For the duration of my career, I have been condemning full-time day care and championing a parent at home as being in the best interest of children, families, and, ultimately, society. Many critics, probably defensive about their own so-called lifestyle choices, have written to or about me imagining a "gotcha!" moment: "Well, how do you explain your hypocrisy, Dr. Laura," the letters or articles generally start, "when you're a working mother? How can you criticize? You do a radio show, you write, you go on book tours and lecture circuits and TV appearances. How can you possibly be an at-home mother with your schedule? You lie! You are hypocrite!"

I was home full-time while Lew earned a living to take care of us. I had been a local radio host prior to Deryk's birth, and I absolutely missed my radio work with a profoundly painful passion. I saw no way to work and to take care of Deryk myself. When Deryk was more than three years old, a very small radio station, KWNK, moved into the mall that was ten minutes' walking distance from our home — important because we could not afford two cars — and I was offered a radio job for $2,000 a month to work on-air live from noon until 3 p.m. Lew had been downsized, and we were struggling, so this money became the difference between paying the mortgage or not.

At this point, Lew's career seemed to collapse because of the lack of opportunities available to men in their fifties, and we were at risk of losing everything. We brainstormed. Lew suggested that our best option was to resurrect my radio career. We both committed to making sure that this never would interfere with my mothering and with our family. And it never has."

Fortunately for us, and for my career, I was assigned to noon to 2 P.M. While Deryk was in school, I did a radio show. This did not interfere with his life at all. I even wrote my first best-selling book, Ten Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives, in the wee hours of the morning when Deryk and Lew slept, and also after Deryk went off to school.

It is amazing that I have become as successful as I have putting family and child first — always. If there were ever living proof that it could be done — I'm it. I have lived and continue to live what I nag.

It takes the value system, the decision, the commitment, and the sacrifice to do it. But our son has never felt neglected or less important than fame, fortune, or work.

So, contrary to what you often read or hear in the media, I really do practice what I preach, and so I know it can be done.

As a society we ignore what we know to be self-evident truths about children, families, child rearing, commitment, and responsibilities. We are willing to sacrifice what is noble and right for families to accommodate individuals who don't do right or behave nobly — all in the name of tolerance and the celebration of diversity. When this validation is reinforced by sources perceived as authoritative — mental health professionals or clergy — we are in deep trouble.

I was disappointed in this book. Dr. Laura goes on for the entire first half of the book putting everyone who uses daycare down. Not just put downs, a total belittlement. She was able to work two or three hours a day and made enough money over time that her husband was able to quit work. Then she says "If she can do it anyone can".

I have worked with the public for 33 years and can count on one hand the number of children with stay at home Moms that I could stand to be around long enough to give them a haircut. I know day care situations can be absurd but there are just as many stay at home Moms who are not doing their jobs. I have personally known more than a few teachers who say the kids with daycare experience are much better all around students than kids with stay at home Moms.

Yes I take in that info because I have four children who have no trouble figuring out who loves them the most. Two of them are grown with kids of their own. I used daycare for all four because I had no choice. Their Dad walked out after 20 years with someone half his age. Most of the single Moms I know wish it was different but it isn't that kind of world. I teach my girls that they need a sound career as much as any Man because it makes no difference what your intentions are, Life can throw a variety of curves. Put downs don't make people change.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is an interesting woman. She is extremely judgmental and her conservative approach to life and child rearing angers those who don't see things her way. Instead of simply disagreeing, they attack her in very personal ways. ... Dr. Laura has captured the attention of Middle America by advocating a return to a traditional society, one that some believe is prejudicial and narrow-minded." She is outspoken against homosexuality and has been viciously attacked by mainstream media for doing so. O'Reilly writes, "The gay stuff gets the headlines, but it is Laura's child-raising theories that really drive some Americans crazy. ... Her book Parenthood by Proxy: Don't Have Them If You Won't Raise Them ... made the best-seller list nonetheless."

O'Reilly: So you believe you can't be a good a parent an work at the same time?

Dr. Laura: Children are helpless, defenseless, dependent little entities that require us to be there. There is no paid help that will have the commitment and investment in your child in terms of religion and warmth and bonding and caring. Nobody's going to love the child like Mommy and Daddy.

O'Reilly: Isn't there a middle ground here where you can hire a nanny for a few hours a day?

Dr. Laura: "There is no middle ground for the kids. I am saying there are shoulds and people are doing some things wrong and its hurting the children. A lot of these people go on the defensive. It interferes with their permissiveness and their freedom to do whatever they want." He says, "You're right. Many people are taking your words very personally and they don't like you."

