bob doesn’t agree with the census definition of a family.
Now, how does that apply to a widow and her children, such that they would not constitute a “family”?
Anon – there are many ways to defend this (I guess) – e.g. It was a long time ago, etc. But what Vivian states is correct – and its beyond the “game” of politics. Its actually hurtful to those of us (like myself) who were raised by a single parent and whose mother had us just out of high school. (Ironic that he opposes both birth control and government help for child-care).
Anyhow – here is what I expect Vivian is referring to:
McDonnell has a number of action goals. Number eight states: “Fight any attempts to redefine family by allowing special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers.” p. 66-67.
Regards still,
Len
Correct. Thanks Len.
Vivian’s mother was not unwed, she was widowed.
Come to think of it, you don’t agree with the census definition of “family” either, do you? You think that a loving, cohabiting, same-sex couple constitutes a family, do you not?
Actually, the definition of family household now includes anyone residing. If Bob hated the definition in place in 1989, he surely hates it now.
Bigger question is why are you trying to defend him? Do you agree with him, Mouse?
Perhaps instead of attempting to split hairs with my interpretation of Bob’s writings, you should give some of your own.
You still have not answered the question: “How does that [what McDonnell wrote] apply to a widow and her children, such that they would not constitute a ‘family’?”
Now, to the census definition of a family household:
Apparently, the definition McDonnell gave still stands.
I agree with him in the statement of the problem, but not in all of the particulars that he proposes for solutions.
Simple, Mouse. He does not believe that definition. I’m not going to argue with you over my interpretation of what Bob wrote. I’m quite clear: Bob McDonnell believes anything short of a husband, wife and kids do not constitute a family. It’s all throughout his “thesis”
And this has a different definition of “family household”
Don’t seize on one thing and ignore the rest. The entire missive is a sexist, homophobic, racist bit of writing.
Bottom line is that you agree with Bob. And that’s quite sad.
“He does not believe that definition.”
Neither do you, since a loving, committed, same-sex couple is not defined as a “family” by the U.S. Census Bureau. Even if one of them has a child living there, the partner comes under “unrelated people.”
That you apparently do not see illegitimacy and immorality as a problem is also sad.
Now, please answer my question: “How does [what McDonnell wrote] apply to a widow and her children, such that they would not constitute a ‘family’?”
I did answer:
Having trouble reading?
YOU cited the page number is McDonnell’s thesis. I quoted that page, and asked how that applied to the situation of a widow and her children. You have failed to do that. Is there, perhaps, another page to which you could refer?
While you’re at it, would you please show us something racist in his thesis? I must have missed it.
McDonnell refers to families throughout his thesis, but when talking about urban dwellers and people of minority, he quotes ‘families’ as if they aren’t real.
Racist enough for you yet?
Re: Illegitimacy, immorality.
You say it is sad that everyone doesn’t think like you in this regard, but then we would all be the same person, wouldn’t we?
Stuff happens, People have terrible lives, and they try to change them, and deal with circumstances. It is too bad we can’t all live the perfect life like you.
So, illegitimacy and immorality have been good?
Yes, people have tough lives, but many people with tough lives still live moral lives. In fact, it seems to me that, on average, those with tougher lives are MORE moral than those who don’t. (It is the poor who give a higher percentage of their income to charity.) The thing is, when they do fall into immorality, the consequences are far greater than it is for the rich. Thus, we should do more to encourage morality in the poor.
The page you cited also has this:
No matter how you slice it, the definition he gave still stands, and neither of you like it.
Anon – Its un-Christian. (Or is ‘Love thy neighbor’ no longer our greatest charge?(See Matthew 22:36-40) Uncaring. Unbelievably so.
So, we can “debate” questions such as “would Plan X increase the Deficit” or “Plan Y would lead to less pollution.” But views as mean-spirited, intolerant and bigoted as those in the “thesis” cannot be debated. If it doesn’t shock you, you would have a different value system.
To which you are of course entitled.
Regards,
Len
No substantive replies to McDonnell’s writing, but you love some of that ‘what constitutes a family’ question, huh?
-Mark
I only found the quoted “families” once, on page 52, in clear reference to “Democrats are likely to redefine family….” Since the majority of people on Welfare are white, I do not see how a reference to “lower-income” means “people of minority.”
Granted, until we get a text version, it will be difficult to search for such things, so I may very well have missed other such places where he puts “family” or “families” in quotes. If I did, please excuse me, and direct us to those places.
OK, Mark, let’s go into “substantive replies,” shall we?
