Speaking Politics phrase of the week: families first

Democrats adopted 'families first' as a counter to the more-Republican 'family values' slogan. In this campaign, it's getting a lot of use. 

Jay LaPrete/AP
Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Ohio, is putting Ohio families first. No word yet on what he's putting second.

“Families first”: A messaging slogan that politicians – often but not exclusively Democrats – use to appeal to couples with children, who are more likely to vote than unmarried people.

“Let’s put families first, and make sure our policies match how you actually work and live in the 21st century,” Hillary Clinton said last week in propounding one of her campaign’s main themes. “Families look a lot different today than they did 30 years ago, and so do our jobs.”

Her remarks came as former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who is running for the Senate, launched an “Ohio Families First” plan emphasizing access to paid sick days and affordable child care.

Beyond identifying with the concerns of people with kids, “families first” is enduringly popular because it lets voters fill in the blanks for themselves on what should come second – corporations, the wealthy, or some other less-deserving demographic.

It’s a co-option of “family values,” which conservatives started using in the 1980s to defend the interests of traditional families. “Families First” also was the title of a 1992 report from a commission that GOP President George H.W. Bush’s administration appointed to study urban households.

That year, Bill Clinton won the presidency on a theme of “putting people first.” But the party “sharpened it” to its current form when Mr. Clinton sought reelection, wrote Virginia Tech communications professor Robert E. Denton Jr. in his book “The 1996 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective.” (Mrs. Clinton’s use of it thus helps tie her – subtly – to her husband.) 

Almost exactly 20 years ago, the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate at the time, Missouri’s Richard Gephardt and South Dakota’s Tom Daschle, rolled out the “Families First” platform – more tax deductions for educational expenses; expanded child-care tax credits; a law to help job-changers to transfer their pensions; cutting inheritance taxes for family-owned businesses and a loss of tax benefits for companies shifting jobs overseas. House Republicans dismissed it as “tiny ideas from tiny minds.”

It has persisted ever since, becoming more prevalent lately. In the current session of Congress, it has surfaced 39 times in bills or House and Senate floor debates, according to the Congressional Record. If that trend continues, it would represent the most frequent usage since the 2007-08 session.

Despite its association with Democrats, Republicans sometimes invoke it. In Minnesota, GOP lawmakers two years ago unveiled a “Families First” plan that included reducing sales taxes and repealing business-to-business taxes. More recently, House and Senate lawmakers crafted a bipartisan bill – which the House passed this month – to enable states to redirect child foster-care money to services such as parent training. Its title: “The Family First Prevention Services Act.”

The bill “does exactly what the title suggests — it puts families first,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R) of Texas. The bill focuses on addressing problems in the home by delivering parents much-needed support, rather than sending a child straight into foster care.”

Chuck McCutcheon writes his “Speaking Politics” blog exclusively for Politics Voices.

Interested in decoding what candidates are saying? Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark’s latest book, “Doubletalk: The Language, Code, and Jargon of a Presidential Election,” is now out.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.