Dr. Laura: I am in the workplace but our family has always worked around our son. I work when he's in school. There are millions of hardworking families who manage their schedules so they are there for their kids.

O'Reilly: Yeah, but some people have intense schedules; they have no choice.

Dr. Laura: Intense schedules are a choice.

O'Reilly: Come on, Doctor, I need my female producers here for eight hours. They can't be home and carry this job.

Dr. Laura: Fine. Then they either need a man at home or not have the kids until they're in a different place in their careers.

O'Reilly: I disagree with you. That is too tough. I think a responsible caregiver can supervise the child for a few hours a day without harm.

Look at today's reality in America. Families have to deal with a tough dance card. The cost of housing and modern conveniences is significant, and taxes are gutting the take-home pay of the working class. By necessity, most Americans have to work longer and harder than they might like. If you have more than two children, chances are both parents will have to work at least part-time." He goes on to say "there are excellent day-care facilities, but if your kid is in one, make sure you drop in unannounced from time to time.

ABSOLUTIST APPROACH

... I disagree with absolutist approach taken by Dr. Laura. Children can bond with a variety of adults, as extended families have proved throughout the ages. As long as the adult genuinely cares for the child, there is no harm so long as the parents remain the centerpiece of the child's life ...." "Neither Dr. Laura nor anyone else has the right to make working mothers feel guilty. American women have pursued careers and raised fine families at the same time. However, these dual purposes must be carefully thought out and executed with precision. Children should always get first priority, and if trouble develops, the job has to be put aside.

Two interrelated mysteries: Why do so many Arab Muslims think Western civilization is about to collapse? And how could so many well-educated hijackers live among us for so long and not be seduced by our cherished American way of life?

For example, according to Norman Podhoretz, from a textbook published by the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites) Ministry of Education: Western civilization "has begun to collapse to and to become a pile of rubble." "(T)he age of the American collapse has begun," chimes in a columnist in the Egyptian state-sponsored newspaper Al-Akhbar, two weeks before the Twin Towers attack.

Here we are in the early 21st century, a military giant, the world's oldest democracy, with a powerhouse economy creating new miracles of opportunity and ingenuity, still attracting huge migrations from all countries and cultures, a society which (whatever its limitations, and we do have some) is deeply steeped in decency, kindness and openness. How could they know us so well and still hate us so?

For that matter, how could Isanu Dyson, a fifth-generation American who (according to the New York Post) converted to Islam three years ago, say he wants to fight for the Taliban?

Here is my best guess at honest self-examination: The Achilles' heel of AmerEuropean civilization is our sexual culture, which even to many Americans looks not only deeply destructive, but ugly. Fatherless children, fragmented families, the demotion of sex into a product — these are the surface symptoms of an even deeper problem: a hollowing out of sexual meaning and purpose.

"The U.S. might be an economic and military superpower, but Islam is a religious and manpower superpower — we are 1 billion people," brags Dyson.

If Western civilization does face collapse, it will not come from outside invaders — they can sow terror but not destruction — but from the baby bomb. In Western countries people have for two generations stopped caring enough about having children to reproduce our population. Historian Paul Johnson writes about his vision of a long-term clash between Islam and the casually mentioned demographic bomb: "Should present trends continue, both these traditionally Catholic countries (Spain and Italy) will become majority Moslem during the 21st century." Not just because of migration, but because the native birth rates have entered a sudden, dramatic, sustained collapse.

"The result of a crisis in ... family lifestyles," writes Russian demographer Anatoly I. Antonov in a recent issue of The Howard Center's The Family in America, "depopulation now threatens 20 economically developed countries around the world."

At the heart of this collapse (in my opinion) is an idea, still contested, but gaining vast ground. The New York Times Sunday magazine devoted a whole issue to variations of it. It happened to be best expressed by a gay couple (but certainly it is not confined to homosexuals): "From time to time we have had affairs with other people, or moments of sexual release, but they were recreational," explained Steve. "It is only sex; it has no deep-seated meaning," agreed Chuck.

Sex has no deep-seated meaning, no public purpose beyond providing an enjoyable set of internal physical or emotional sensations. Sex is a consumer good. People who believe this end up having unstable marriages, fragmented families or no families at all.