“In Bob’s world, schools need only provide a minimum level of self-sufficiency….” -V
I do not have the same interpretation of that sentence that Vivian does. She is taking it to mean no more than that minimum, and I see it as at least that minimum.
—————————-
“[In] Bob’s world, children should not be compelled by the government to attend school.” -V
That is the current state of the world, thanks to a very liberal Norfolk resident who sued the State for the right to home-school her children. Do you propose we go back to making home-schooling illegal?
—————————-
“I think the public schools did a pretty good job of teaching me and my siblings.” -V
One of his points is that the public schools are in decline. Do you really think the public schools have gotten better since you attended them?
—————————–
“In Bob’s world, the government has almost no role, handicapped, if you will, by the idea that it is to be ‘a minister of God to execute judgment and encourage good.'”
Yes, handicapped by the Constitution as it was written, the government has almost no role in the family.
——————————–
“Of course, since we have the government in place already, in Bob’s world we just need to replace those who don’t believe as Bob does with those who do.” -V
Isn’t that was YOU want to do, too? You want to replace those who don’t believe as you do with those who do. I want to replace those who don’t believe as I do with those who do. That is why we run campaigns and have elections.
————————————
“Government should discriminate against you – period. Doesn’t matter if the circumstances are not of your own making: being born black (the latent racism in this thesis is amazing), poor, female or gay, you just have to buck up and deal with it.” -V
I do not see anywhere that he says the government should discriminate because one is born black (I didn’t see any mention of race at all, but I may have missed it.), poor, female, or gay. Please point out the relevant passages for us.
Mr.McDonell is a Theocrat. Probably nothing wrong with that (I guess), but I am sick of Virginia Politicians praying to save my soul and determined to define the definition of who I am and what I am allowed to be. The narrow world view of conservative republicans would return us all to the well ordered world of the plantation mentality that still exists in Virginia politics. It is tiresome to live in a state where people vote against their self interest to prop up a vision that never was. There is a church on every corner in the State of Virginia. There is no threat to anyone to live their beliefs. I’m tired of having Theocrats trying to legislate their beliefs down my throat. We have to get real here folks. We need public transportation, a living wage, well funded public education, healthcare for all. If these ideas are against Mr. McDonell’s agenda then I’m thinking I live in the wrong century or the wrong State.
“I am sick of Virginia Politicians… determined to define the definition of who I am and what I am allowed to be.”
More what you are allowed to do that what you are allowed to be. But that is the case just about everywhere. Even the “Keep Your Laws Off My Body” crowd most favors laws against prostitution and drug use.
“It is tiresome to live in a state where people vote against their self interest to prop up a vision that never was.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but it sounds like people who vote for the socialist Utopia that never was and never will be.
“There is no threat to anyone to live their beliefs.”
No? Can a Mormon have several wives? Have there not been lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for living what they believe? If same-sex marriage is passed, will not business owners be forced to hire people they do not want to hire? Will not landlords be forced to rent to people who engage in sinful acts?
“I’m tired of having Theocrats trying to legislate their beliefs down my throat.”
That seems to be what everyone is trying to do. (BTW, will Deeds — a gun-rights advocate and, I suppose, anti-theocrat — work to allow hunting on Sundays?)
“We need public transportation…”
I’m all for that. I think a tremendous part of the problem is that the issue is being left to regional authorities, and the municipalities (well, the politicians) get into pissing matches instead of working together. BTW, we don’t need Obama’s high-speed rail, we need cargo lines to get the trucks off the roads and save some fuel.
“…a living wage…”
And price yourself right out of a job as the illegals take the jobs that are here and the rest go to Mexico and China? Better to have a job that pays you what you’re worth than to have no job at all.
“…well funded public education…”
Rightly a State issue, not federal, and so must be a focus of this gubernatorial race.
“…healthcare for all.”
Also a State issue, according to our Constitution. So why doesn’t Deeds propose something? Then he could fight on issues instead of theses. (Where is Deed’s thesis, anyway?)
Mr/Ms. Anon E. Mouse, Sorry my world view differs from yours. Your world/state view seems to work perfectly for you so I don’t understand why you get so nervous when another chimes in to say it doesn’t work for them. The political view that you endorse has held sway over this state for many years and the real issues that I addressed in my last post always remain. No decent public transportation, no sincere investment in public education without teacher subsidy. No desire to engage in resolving the health needs of Virginia/American citizens. Constant assault on the reproductive health needs of women…. Right to Work laws which really mean right to get “screwed laws”. Your comments have not caused me to doubt what I see as issues that have to be dealt with if we are to move forward or constantly be ham-strung by politicians and their supporters who want to hold onto a time that did not serve all but only a chosen few.
“Sorry my world view differs from yours.”
Somehow I doubt that.
“No decent public transportation, no sincere investment in public education without teacher subsidy.”
I agree with you on both those issues. Many people (not you, necessarily) look to the federal government for answers (or at least money). Loudoun County had the gall to ask the federal government to help pay for their new schools! Depending on how you look at it (per capita income or median household income), Loudoun is either the richest or second richest (behind Fairfax County) in the COUNTRY! Where did they think the money was going to come from?
“No desire to engage in resolving the health needs of Virginia/American citizens.”
I will agree with you there, too. That is properly a matter for State governments to address, as Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and California have already done. Let me be clear that I do not have a problem, constitutionally speaking, with State programs such as those. I would also like to see our health insurance system divorced from employers, so that we have some choice and portability. Both sides are failing us here. Deeds does not propose a state-level public option, and McDonnell does not propose insurance reform. Both are punting to the federal government, which does not have the Constitutional authority to address the issue.
“Constant assault on the reproductive health needs of women…”
What “reproductive health needs” would that be? Even McDonnell has not proposed outlawing abortions that are necessary for the life of the mother.
“Right to Work laws which really mean right to get ‘screwed laws.'”
I don’t know what you mean. Our non-professional workers have the right to unionize. The Right to Work laws simply allow one to work in a union shop without joining the union.
Yes, we do have many issues to deal with, most notably public transportation, public education, and public health. On the need to address these issues, we both agree. On how to deal with them, we probably do not. However, I think we can at least agree that our concern is for the welfare of Virginia and her citizens.
Your comments about Mr. McDonnell’s 1989 thesis are willfully unfair. He is not implicitly or explicitly criticizing widows who are now heads of households. He is lamenting the breakdown of the traditional two parent household and talking about policies that could be enacted by government to reverse this trend.
You may not like hearing someone say that children who are raised in a single parent household (or in a gay household) are at a significant disadvantage in life. However, decades of social research clearly show that children who grow up in a traditional married mother and father household do better than children raised in any other environment. Anyone who lives in this society sees the bad effects of the break down of marriage in our society through higher crime rates, poor performance in schools, substance abuse, teen-age pregnancy, etc. You are willfully blind if you cannot see this.
I will hasten to point out that Vivian’s case is an exception. Children who grow up in a single-parent family because of a parent’s death do NOT, statistically, fare worse than children who grow up in a traditional household. You might even say that the lost parent is still with them in spirit.
On a more earthly plane, perhaps the extended family is more willing to rally around and support a widow and her children than they are a divorcee and her children.
What are the decades worth of research that you are referring to? In these tests did they control for all of the other variables that could affect these outcomes? How do you know that income, education, or some other factor isn’t the primary driver? France has both a lower crime rate and a lower percentage of married couples than we do. So, do these studies look outside of just the US to test the veracity of their hypothesis? Assuming that some decent level of correlation has been establish, how do you move to causation?
Despite the percent of married couples declining from 1990 to 2005, the rate of teen pregnancies also declined (by 34% according to the CDC). Crime rates have also fallen since 1980 despite marital status declining from around 60% to around 55% now. I don’t know about school performance and substance abuse though. How do the theories about the breakdown of marriage handle those cases where the expected ills produced do not result in positive correlations?
Outside of that, how involved should the government be in our personal relationships? Bob McDonnell clearly thinks it should be heavily involved (whether you reference this paper or his 14 years in the legislature).
Controlling for just such “other variable” is standard procedure — it’s known as multiple regression analysis. If you don’t do it, your research is blasted from all sides.
The crime rates are correlating mostly with the decline in young males as the boomers’ children age (the echo generation), and with widespread concealed-carry laws.
“How do the theories about the breakdown of marriage handle those cases where the expected ills produced do not result in positive correlations?”
The way any theory does. You look at the sample populations, and see whether there is a correlation. For instance, the overall crime rate may be going down, and the teen pregnancy rate may be going down, but if children of unwed mothers and divorcees are much more likely to commit crimes or become pregnant, the immediate correlation holds, even if the trendlines are not going in the same direction.
You have the same problem when you compare France to the U.S. The question is not one of country-to-country comparisons, but whether children of unwed mothers and divorcees in France have higher rates of pregnancy and delinquency than other French children do.
“Outside of that, how involved should the government be in our personal relationships?”
Your question is a valid one. The government already is involved in our personal relationships, and most people want it to be. Most people want polygamy to remain illegal, for instance. Most people want same-sex marriage to be illegal, too.
As for McDonnell, he has proposed optional Covenant Marriages. Since they would be optional, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with them. What other things has he proposed along the line of the government’s being “heavily involved” in our personal relationships?
I wasn’t asking for an explanation of the scientific method. I was asking for a citation of the decades worth of research and what was exactly in those papers. All you have done is explain to me how good research is done, but none of that addresses my points.
My mistake. You can start here:
Anon,
This is an article by Ann Coulter that you are quoting. There is not citation in her article to a study. She just mentions that one was conducted without referencing the title of the study of who did it. I think since you know what good research is, you can also realize a bad citation when you see one. So, I would still appreciate a citation to an actual study I can read and not an Ann Coulter opinion piece.
What “reproductive health needs” would that be? Even McDonnell has not proposed outlawing abortions that are necessary for the life of the mother.
Mr./Mrs. Mouse, If you expect me to believe that, guess you have a bridge in needed repair that you want to sell me. Mr. McDonnell can sound as moderate as he wants to win this election. It seems to me he is running as the nice cop and he has the bad Cuccinelli cop to take care of the issue. Republicans and conservative democrats spend a lot of time each year when the Assembly comes into session trying to over turn laws and create new versions of past failed bills to deny women the right to access to contraception, morning after pills and yes abortion. What business is it of a public official, when a woman takes contraception, has been raped or finds herself in need of an abortion? If my republican friends really mean that they want to get government off my back then they better cut out trying to do my family planning and interfering with my reproductive choices. I don’t need Messrs. McDonnell, Bolling and Cuccinelli in the room with my gynecologist or obstretrician.
OK, you don’t believe it. I cannot prove a negative (that he DIDN’T propose such a bill), so I ask you to prove that he did. If you cannot do that, then yes, I expect you to believe that he did not.
“What business is it of a public official, when a woman takes contraception, has been raped or finds herself in need of an abortion?”
Contraception… none.
Abortion… well, if one believes that the role of the State government is to protecting the rights of the people of the State, and that a human fetus is a person, then it is only logical to conclude that the State has an interest in protecting that child.
Abortion… well, if one believes that the role of the State government is to protect the rights of the people of the State, and that a human fetus is a person, then it is only logical to conclude that the State has an interest in protecting that child.
Sorry, when the states interest supercedes protecting a fetus (to me a fetus is a fetus until it draws a breath on its own. It cannot “become” without the consent of it’s host). A woman has the right to say whether she chooses to bear the fetus which ultimately becomes a child. A woman owns her body, not the state. To me, anyone who says differently holds the view that women are a second class whose reproductive system can be regulated by a state. Sounds like mandatory state regulation of breeding stock. It’s also interesting to me that those so concerned about the value of human life are willing to spend so little of their tax money to fund health and education for all. Then there is also the lack of will to pay a living wage to the mother of this state mandated ” you will be born child” for a days work. Sorry, I can’t believe any sane conservative lays awake nights worrying about what goes on in some woman’s uterus. I can only conclude there is a much broader agenda that has little to do with a zygote.
“when the states interest supercedes protecting a fetus”
There’s no sentence there, so I don’t know what you’re trying to say.
“It cannot ‘become’ without the consent of it’s host.”
That’s nonsense. Read this.
Parasites have hosts; children have mothers.
“A woman owns her body, not the state.”
Wrong again. Is prostitution legal in this State? Do you want it to be?
“A woman has the right to say whether she chooses to bear the fetus….”
And most do make that choice. The thing of it is, AFTER they make that choice, and the consequences start growing, they want a SECOND choice. So you screw up the first choice which creates the life, and you should be trusted to make another choice which will end it? (BTW, it is because a rape victim did not have that first choice that an exemption is generally made.
“Sounds like mandatory state regulation of breeding stock.”
More BS. Even where abortion is illegal, like Poland and Ireland, the government does not force anyone to get pregnant, just to live with the consequences of their decisions.
“It’s also interesting to me that those so concerned about the value of human life are willing to spend so little of their tax money to fund health and education for all.”
We already DO fund everyone’s education. And we have Medicaid, too. There’s also SCHIP for the kids.
“Then there is also the lack of will to pay a living wage to the mother….”
Not “host”? Anyway, as I said before, if your labor is not worth the “living wage,” you won’t have a job at all.
“Sorry, I can’t believe any sane conservative lays awake nights worrying about what goes on in some woman’s uterus.”
And I can’t believe any sane woman would kill her own child for convenience.
“I can only conclude there is a much broader agenda that has little to do with a zygote.”
And I can only conclude selfishness. People choose to have sex, and are too selfish to deal with the natural consequences of that choice. People refuse to take advantage of the free education they are given, and demand that others support them in their failure.