COMMENTARY: Gore and Bush on the Family

c. 2000 Religion News Service (Robert M. Parham is the executive director of the Nashville, Tenn.-based Baptist Center for Ethics.) (UNDATED) Al Gore made the American family a major priority in his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination. George W. Bush did not. When their convention speeches are read side-by-side, the issue of family is […]

c. 2000 Religion News Service

(Robert M. Parham is the executive director of the Nashville, Tenn.-based Baptist Center for Ethics.)

(UNDATED) Al Gore made the American family a major priority in his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination. George W. Bush did not.


When their convention speeches are read side-by-side, the issue of family is one of the most striking differences between these two candidates.

For years, many in Bush’s GOP claimed Republicans were the pro-family party. “Family values” was their mantra.

Yet it was Gore who salted his speech with family references. He used the words “family” or `families” 34 times, compared to Bush’s five times.

Gore used the term “working families” or a similar phrase nine times. Bush never explicitly employed the slogan “working families.” Additionally, Gore referred to “family values” four times. Bush never utilized the term.

The words we use and avoid reveal a genuine picture of our real commitments. But Bush’s failure to make the family a priority through his choice of words does not mean he is anti-family. He, like Gore, offers an admirable public persona of family loyalty.

Nevertheless, Bush clearly downplayed family in his speech, based on chosen vocabulary.

What this means will be debated in the weeks ahead, as columnists and commentators recognize this issue. They will ask if Bush was concerned that the phrase “family values” would be heard as a code word associated with congressional Republicans and the religious right. They will speculate on his fear that too many family references would dilute his attempt to repackage the Republican Party as an inclusive party.

Others will accuse Gore of class warfare when he referred to working families.

Nevertheless, Gore’s speech reflected his long-standing interest in family and public policy. Since 1992, he has held a “family reunion” conference in Nashville, Tenn., every year. Conference topics have related family to work, health, media, learning and community, as well as the role of fatherhood.


At first blush, Gore’s phrase “working families” does click on thoughts of low-income families. Perhaps more politically important for him are middle-income families. Yet, linking family and work connects with baby boomer, dual-income families _ people who love their families and their work.

Increasing numbers of American families have both spouses working outside the home. They go from before sunup to after sundown balancing work and family responsibilities. These folk need and want a president who understands their situation and is willing to help them balance their dual commitments. Gore appears to understand this.

As the campaign unfolds, both presidential nominees will seek the mantle of being the pro-family candidate.

For now, however, a comparison of their nominating speeches suggests that Gore has addressed the issue in a way Bush has not. It is Bush’s task to speak more directly to families.

DEA END PARHAM

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!