1

Families Unvalued: How the Republican Party Has Failed to Live up to Its Reputation

as America’s “Family Values” Party

Melisa Robbins

Arizona State University

 2

Families Unvalued: How the Republican Party Has Failed to Live up to Its Reputation

as America’s “Family Values” Party

You are a white, upper-middle class American. You live in the suburbs of a

primarily white, upper-middle class town. You own a two-story home with a three-

car garage and a backyard enclosed by a sturdy, yet tasteful picket fence. You drive

an expensive, yet practical car. You have a bountiful retirement fund and you’re well

insured. You have enough money for your children to receive a good education and

take part in as many extracurricular activities as they want. If you’re male, you have

a steady, well-paying job and act as a strong head of your household. If you’re

female, you are a patient, loving mother and perform every action a good mother

should, including remaining at home, without complaint. This is your first marriage

and all of your children were conceived with your spouse. You attend church each

Sunday and your children have all been baptized. You have a model home, a model

family, and a model life. You share this model life with around only 1/5 of the

population (Stone, 1994, 69), yet, if you fit all the criteria above, you are the sole

kind of person deserving to proudly display your status as having “family values.”

At least, according to the GOP.

For the Republican Party, the situation presented above encompasses an

ideal American family. In fact, an article looking to uphold Republicans’ status as a

“family values” party primarily focused on the fact that Republicans are more likely

than Democrats or Independents to have only been married once, stay married, and

not have children outside of their first marriage, regardless of race, ethnicity, or

education level (Wilcox & Menon, 2017). This shows the primary concern of
 3

Republicans with regard to families and “family values” is making sure people stay

together forever. While this is a nice sentiment, it does nothing to help those whose

families do not meet these criteria—for example, someone whose family member is

divorced or already has a child from a previous relationship. Because the authors of

this argument appear to have crafted their definition of “family” through a hyper-

conservative lens, they completely dismiss all but one type of family, ignoring all

other existing dynamics that could be deemed undesirable under those views.

Looking at the United States as a whole, it is unlikely that a lifestyle held by such a

small segment of the population could accurately produce ideas and legislation that

would promote success among America’s diverse population equally.

In fact, historian Lawrence Stone (1994) argues the conservative definition

of a virtuous family as one where both parents have never been divorced has only

been a reality within the United States since the 1950s. He points out that for much

of history, a high adult mortality rate created single-parent households with almost

the same frequency divorce does today, asserting, “All that had happened to the

family unit before 1950 was that divorce came to serve as the functional equivalent

of death, just a different way of ending a marriage” (Stone, 1994, 70).

Stone also argues family values are not one inherent, all-encompassing

ideology that, when applied universally, has the power to make society function as a

utopia. Instead, Stone argues family values are relative and personalized senses of

morality determined by a number of factors in one’s life. He breaks this into the

categories of perceived societal roles and the socialization of children to fit those

roles, beliefs about labor and wealth accumulation, attitudes about sexuality,
 4

religion, and race (Stone 1994, 70). Under this logic, attempting to apply values

tailored to married white, upper-middle class conservatives to a population that has

a divorce rate of 40-50% (American Psychological Association), is 38.7% (and

growing) non-white (QuickFacts), 83% middle- or low-class (Boundless Sociology),

and where 1/3 (US Census Bureau, 2015) of its dominant generation, millennials,

identifies somewhere on the LGBTQ spectrum (Steinmetz) makes no sense. Rather,

using Stone’s definition, a true party of family values would operate upon a platform

that encourages and supports the wellbeing of the many different kinds of families

that may arise as a result of unique experiences in each of the five factors. In this

way, a “family values” party must be inclusive and intersectional.

R. Claire Snyder, Assistant Professor of Government and Politics at George

Mason University, asserts the conservative notions of marriage pushed by the

Republican Party serve not to improve the lives of American families, but instead

further an agenda that suppresses women, minorities, and the poor. In her essay

“Paradox or Contradiction: The Marriage Mythos in Neoconservative Ideology”

(2007), Snyder first strikes down a key Republican belief that a successful family

unit must be led by heterosexual, opposite-sex parents, with the patriarch reigning

as the head of the household. She cites the research of social scientists Louise B.

Silverstein and Carl F. Auerbach, who found that children grow up fine as long as

they have “at least one responsible, caretaking adult who has a positive emotional

connection to them and with whom they have a consistent relationship” (Snyder,

2007, 159). Therefore, the notion pushed by Republicans that children are only

healthy when raised within a heterosexual, two-parent household is not only

 5

outdated, but completely false. Snyder argues these claims, cleverly disguised as

concern for America’s youth and families, are actually meant to guilt the population

into supporting Republicans’ attempts to suppress women’s and LGBT rights, as

well as demonize families of color, particularly black families—who are more likely

to be headed by a single parent than white families (National KIDS COUNT).