For hundreds of years, traditional Islam has failed to produce a society that is attractive: regimes of secular corruption alternate with regimes of religious repression. But Islam remains a successful civilization because it fulfills the two minimum functions any culture must: It channels intense social energy of individuals into the two great sacrifices of self: war and babies. The children in Islamic societies suffer, and the women even more. But though individuals suffer, the family system itself works. The society perpetuates itself. It even finds new adherents in our country, primarily among those who have suffered most deeply from our current sexual disorder, African-Americans.

The way forward is never the way back. Still, up until about 1970, Western civilization combined democracy, freedom, capitalism and neighborliness with a functioning family system. Who can now say the same?

The Feminization of the Democrats
by Irving Kristol

Social issues and the culture wars that rage around them are often relegated to a position of secondary importance behind economic matters in political campaigns. As the culture wars have gained in intensity and prominence, however, social and economic issues have become intertwined, signaling a major shift not only in American politics, but also in American society.

Though both the media and the public were bored by the Republican and Democratic conventions, these were nevertheless among the more significant conventions in our political history. They gave signs of major changes now under way in the parties, a kind of slide into what, for want of a better term, we may call postmodern politics. As would be expected, the change is less obvious in the case of the Republican Party--it is, after all, our conservative party. But it was there. In the case of the Democratic Party, the change has already achieved a visible momentum.

This change can be roughly summarized as follows: The traditional attitude of both parties toward the welfare state has now been infused with contrasting cultural agendas. The economics of the welfare state is no longer a simple matter of arguments about balancing receipts and expenditures--though many conservatives still see it that way. The economics is now being integrated into the culture wars we are living through, so the issue of what kind of welfare state we shall have is now but an aspect of a profound division over what kind of country we are, and what kind of people we are, and what we mean by the "American way of life."

Outside the Mainstream

Unsurprisingly, the Republican Party is not only resistant to such thoughts--it positively distrusts them. Republican eyes go blank at the very mention of "culture." The party's historic intimacy with the business community has led it to respect economists but to be suspicious of "intellectuals." The party's establishment has nothing against religion so long as it doesn't interfere with golf on Sundays, and it regards those who take religion seriously, who talk earnestly about "values" and "virtues," as "outside the mainstream." Nevertheless, 20 percent of the delegates to the Republican convention described themselves as Christian conservatives--that is to say, they see their religious beliefs as telling them something important about the way we should conduct our lives. They know that there is a "culture war" going on because of the frustrations--even the constant abuse--they experience. And they are the most dynamic force within the Republican Party.

At the 1992 Republican convention, Pat Buchanan asserted that there was a "culture war" going on in the United States, and for this he was excoriated, his speech being denounced as "inflammatory" and "extremist." The Republican establishment quickly distanced itself from such distracting belligerency, and worked to retain the traditional conservative focus on economics and foreign policy. In 1996, this establishment was well prepared to stay on track, and the proceedings slithered along smoothly as the convention happily focused on the familiar issue of taxes.

Democratic Culture Wars

In contrast, this last Democratic convention was in effect a "culture wars" rally, though the organizers were careful to spin out much empty rhetoric about "family values," without going into specifics. This irritated the media, which finds it almost impossible to think that "family values," whatever they are, have anything to do with politics. At the same time, most of the journalists and commentators did have preconceptions as to what American politics is really about. They knew that a "newly energized labor movement," represented at the convention, signaled a revival of the old liberal, now renamed "progressive," coalition, a topic they have been writing about for years. What they preferred not to know is that only about 12 percent of American workers belong to unions today, and that at least half of these are white-collar workers who are employees of government (at all levels). What kind of labor movement is this? The majority of union delegates to the Democratic convention would describe themselves as "professionals."

Nor was it mentioned even in passing that 50 percent of the Democratic delegates were women, had to be women, by virtue of an affirmative action, sexist quota. Why such a quota? No one asked, even though there seemed to be no evident political difference whatsoever between those women and their male counterparts. It is too bad the question was not raised because it might have alerted an inquiring mind to the deeper meaning of this self-imposed quota. It pointed to a major transformation of the Democratic Party. Specifically, it pointed to the feminization of the party--not only in the delegate count, which is of no great significance, but in the ethos that pervades the party, and in the policies that naturally flow from this ethos.

As Steven Stark recently wrote in the Atlantic Monthly: "Although many media accounts still give the impression that the [gender] gap [between the parties] is greatest on women's issues' such as abortion and an Equal Rights Amendment, men and women do not differ much on these issues. Rather, the gulf today tends to be on issues involving the existence and expansion of the welfare state."

The American welfare state has had a feminine coloration from the very beginning, Mr. Stark points out. In Europe, the welfare state was created by trade unionists and socialists for the benefit of working people. In the United States, our welfare state was shaped, in large part, by the child welfare establishment--an establishment that provided "suitable" careers for women at a time when such careers were few, and devised appropriate policies that were women-oriented. (Various left-wing historians have made the same point, approvingly.) The result was a welfare state for dependent women and children and for the burgeoning "helping professions" that attend them.

It is not really surprising that this welfare state should breed a politics, not of "justice" or "fairness" but of "compassion," which contemporary liberalism has elevated into the most important civic virtue. Women tend to be more sentimental, more risk-averse, and less competitive than men--yes, it's Mars vs. Venus--and therefore are less inclined to be appreciative of free-market economics, where there are losers as well as winners. College-educated women--the kind who attend Democratic conventions--are also more "permissive" and less "judgmental" on such issues as homosexuality, capital punishment, even pornography.

PC Redefined

This helps explain the amazing degree to which the Democratic convention was bathed in a pre-political pathos involving what journalists would once have called "sob stories" or "heartbreakers"--terms that contemporary liberalism has made politically incorrect. Some political commentators, even some liberal commentators, were vexed at such made-for-TV soap opera, and wanted to know where the political agenda was. Well, they were looking at it, but didn't realize it. The message was: If terrible things happen to innocent people, government--and only the federal government, at that--is morally obliged to come to their rescue. Forget prayer, forget stoicism; hope is incarnated in the welfare state.

So powerful is this theme in our culture today, that even the Republican convention had to make some gestures in this direction. But everyone understood that this was little more than copycat opportunism, while politicized compassion constitutes the very heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

This passion for compassion was so strong that it moved the Democratic delegates to ignore resolutely the issue of illegitimacy. The issue simply wasn't mentioned, even though illegitimacy--especially among teenage girls--and its sociopathic consequences are at the center of public insistence on the need for welfare reform. Both President Clinton and the convention refused to recognize this fact, even though Mr. Clinton had just signed a welfare reform bill. On welfare, the Democrats are, and will remain, in a state of denial. We should take seriously the hints from the White House to the effect that the president will gut the very welfare reform he just signed by manipulating the regulatory requirements. He will most certainly do it, after the election.

What Kind of Family?

It goes beyond this, however. We know that married women, and especially married women with children, tend to be much more conservative than single women. So when Democrats talk about the family, they never--but never--say anything that might suggest a household consisting of a mother, a father, and children. Assertions to the effect that "we are all one family" are a rather transparent rhetorical effort to delegitimize the traditional family as being the family, from which all other households are deviants, to a mild or radical degree.

The current breakup experienced by the American family is having a profound effect on American politics, as well as on American society. One can go further and say that the social problems we are confronting, problems either created or exacerbated by our welfare state, are making the welfare state a cultural issue as well as an economic one. The Christian right understands this, as does the secularist left. The "culture wars" are no political sideshow. Today, and in the years ahead, they will be energizing and defining all the controversies that revolve around the welfare state.

The tension between the original version of the welfare state, which is stern and dedicated to fostering self-reliance, and a later, gentler version, which values protection above all, continues to dominate our politics.

The most notable aspect of the current presidential election has been the division that has emerged between the two versions of the welfare state envisaged by the two parties.

An older, masculine, paternalistic version of the welfare state is fighting a guerrilla war against a newer and firmly established feminine-maternalistic conception of the welfare state. Nor is this a peculiarly American phenomenon. Something like it is visible in all the Western democracies. Though some intellectuals, especially in Europe, still chatter about conflict between a welfare state and a "free market" state, that polarity ceased to exist almost a century ago.

The Maternal Welfare State

Fathers want their children to grow up to be self-reliant, self-supporting, and able to cope with a recalcitrant world. Mothers want their children to be as completely protected as possible from such a world and to be gratefully attached to them as long as they live; the avoidance of risk gets a very high priority. The original welfare state, from 1900 to 1945, was largely paternalistic in conception, since the trade unions (overwhelmingly male) played such a crucial role in bringing it into being.

After World War II, however, as women entered the labor force as well as educational institutions in large numbers, and as feminist ideas became popular, the welfare state came gradually to be seen less as a helping hand for those in need—a "safety net"—and more as a communal exercise in "compassion" toward an ever-expanding proportion of the population. That was the point of the complaint lodged by many feminists against Margaret Thatcher—she had a "manly" rather than "womanly" conception of social policy.

