Kathleen Parker January 14, 2014

As we evaluate the efficacy of the War on Poverty, a single, unquantifiable factor stubbornly demands attention: luck.

When it comes to the fortunes of the rich and the misfortunes of the poor,we recognize the role that luck plays. Some are born lucky — eitherthrough natural gifts of appearance, athleticism, intelligence ormusical talent. The really lucky ones are also born into stable,educated families with financial security and grown-up parents.

Then there are the unlucky, who, whatever their relative talents, are borninto broken families, often to single mothers, in neighborhoods wheresystemic poverty, inferior educational opportunities and perhaps evencrime constitute the culture in which they marinate.

How we level the playing field between these two opposing narratives — howwe weave the social safety net — is the challenge for a society thatwants to help those in need without perpetuating that need. Is thesolution greater government intervention, as Democrats prefer? Or, isthe answer temporary taxpayer assistance tied to personalresponsibility, as Republicans insist?

The simple answer is both, but simple doesn’t cut it in Washington. You’d think these guys were being paid by the hour.

Both perspectives received fresh airings recently at the Brookings Institution. As reported by Melinda Henneberger in The Post, Republican Paul Ryan (Wis.) offered that welfare should be aramp up, not a way station. Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) focusedon greater mobility for women through pay equity, universalpre-kindergarten funding, more affordable child care and an increasedminimum wage.

In other words, they each offered more or less the same arguments theirrespective parties have made for the past several decades. No new ideas, Henneberger concluded.

If I may. This is not a new idea but recently has fallen into disrepair if not disrepute, though it would help in the War on Poverty: Marriage.Or, as some of us prefer, mawidge.

Democrats avoid the M-word for fear of trespassing on important constituentturfs, especially women’s. For many women, the push for marriage is seen as subterfuge for reversing their hard-won gains.

All but evangelicalistic Republicans such as Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who recently “went there,” shy away from the M-word for fear of being tagged Neanderthals who are wedded to old-
fashioned gender paradigms and nurse secret desires to keep women pregnant,subjugated and in the kitchen where they belong (speaking as alleged,not as is). Or, God forbid, that they be accused of waging war againstwomen.

Then again, perhaps it is the way some Republican men talk about women thatis so off-putting, rather than what they are trying to say about thevalue of marriage. It is not helpful when, for example, they insinuatethat single mothers are using welfare to avoid marriage. Or when some of the more nostalgic members of the GOP latch onto the idea of “welfarequeens.”

See what I mean? It’s hard to separate the value of marriage from the mawidge of loaded rhetoric and demeaning insinuation.

But marriage, besides being the best arrangement for children, has theadded benefit of being good for grown-ups. Half the pain, twice the joy. What’s not to love?

More to the point, we know that being unmarried is one of the highest riskfactors for poverty. And no, splitting expenses between unmarried people isn’t the same. This is because marriage creates a tiny economy fueledby a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitmentthat holds spirits aloft during tough times.

In the absence of marriage, single parents (usually mothers) are leftholding the baby and all the commensurate challenges and financialburdens. As a practical matter, how is a woman supposed to care forlittle ones and/or pay for child care, while working for a minimum wagethat is significantly less than what most fair-minded, lucky peoplewould consider paying the house cleaner? Not very well.

Setting aside the issue of choice in reproductive matters, one easily observesthat we live in a culture that devalues and mocks marriage, reducing the institution to a buffet item. The lucky can hire a pedigreed babysitter en route to the next dinner party, dropping a buck in thebeggar’s cup, while the unlucky are strapped to a welfare check or low-
paying job and a no-hope future.

Obviously, marriage won’t cure all ills. A single mother could marry tomorrow andshe still wouldn’t have a job. But in the War on Poverty, rebuilding aculture that encourages marriage should be part of the arsenal. The luck of the draw isn’t nearly enough — and sometimes old ideas are the bestnew ideas.

Read more from Kathleen Parker’s archive, follow her on Twitter or find her on Facebook.