This is an election year in the United States and politicians will start talking of how 'family values' oriented they are and will try and convince voters that they have more of these values than their opponents. How do voters determine which candidate for public service is friendlier to families? What criteria do we need to use to assess this? Religious devoutness? A streak-free criminal record? Family-friendly rhetoric?
While these are elements that one should not ignore when assessing a candidate's desire to help families, to get an accurate and wholistic picture of a politicians' family friendliness voters need to do their homework: carefully and critically examine a candidate's policy proposals. The truly 'family-friendly' public servant advocates government policy at the office's corresponding level of government that aids family cohesion and family economics in concrete and measurable ways.
Building global awareness on what constitutes 'family-friendly government policy' can be helpful to prospective voters. Growing up in Greece, I remember that mothers there get a complete year off at full pay from state jobs after they give birth. This is an example of a policy that has a substantive and measurable impact on family life. It allows mothers to spend an entire year raising their newborn instead of obliging them to 'outsource' motherhood to a daycare or nanny. Furthermore, it does not financially penalize mothers since they retain their entire salary for a full calendar year. The benefits to family unity and family economics are very clear and tangible.
When politicians share their family friendliness credentials think critically. Do they speak generally and offer proposals that are obscure and grandiose or do they propose specific measures that make both qualitative and quantitative contributions to family life?
I recommend a very easy and quick read on a relevant debate that is unfolding in Europe currently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7372673.stm This story inspired this posting.
While these are elements that one should not ignore when assessing a candidate's desire to help families, to get an accurate and wholistic picture of a politicians' family friendliness voters need to do their homework: carefully and critically examine a candidate's policy proposals. The truly 'family-friendly' public servant advocates government policy at the office's corresponding level of government that aids family cohesion and family economics in concrete and measurable ways.
Building global awareness on what constitutes 'family-friendly government policy' can be helpful to prospective voters. Growing up in Greece, I remember that mothers there get a complete year off at full pay from state jobs after they give birth. This is an example of a policy that has a substantive and measurable impact on family life. It allows mothers to spend an entire year raising their newborn instead of obliging them to 'outsource' motherhood to a daycare or nanny. Furthermore, it does not financially penalize mothers since they retain their entire salary for a full calendar year. The benefits to family unity and family economics are very clear and tangible.
When politicians share their family friendliness credentials think critically. Do they speak generally and offer proposals that are obscure and grandiose or do they propose specific measures that make both qualitative and quantitative contributions to family life?
I recommend a very easy and quick read on a relevant debate that is unfolding in Europe currently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7372673.stm This story inspired this posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment