This is how deplorable Hillary Clinton thinks you are: She feels the state can better raise your children than you can.
You’re not going to read this on her website, or find it in her presidential platform, but still it’s there. Throughout the 1970s, Mrs. Clinton wrote a series of intellectual essays on children’s issues that, to this day, she hasn’t repudiated or publicly disavowed.
In 1977, Mrs. Clinton was hired as a research assistant by the Carnegie Council on Children, an expert panel that was tasked to respond to sociologist Uri Bronfenbrenner’s work that said child rearing in the Soviet Union was superior to that of the United States.
“The council’s book-length report, published in 1977 under the title ‘All our Children,’ is must reading for anyone who seeks to understand Hillary Rodham’s vision for the future of American families,” Joyce Milton, author of the biography “The First Partner,” wrote of the report.
The Carnegie panel started out with the assumption that the “triumph of the ‘universal entitlement state’ was inevitable, and the best thing Americans could do for their children was to hasten its arrival,” Ms. Milton noted. Just like U.S. education has been handed over to the state, so too, should other responsibilities, lessening the cultural impact of divorce, and demise of the nuclear family within our society.
Ms. Milton notes the report advocated for universal health care, expanded family leave, fully deductible child care, childhood disability insurance, generous income supports for poor families (all of which Mrs. Clinton has touched on the campaign trail), and full employment through government-created jobs if necessary. There was hardly a footnote as to how to pay for these programs or their perceived consequences.
The report offered “a blueprint for undermining the authority of parents whose values the authors considered outmoded,” Ms. Milton wrote.
In the chapter that Mrs. Clinton worked on, titled “Protection of Children’s Rights,” it reads “it has become necessary for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have.”
The chapter goes on to explain that some of these “privileges” should be allowing children to consult doctors for pregnancy and drug-related issues without parental consent, and prevent schools from expelling or suspending disruptive students. It’s most outrageous claim, however, is the adoption of a “public advocate,” who are people that can speak to children’s issues, upending the parents’ wishes.
The report reads:
“In a simpler world, parents were the only advocates for children. This is no longer true. In a complex society where invisible decision makers affect children’s lives profoundly, both children and parents need canny advocates. What if all parents made relatively small financial contributions to such a cause? It would provide a politically insulated fund for lawyers, ombudsmen, agency monitors, and even attempts at legislative reform.”
What would this new class of Americans do? Well, they’d look after our children, of course. The lawyers would bring class action suits against corporations who caused harm to children (sugary drink-makers, beware), and the ombudsmen would work with insurance companies and the government to consider “how to make the rewards in our society more just and how to limit the risks of technology,” and also “ask about tax reform, about reorganizing health care, about racism, about sexism, about energy — all for the sake of our children,” the report reads.
All for the sake of our children?
This sounds like, all for the sake of the bureaucrats in Washington D.C.
Establishment cronies — like Mrs. Clinton and her friends — would make hay with such a system. You and me trying to raise our children? Not so much. For if we don’t subscribe to their values, it looks like we could be in a world of hurt. Lawsuits, federal government subpoenas, fines and audits, could all be coming our way, if say, we tried to interfere with our daughter’s abortion, or son’s drug-addiction. Not to mention same-sex wedding, and transgender rights, including sex-change surgery.
“This is the voice of people who think they know all the answers and want to use children as a tool to impose their will on others,” Ms. Milton wrote.
Think she’s out of line?
Christopher Lasch, a historian and liberal in public policy, wrote in Harper’s of Mrs. Clinton’s essays on child rearing, that “a careful reading of [her] argument. shows that she objects to the family much more than she objects to the state … Although she warns that the state’s authority must be ‘exercised only in warranted cases,’ her writings leave the unmistakable impression that it is the family that holds children back and the state that sets them free.”
Perhaps the body electorate has swiftly changed since the 1970s and these policy prescriptions no longer seem radical. As a parent, they do to me. I don’t need to be taxed, to then be told by bureaucrats how to raise my child.
Ironically, no one told Mrs. Clinton how to bring up Chelsea, and she turned out just fine.
• Kelly Riddell is a columnist for The Washington Times.