Unsurprisingly, these oppressive Jedi mind tricks are not the first of their

kind on Republicans’ behalf. American sociologist Carole Joffe, in her book

Dispatches from the Abortion Wars (2011), recalls:

I was very excited when, in 1971, Congress passed the first federally funded

child-care bill, authorizing some $2 billion for new centers… Like many

others who supported working mothers, I was surprised and disappointed

when President Richard Nixon vetoed this bill, denouncing it for its “family-

weakening” implications. His veto came about mainly in response to an

overwhelming outpouring of letters from alarmed housewives, organized

through their churches, who had been stirred to action by New Right

operatives (Joffe, 2011, 10)…

Without access to proper child care, working women are often forced to give

up careers to return home and care for their children, an obligation already

perpetuated by conservative ideals of what constitutes a woman’s role in society.

This action on the part of the president, again disguised as a concern for children,

then further served to establish the Republican Party’s oppression of women as a

standard governmental practice.

 6

While the conservative right has tried for years, through actions like the one

above, to force women back into housewife roles under the guise of that being the

best “family” dynamic, Republicans have been aggressively pushing an agenda that

rips immigrant and refugee parents, including mothers, away from their children,

particularly during the Trump presidency. When President Trump decided to end

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) in September of 2017, he effectively

guaranteed the families of 800,000 Latin American “Dreamers” would be torn apart

as they faced deportations back to countries they’d never known as home (Shear &

Davis 2017). Attorney General Jeff Sessions justified this decision by claiming the

DACA system had “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing

those same illegal aliens to take those jobs” (Shear & Davis, 2017). However, it has

been proven that legalizing immigrant workers would reap positive benefits for

native-born workers in the U.S. A 2014 study found that legalizing current illegal

immigrants would increase individual incomes for native workers as well as

decrease the unemployment rates of both low- and high-skilled workers in the U.S.,

while stricter immigration policies would cause increases in unemployment of

native workers, regardless of skill level (Chassamboulli & Peri, 2014). Again,

Republicans use this supposed care for American families’ wellbeing to disguise

their actual bigoted, malicious intentions.

This anti-immigration craze doesn’t just affect the families of Dreamers. It

affects other nonwhite immigrants as well. In November of 2018, U.S. immigration

authorities, without reason, detained a Congolese woman who entered the country

seeking refuge and kept her separated from her 7-year-old daughter for four
 7

months. The woman was only allowed to speak over the phone with her daughter

six times and was never allowed to see her in person during that time frame

(Hopulch, 2018). Allowing a government agency to detain a seven-year-old for four

months with zero justification and refuse a mother the right to see her child cannot

possibly be the actions of an administration or political party that is “pro-family.”

This conservative effort to undermine the autonomy of women doesn’t stop

at the United States’ borders. The global gag rule, also called the “Mexico City

Policy,” is just one example of Republican efforts to oppress women worldwide.

Since its establishment in 1984, Republican and Democrat presidents have taken

turns establishing, then revoking, then reinstating the global gag rule, which states

that the United States will not offer any family planning funds to any foreign entity

that uses its own money to “inform the public or educate their government on the

need to make safe abortion available, provide legal abortion services, or provide

advice on where to get an abortion” to anyone outside of rape, incest, and life

endangerment situations (CHANGE). Each Republican administration since the

Reagan presidency has reinstated the global gag rule, including Donald Trump’s. In

fact, it was one of the first actions taken within the first few days of the Trump

administration’s admittance to the White House (CHANGE). The program has only

two outcomes: America denies potentially life-saving funds to organizations across

the globe because of Republican opposition to abortion, or those organizations are

forced to halt any and all potentially life-saving programs that may support abortion

outside of the strict parameters set by the global gag rule.

 8

Opposition to abortion has played a key role in Republican agenda setting

within the last few centuries, particularly after the passing of Roe v. Wade. The

Christian Right has been extremely vocal in its anti-abortion rhetoric, and most

Republican leaders have clung to these beliefs without any intent of budging under

the argument of caring about the wellbeing of children, born or unborn. This comes

despite multiple studies that have found legalized abortion provides better lives for

children who are born. One study in particular, conducted through Wellesley College

(1999), found evidence to suggest that children who would not have been born if

abortion were legalized are “70% more likely to live in a single parent household,

40% more likely to live in poverty, 35% more likely to die during the first year of

life, and 50% more likely to be in a household collecting welfare” (Gruber, Levine &

Staiger 1999) To actively support legislation that would limit or obliterate citizens’

access to resources that are proven to give children a better chance of being born

into a family with the resources to more successfully take care of them appears to

stray far from the actions a “pro-family” political party would take.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Republicans also use children and a narrow definition of “family” as an

ideological Trojan Horse for oppressing the LGBTQ+ community. Nancy Mezey

reported in her book LGBT Families that the number of same-sex partner

households, and the percentage of those households with children, is on the rise,

with 19.3% of the 594,000 same-sex households in the U.S. in 2011 reporting having

children. She also reported that the same percentage—38%—of bisexuals and

transgender people reported filling parental roles (Mezey, 2000). This means that
 9

the rights and prosperity of LGBTQ+ families will only continue to become more

relevant within conversations about “family values” as time progresses. The

Republican Party is largely against LGBTQ+ equality, opposing the right to same-sex

marriage even after the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling, the right

for LGBTQ+ parents to have or adopt children, and the rights of transgender and

other LGBT individuals to exist without fear of backlash from their fellow citizens or

employers, like in the 31 states where it is legal to fire someone for being a member

of the LGBTQ+ community (Bellis, 2016). Allowing employers to discriminate

against LGBT workers puts families at risk, as parents may be forced to either spend

money they don’t have moving to another state where they will face less risk of

being fired for their sexuality/gender identity or face perpetual unemployment.

Republicans’ hateful ideologies don’t just target LGBTQ+ parents, they also

attack the youth, most commonly through backing conversion therapy. Supported

by some Republicans, including Vice President Mike Pence, conversion therapy has

been reported to “worsen feelings of self-hatred and anxiety, because it encourages

people to fight or hate a sexual orientation that can't be changed” (Ghose, 2015).

Even if it’s not in the form of outright support for damaging procedures like

conversion therapy, many Republican lawmakers perpetuate attitudes that have the

same catastrophic effects on LGBTQ+ youth. When compared to peers who were

“not rejected or were only a little rejected” by their families because of coming out,

LGBTQ+ teens who were “highly rejected” by families due to the stigma associated

with being a member of the community were more likely to attempt suicide, be

depressed, use illegal drugs, and be at risk of contracting HIV and other STDs.
 10

(Human Rights Campaign). This, again, begs the question of how a “pro-life” and

“pro-family” party could support programs and belief systems that cause the deaths

of children nationwide.

The simple answer is: they can’t. A high-power group pushing an agenda that

includes the subjugation of women, the oppression of minorities and LGBTQ+

people, tears children from their parents, and causes the suffering and deaths of

children all over the country cannot with any sincerity identify itself as “pro-life,”

and cannot claim itself as a true “family values” party. If Republicans ever want to

live up to their self-given title, they must rethink their entire platform, and expand

their sympathies to the hundreds of thousands of citizens who stand on the other

side of White America’s sturdy, yet tasteful picket fence.

 11

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. Marriage and divorce. (n.d.). Retrieved March

19, 2018, from http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

Bellis, R. (2016, March 03). Here's everywhere in America you can still get fired for

being gay or trans. Retrieved March 23, 2018, from

https://www.fastcompany.com/3057357/heres-everywhere-in-america-

you-can-still-get-fired-for-being-lgbt

Boundless Sociology. (n.d.). The class structure in the US. Retrieved February 22,

2018, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-

sociology/chapter/the-class-structure-in-the-u-s/

CHANGE. U.S. foreign policy & funding, the issues: global gag rule. CHANGE (Center

for Health and Gender Equality). (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2018, from

http://www.genderhealth.org/the_issues/us_foreign_policy/global_gag_rule

Chassamboulli, A., & Peri, G. (2014). The labor market effects of reducing the

number of illegal immigrants. Elsevier. doi:10.3386/w19932

Ghose, T. (2015, April 10). Why Gay Conversion Therapy Is Harmful. Retrieved

March 23, 2018, from https://www.livescience.com/50453-why-gay-

conversion-therapy-harmful.html

Gruber, J., Levine, P., & Staiger, D. (1999). Abortion legalization and child living

circumstances: Who is the "marginal child?"[Scholarly project]. In Wellesley

College. Retrieved from

 12

https://repository.wellesley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://scholar

.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1022&context=economicsfaculty

Holpuch, A. (2018, February 26). US immigration kept asylum seeker and daughter

apart for months, suit says. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/26/us-immigration-

kept-asylum-seeker-and-daughter-apart-for-months-suit-says

Human Rights Campaign. The lies and dangers of "conversion therapy". (n.d.).

Retrieved March 23, 2018, from https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-

and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

Joffe, C. (2011). Dispatches from the abortion wars: The cost of fanaticism to

doctors, patients and the rest of us. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Mezey, N. J. (2015). LGBT families. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

National KIDS COUNT. Children in single-parent families by race. KIDS COUNT Data

Center. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2018, from

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-

families-

by#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869,36,868/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431

QuickFacts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2018, from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

U.S. Census Bureau (2015, June 25). Millennials outnumber baby boomers and are

far more diverse. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html
 13

Shear, M. D., & Davis, J. H. (2017, September 05). Trump moves to end DACA and

calls on Congress to act. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-

immigration.html

Snyder, R. (2007). Paradox or contradiction: the marriage mythos in

neoconservative ideology. In M. J. Thompson (Ed.), Confronting the new

conservatism: the rise of the right in America(pp. 155-174). New York, NY:

New York University Press.

Steinmetz, K. (n.d.). Gay Americans: government begins LGBT population count.

Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://time.com/lgbt-stats/

Stone, L. (1994, November 16/17). Family values in a historical perspective. Lecture

presented at Tanner Lectures on Human Values in Harvard University.

Retrieved February 22, 2018, from

https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/Stone95.pdf

Wilcox, W., & Menon, V. (2017, November 28). No, Republicans aren't hypocrites on

family values. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/28/no-republicans-

arent-hypocrites-on-family-values-215873