by Marco Rubio
The Wage Enhancement Credit would work hand in hand with a consolidation of federal poverty programs into a Flex Fund, which would give the states the freedom and flexibility to create programs to encourage work and marriage. The city of Baltimore, home to Charlotte and Darnell, is conducting such an experiment. Officials there have recognized that current public assistance programs were designed in another era, when most children ended up in homes with single moms because of divorce—thus leading to the emphasis on replacing or recovering the income lost with the husband. Today’s couples are more likely to cohabitate and have children from previous relationships. Marriage remains a goal for many of them. So public officials are experimenting with ways to help couples stay together through job training, parent and financial counseling, and helping men like Darnell meet their obligations to their children without jeopardizing their relationships with their current partners and their ability to support new children.8
As we’ve seen, though, single-parent families aren’t just a problem among the poor and government dependent. Unwed births are increasing—and marriage is declining—most rapidly among the high school–educated lower middle class. Our current tax code roundly penalizes marriage by hitting married couples with taxes that two otherwise identical singles would be spared from. Senator Mike Lee’s and my pro-family tax plan will end the marriage penalty by doubling the tax threshold for joint filers. And it will make parents more financially stable by the addition of our new $2,500 per child tax credit and making it deductible, meaning whatever isn’t saved through a reduction of a couple’s income and payroll tax liability would be received in cash.
Finally, the institution of marriage itself is in need of defense today. Marriage is one of those things that, like having a child, is almost universally experienced but very personally lived. Government can play a role, but ultimately the decision to marry is a very personal one. And so it is that stopping the decline of marriage must begin on that personal level, by continuing to advocate for our values in the public square and by raising our children to perpetuate them in their own lives.
In our contemporary discussions on marriage, we must also acknowledge the national debate regarding the very definition of marriage. On this point, I—along with millions of my fellow Americans—firmly believe that marriage is a unique societal institution so important to the formation of strong and successful people that we have traditionally defined it and enshrined it in our laws as the union of one man and one woman.
We have done so because thousands of years of human history have taught us that the ideal setting for children to grow up in is with a mother and a father committed to each other, living together and sharing the responsibility of raising their children.
It is for this reason and this reason alone that I continue to believe marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. It is neither my place nor my intention to dictate to anyone who they are allowed to love or live with.
The question is not whether we should discriminate against anyone on the basis of his or her sexuality. We should not. The question is how our laws should define the union of two people in a marriage. And because I believe the marriage of one man and one woman is so important to a strong society, I believe that it should hold a special status in our laws. At a time when the American family is threatened as never before, redefining it away from the union of one man and one woman only promises to weaken it as a child-rearing, values-conveying institution.
My view on this places me opposite the views of a growing number of Americans. And as attitudes change, we have seen state laws change the definition of marriage as well. I do not agree with or support these changes. But I also do not question that the elected representatives in the individual states have the right to make these changes.
The trend that I will not accept, however, is the growing attitude that belief in traditional marriage equates to bigotry and hatred. Just as California has a right to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, Florida has a right to define it as one man and one woman.
Furthermore, while I oppose redefining marriage, I also oppose discrimination, harassment and violence against anyone because of his or her sexual identity. It is possible to believe that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman while also condemning violence or abusive behavior toward gay people, or those instances around the world of nations attempting to criminalize homosexuality.
Some activists will not accept this, of course. They seek to have gay marriage serve as a litmus test for how we view or treat gay people. As of late, they have sought to punish and ostracize those who do not agree with them. But tolerance is a two-way street. Those who advocate for gay marriage should not allow their passion to blind them to the fact that they must share our nation and its challenges with what remains a sizable percentage of Americans who continue to support traditional marriage. Just as we must respect their right to advocate for changes in our marriage laws, they must also recognize our right to stand up for our own views.
Of all the topics I have addressed in this book, the preservation of the American family is by far the most difficult. This is complex, fraught territory for any public official. But it is no longer acceptable to throw up our collective hands and run away from the issue. We know now that the stakes are too high for any more polite averting our eyes to the state of the American family. Paying lip service will no longer suffice. Real lives and real futures are at stake. The health of our economy, our exceptionalism as a nation, the very survival of the American Dream is caught up with the survival of the American family. Using the family as a political wedge issue—by the right or by the left—must be called out as the dangerous opportunism that it is.
And here, the responsibility—and the hypocrisy—does not lie with all Americans equally. As we’ve seen, less-educated, lower-income Americans are experiencing an epidemic of broken marriages and single-parent families. Meanwhile, those at the top levels of income and education in our society are clinging to—and in many cases rediscovering—more traditional values. Less than 5 percent of college-educated white women have children outside of marriage, for example, compared with around 40 percent of white women with just a high school degree. And after growing in frequency during the 1970s and mid-1980s, divorce is now also a rarity among the upper classes.
American elites, in short, practice the old-fashioned values of work, thrift, marriage before children and delayed gratification. But in the words of American Enterprise Institute author Charles Murray, they don’t “preach what they practice.” Liberal elites in Washington, New York and Hollywood too often have standards for their children at home that they refuse to advocate for other people’s children when they’re making laws, movies, television and magazines. Television executives in Hollywood and software designers in Silicon Valley who wouldn’t consider having a child outside of marriage regularly produce popular entertainment that celebrates precisely that. Even many Washington policy makers who are in church every Sunday refuse to advocate for traditional faith values for fear of committing the cardinal sin of today’s liberalism: being “judgmental.”
But America has been “judgmental” before—and to good effect. Our elites have even helped. Time and again, we’ve reached a judgment as a nation that certain behaviors are harmful and should no longer be tolerated. We’ve mounted campaigns involving lawmakers, business and the entertainment industry to send strong societal messages. The campaigns against smoking, drunk driving and childhood obesity come to mind. We haven’t eliminated these problems altogether, but we’ve changed hearts and minds and we’ve done so by embracing—rather than avoiding—being judgmental.
Even on delicate issues like teenage sex and pregnancy, despite the general resistance of many at the commanding heights of our culture to “preach what they practice,” we’ve been able to send the message that this activity is no longer acceptable. Teen pregnancy, birth and abortion rates are at historic lo
ws. There are a number of reasons for this. One of the most interesting I’ve heard is that shows like MTV’s 16 and Pregnant have persuaded young viewers to put off sex and childbearing. One study of viewers of the show, which follows teenagers dealing with the sleepless nights and loss of freedom that come with having a baby, showed that the rate of teenage pregnancy declined faster in areas where teenagers watched more MTV programming, including 16 and Pregnant.9
Marriage and family are bigger and more profound issues than even teen pregnancy. Still, with the support of transformed government programs, a national campaign bringing together the entertainment industry, civic groups, churches and elected officials could begin to change American hearts and minds on the issue of marriage. Reminding our fellow citizens of the values that we’ve always embraced as a nation—the values the most successful Americans cling to today—could begin to turn the tide on the decline of marriage. It’s not a magic bullet. American families still suffer from a lack of job opportunities and a lack of skills for the new economy, not to mention soaring health care, college and housing costs. But the very real cultural issues that are contributing to the decline of marriage—the easy acceptance of unwed motherhood and absent fathers, the “just do it if it feels good” ethos—these are susceptible to some good old-fashioned moral judgment.
Such a campaign, of course, requires leadership, and what we have in Washington today on issues of marriage and the family is the opposite of leadership. Instead of offering America’s struggling single moms and dads help in transcending their situations, Democrats employ the deeply cynical “war on women” strategy to keep them—and their votes—just where they are. Despite the clear, uncontested evidence that single parenthood creates significant challenges for children, for mothers and even for fathers, any mention of efforts to address it is greeted as more of the conservative “animus toward women.” But who is it, really, that has the best interests of single women and American families at heart? Those who fixate on a fictional “war on women”? Or those who are eager to reform our poverty programs, our tax code and our moral sensibility to support work and family?
I’m not blind to the work we have to do to convince women struggling to raise families alone of the rightness of our cause. But when I think of a young woman like India, I know that the ideas and the policies I have discussed in this book are a natural fit for a young American of ambition and determination like her. I have no idea how she votes or what her politics are. I know only that these policies focus on bringing opportunity within reach of everyone. We must never forget that by confronting our family crisis, we are also confronting the idea that gave birth to our country: the idea that everyone deserves the chance to go as far as their dreams, work and talent will take them.
It is this belief that has turned America into the single most generous and caring nation on the planet. Each generation in our history has instilled in the next a deep sense of duty toward those who are struggling. In our families, in our homes, in the examples of our parents, we have learned not to sit back and wait for government to step in to help those in need, but to take it upon ourselves.
This value should be reflected in our government too, through policies that empower our people to achieve their true potential. People are always grateful for financial assistance, but after that, they want the ability to achieve true independence. This means they need the education that will lead to employable skills, the economic growth that will lead to a good job—and, yes, the values that will lead to successful and fulfilling lives.
We can cut taxes, reduce regulations, improve higher education and spark economic growth, but if we do not address the challenges facing American families, millions will continue to be denied an equal opportunity to achieve a better life. Solving all the other challenges facing America—from joblessness to poverty to inequality—is contingent upon solving this one.
