I agree with your premise, but you seem to be implying that many folks cannot see that government programs which give security in these family areas are only seen as good if we grovel over it like the conservatives.  Is that what you are saying becasue if so, I like the obvious to speak for itself.  I do not like grovelling.

The Reader's Digest version of all this:

You're not a progressive if you don't support my agenda.  

For many Republicans, and their supporters, self, not family, is at the core of life's meaning. This is not rocket science, it should be obvious to anyone.

Look at Newt Gingrich, who has gone through two messy divorces, and files for his first divorce while his wife was in the hospital being treated for cancer. She also had to sue him for child support. Look at Jeb Bush and his daughter, Noelle, drug addict, she showed up in court by herself a couple years back for sentencing.  The kids are not central to the lives of many 'conservatives'. Need we mention the drug addict and blowhard Rush and his divorces?

The only friends a lot of these guys and their supporters look to are those who can benefit them personally, financially or politically. Look at the rates of spouse abuse, child neglect, meth abuse and divorce in the Red states and you will find that the numbers there are among the highest in the nation. 

Hi E.J.

A few thoughts about your expressed frustrations. Something struck me, which might address the frustration you are feeling with some of the responses to your ideas, when you said this:

Spanish, Canadian, and British politicians have been using rhetoric that does this in ways that fits their own nations.

as I had just finished reading this op-ed just before:

January 22, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Smoking and Fuming

By JAVIER MARÍAS

Madrid

Print version blurb: At Least Franco didn't take our cigarettes.

FOR far too many years, almost 40, the people of Spain were treated like minors by Franco's dictatorship. But it seems that some people among us still yearn for that era. The new antismoking law in Spain, which went into effect with the new year and bans smoking in workplaces and restricts it in many bars and restaurants, is a case in point: it is a clear example of the state trying to regulate citizens' private lives and customs. As such, it is a measure that is far more befitting of Franco than a democracy.

Now, I should say immediately that I am a smoker, like nearly a third of my fellow Spaniards, and I've never tried to quit. I know smoking isn't good for my health, but neither is walking in the polluted streets of Madrid or Barcelona, nor is living in a world where the United States refuses to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol.

Many of my friends are smokers too; many are not. But we have always managed to come to terms by asking if anyone minds our smoking - without the government's intervention.....A totalitarian state is one that sticks its nose where it doesn't belong and attempts to intervene in every aspect of its citizens' private lives, and many governments today, whether left, right or center, have developed this practice of behaving like busybodies. The old notion that only dictatorships can be totalitarian seems terribly naïve nowadays. And that is the worst thing about this antismoking law and others of the same ilk: they unfortunately prove that totalitarianism is no longer incompatible with the democratic systems that once guaranteed our freedoms....

Now forget the specific issue of smoking, as certain pro ban arguments are as reasonable as his. The point is that here is a libertine leftist attitude there, a chafing at what he makes to be a new Spanish socialist nanny state that reminded me of the following:

The problem you are running up against is not just a recent American one. When I hear the word term "progressive," perhaps much more than with the word liberal, I think a big part of that is an individualistic, iconoclatic tradition of leftism, not so much into societal structures like "family."

It is also part of a proud "progressive" tradition to chafe at "family," from Greenwich Village to Montmarte, to refuse the whole family thing. And I suspect that this is why many chafe at it and it goes deeper and further back than the religious right taking on "family values" as a theme since the 1970's. Indeed, some would probably argue that it's really a sort of Enlightenment value, that stems from anti-aristocratic, "family" based societies.

Your emphasis on family and some kind of "values system," this also appears to be a big topic in a new study coming out. See the American Progressive article cited here.. I would be surprised if you don't know about this already, but I thought others might want to give it a gander in the context of your arguments. The study even seems to address the libertine, individualist aspects of modern society that sort of strain at the bit of any kind "pro-family" bias in government. It's not really libertarianism, it's more of the proud libertine tradition of the left that you are running up against here. The word "family" is loaded with meaning about traditional society and keeping it intact. No coincidence that Greenwich village "communists" (i.e., the Soviets put children in day care and send Mom, equal to Dad, to work) and hippies and 19th-century free lovers were all seen as dangerous to civilization. Some "progressive leftists" didn't buy into that. There is a long tradition on the left to chafe at any kind of idea of family structure or family or as a basis for organizing society. Is sort of what the study may be trying to say that the left has to let go of to win? I would say we don't really know just from that short article, but it does seem to be the track that you are on, too. It's more "caring liberal" rather than "leftist libertine." It's all a very fascinating problem about readjusting to "modern times," mho. But unlike what the Environs study seems to suggest (we don't really know that for sure, we only have the article's interpretation) I still think Lakoff might be right: framing could be a big part of the problem, as loaded words matter? Simply moving away from loaded words might help a great deal? Old words do not fit new times?

I don't think that appealing to families lets one sweep these contentious issues completely under the rug so other issues will be more prominent and important in our elections.

The problem with "appealing to families" is that the other side does it, too, and I suspect that, contrary to Ms. Graff's frequent claims to the contrary, when it comes down to it more people will choose the conservative vision of "family" to the liberal or progressive or whatever you want to call it vision Ms. Graff suggests.  This isn't Spain; this isn't England; this isn't Canada.  This is the most conservative developed nation in the western world.  

I live in a red state where our popular Democratic governor is attacked because she "doesn't do enough to strengthen families," which is code for she refuses to bash gays and push for amendments banning same sex marriage and the like.  If our governor, as Ms. Graff urges, decided to come out strongly in favor of gay rights and so on, she'd be bounced on her ass out of office, strong economy, popularity, and all.  Multiply that across the nation, and you can see where this would quickly end up.  And where would gay marriage, excuse me, the "progressive vision for families" be then?        

"It therefore stands at the core also of most people's politics....  My point is that family values are at the core of a progressive agenda."

Dear god, please say it isn't so!

I'm not supportive of Muslims because they have families just like mine.  Hell no, I'm supportive of them as my neighbors and friends and co-equals in a working community and peaceful world and/or because we're just friends and we've come to expect and need mutual support.

If we talking about politics, then in my view we're talking about mutual respect and interconnected responsibilities that go way beyond the sentimental notion of the (all too infrequently) loving family.

Political cohesion for those of us on the left  (which is what seems to be what you're looking for here) is made up of mutual respect and a common fight for justice and peace.  It's not about that elusive, gruesome notion, "family values," which is meaningless because so many families have such different values, from Christian home schooling -- to ending the estate tax -- to making more money than Dad -- to continuing the tribal tradition of genital mutilation -- to making sure you've turned enough tricks to buy Mom some more blow.

It's probably smarter to stick with "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly." Those, by themselves, would do more for America than anything I can think of.  Leave alone the notion that we can make people "feel" the way we do.  That desire has done more to build resentment domestically and world-wide than almost anything I can think of.   </em>

Identity politics is dead.  The last thing our party needs is a bunch of gays and lesbians kicking up dust during campaign time.  If and when we get back into power, we can talk about whether it makes sense to improve social acceptance -- what gays and lesbians seem to be aiming for -- by way of legislating sexual orientation neutrality.

Reproductive rights politics is just as dead.  Those women who don't care if the government controls their bodies are a lost cause.  The rest of us will silently rely on Roe v. Wade, and if we lose it, we can figure out how to get the morning after pill for us and our daughters.  Those who can't will have to visit the OB/GYN or Sweden.

I don't know whether E. J. Graff is, as a function of her job, running this idea up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes or whether she's got her ego invested in it.  I do know she's no savvy politico and the less heard from her the better. 

Identity politics is alive and well, it's just that the other side is offering people an identity and we're not.

Everyone knows Republicans support families becuase they believe in religion and tradition.  Also, republicans are focused on supporting cultural values that help families.  I know this is true because they say it all the damn time.

Democrats, on the other hand, don't.  They care more about protecting people's right to do bad things than they care about creating a society that helps people do good and moral things.  They want your daughter to have a secret abortion, they want to put child molesters back the streets, they want to weaken churches by making them perform gay marriage, etc.  I know this is true because that's what Democrats focus on--it's not the society they want to build, but how they want to change existing society to reflect their ideology and to please their interest groups.  

I think I've disagreed with EJ before, but he's right here.  We need a new definition of what's "normal," so we can point out that it's the Republicans who are upsetting the applecart when they start ginning up a culture war.  

We need to be able to paint the Republicans as the bad guys who are stirring up trouble.  The issue isn't that gay people want "special rights," the issue is that some people won't just leave them alone.  The issue isn't that feminists stir up trouble by demanding abortions, the issue is that Republicans won't leave people alone to make their own private family decisions.  

In order to paint them as the agitators, we need a definition of what Democrats believe is normal--what the world would look like if everyone took our approach.  We need to say what our values are, and, more importantly, we need to show what our values look like in action.  Frankly, we need to put forth the picture of Northern Exposure--a nation where some folks are a little weird, but that's just who they are, and basically everyone just treats each other decently, laughs at the little stuff that's different,  and helps each other out when bad stuff happens.  

But right now, we have the Republicans who are saying "we'll give you an Ozzie and Harriet life," while the Democrats are saying, "Ozzie and Harriet SUCK!  WE HATE THEM!"

No kidding our message isn't working.  We need to give people something to fight for, not just something to fight against.