That is the key term in the feminization of social policy, "compassion." Adam Smith talked easily about the importance of "sympathy," but that term lacks the erotic warmth of "compassion." Sympathy is most easily directed toward those who want to help themselves and need a helping hand. Compassion, as we now understand it, is an indiscriminate response to suffering and is always therapeutic. Men can (and do) sympathize with those who are down on their luck, but it needs a woman to feel a deep compassion, shot through with free-floating indignation, for the human suffering of those who have been victimized by the ravages of ill fortune—or even by their own misdeeds. (There is no doubt that George W. Bush’s use of the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is an attempt to swim with the maternalistic current.)

Once upon a time, popular journalism knew how to exploit this deep well of compassion with the formulaic "sob story"—an account of human suffering that would bring tears to a woman’s eyes. This was regarded as an inferior form of hack journalism, written by hardened cynics who saw profit where others saw misery. Gradually, however, as more and more women were educated to read and were provided with time to read, it became a quite respectable genre of journalism. And with the advent of the mass media, and especially of television, it became a dominant form of journalism. That photograph of four American soldiers raising the flag at Iwo Jima was the last "masculine" spectacle enshrined by television. Since then, it is scenes of war’s brutality, and of human suffering, that win the awards.

The feminine, maternal version of the welfare state now has the support not only of public opinion, but of institutions and professions that have been nourished by this state, so that there are large numbers of working women loyal to this state—and men, too, who are loyal to these women. These are now designated collectively as the "helping professions" and include social work, nursing, psychology, public health, librarianship, teaching, and branches of television journalism.

These professions are—most of them anyhow—politically active. It has been noted that the largest single contingent at the Democratic conventions were members of the teachers unions, and while these included men, one can be certain that none of them ever dared breathe an antifeminist thought. It has hardly been noticed, though it is an interesting fact, that a whole new profession has been recognized in the media. It consists of people who designate themselves, and are then designated by others, as "activists." To be an activist has become a recognized occupational specialty with at least quasi-professional status. Needless to say, this activism goes in only one prescribed direction.

Creating this extensive, in some cases massive, maternal welfare state, has been an extraordinary achievement, in view of the fact that it was created, as it were, ex nihilo. It was not a response to any visible popular demand, but was propelled by the thinking and writing of social scientists and journalists—an instance of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan, back in the late 1960s, foresaw as the "professionalization of reform." This version of the welfare state was officially recognized, and inaugurated and financed, by Lyndon Johnson. There is considerable evidence in the memoirs of his White House staff that LBJ had no clear idea of what he was doing. That did not, of course, matter.

The Paternal Welfare State

Meanwhile, the masculine version of the welfare state is still a living political idea. In order to survive, it has made concessions, inevitably. "Leave no child behind" is not a traditional, conservative educational slogan. And queuing up to be kissed and blessed by Oprah Winfrey is not a traditional electoral activity. But the original idea still exists and has its victories, most notably in the case of welfare reform. And in the longer run it has two things going for it. One is economics, and the other is foreign policy.

The feminine version of the welfare state is inherently expansive—compassion has no limits—and sooner or later it runs into economic counterpressures. This has already happened in the European democracies, where economic growth is impeded by high taxation and overly generous welfare expenditures. It can be predicted with some confidence that those European governments will move, however reluctantly, toward a more paternalistic (that is, limited) version of the welfare state. The Left—a coalition of trade unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and surviving socialists—is already in revolt against "globalization" and "Americanization." It may win the occasional election, but it cannot govern without abandoning its agenda.

The United States is in a much better position, mainly because we now enjoy strong economic growth together with a nice budgetary surplus. But the pressures to spend are there (and quite a few conservative politicians are as easily tempted as liberals are by envisaged electoral rewards). This is especially true for a nation that is a superpower, whose foreign policies require increasing military expenditures.

The maternal welfare state positively hates such expenditures, is cutting back on them in Europe, and is doing its best to emasculate the spirit of nationalist patriotism in all nations of Europe. The United States, however, cannot opt out of world affairs. Nor is there any serious evidence that the majority of Americans wish to disburden themselves of our superpower responsibilities. Even a casual television viewer can see that our military is still highly popular, which is not at all the case in Europe.

So the maternal-paternal conflict will continue, in a seesaw fashion, until a point arises—and it will, however unimaginable now—when other urgent issues intervene and the welfare state is no longer the focal point of democratic politics.