So when our children and their children look back decades from now, let it be said that we did what was necessary to preserve what made us special. Let it be said that we reclaimed the values of a strong people, and in doing so preserved the legacy of the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Afterword
Since I began writing this book in the spring of 2014, Americans have witnessed a time of extraordinary upheaval around the world, and unprecedented distrust in government here at home.
When I began writing, most Americans had never heard of ISIL. Since then, we have witnessed the murder of our own journalists, the savage enslavement of women and girls, and an expanding arc of death and destruction across the Middle East. The terrorists President Obama once dismissed as the “JV squad” now control vast swaths of Iraq and Syria. And when I began writing, few would have guessed that Russia would upend decades of regional balance and challenge European security. Nonetheless, Russia invaded Ukraine and hundreds of innocent travelers were murdered when a Malaysian passenger plane was shot from the sky.
The list goes on. A modern-day plague erupted and has raged through West Africa, eventually reaching America’s shores. Innocent Syrians are slaughtered at the whim of a tyrant. Hamas rains terror down on Israel. China continues its provocations in the South China Sea. Peaceful protestors in Venezuela are met with violence from their own government—and then a corrupt United Nations elects that government to its most august body.
Americans once trusted our institutions to protect us from the dangers of the world and to champion our interests in our daily lives. In the institutions of the presidency and the Congress we placed our trust to lead our nation abroad in pursuit of our interests and highest ideals. This trust was not misplaced. Providing for the common defense is the highest responsibility of our elected leaders. The Constitution assigns seventeen separate duties to Congress, six of which deal exclusively with national defense—more than any other area. And as the chief executive and commander in chief, the president has a unique role in our national defense, one that only he or she can play: to have the foresight to see threats developing and to lead the American people in dealing with these threats.
National defense is the first and highest calling of government. And all of the threats to the American Dream discussed in this book—from the decline of good jobs to the need for education reform to prepare Americans for the jobs of the twenty-first century—are tied, either directly or indirectly, to our ability to protect our interests around the globe. Our economic prosperity—and with it our jobs—depends on our ability to sell products and services to other nations, to communicate openly and reliably, and to travel freely. Millions of our best jobs today and in the future depend on foreign trade.
Still, debates about the proper strength of our military and the proper application of our strength around the world—whether to get involved in foreign lands or not—are as old as the republic. There have always been those who argue that America shouldn’t concern herself with the affairs of the world—that what happens an ocean away bears little relevance to our people. Some of these men were members of the first Congress. When their president, George Washington, delivered the first ever State of the Union address, he asserted the need for American strength in order to protect the new republic. Washington said, “To prepare for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace.” But Congress disagreed. They assumed our hard-won independence meant the threats of the Old World had finally become irrelevant. They believed the nation could now afford to devote itself exclusively to domestic issues. So, against Washington’s wishes, they cut the navy’s funding. Our ships were taken out of service, our sailors sent home.
But even then, America’s economy relied heavily on trade with Europe. And without a navy to protect them, our merchant ships were easy prey for marauding, extortionist bands of North African pirates known as the Barbary pirates. Throughout the Mediterranean, they attacked, killed and enslaved our sailors. They seized ships and their cargo and demanded exorbitant ransoms. But there was nothin
g we could do. America was defenseless. Even after we recommissioned our navy and sent it across the Atlantic to battle the pirates, it took nearly fifteen years and two Barbary Wars to secure the safe passage of our ships and the continuation of trade with Europe.
From the Barbary pirates America learned—or should have learned—an important lesson: We must be prepared for threats wherever they arise, because our nation is never isolated from the world. Even then, at a time when our connections to the world were limited to a slow procession of merchant ships, tremors in global affairs could fracture the foundations of our domestic economy. This is true today as never before. Americans can now connect with the world from their living rooms with a smartphone or an iPad—no ship or even airplane is necessary. The same is true for entrepreneurs, artists—and terrorists—in other countries. What happens across the planet can have a greater impact on your family than what happens down the street.
Americans are rightly and understandably preoccupied with simply making ends meet these days—paying down that loan or holding on to the house. It’s the job of our leaders to keep their eye on the outside threats that make doing these mundane things harder—or might prevent us from doing them at all. Unfortunately, too many leaders in both parties, including our president and some who aspire to be president, have shown they would rather wait for poll numbers to change than demonstrate the leadership necessary to shape public opinion.
Once again, America finds itself with some leaders who believe we can ignore the world without consequences here at home. Apparently they’re oblivious to the reality that we are less insulated from global events than ever.