Family Values, Again

* The president lacks credibility on the family values issue.

Like MacArthur returning to the Phillipines, so did Dan Quayle return to the San Fransisco Commonwealth Club. The club was the site of the infamous Murphy Brown speech, a seeming fiasco that led to the pilloring of Quayle for months afterward. Now Quayle feels vindicated, and with reason.

The years that have intervened between his first and second speeches at the sight have seen the issue of family values move from the exclusive province of the right wing to a place squarely in the center of the American political scene. Listen to Jesse Jackson. Listen to Marian Wright Edelman. These pillars of the Left now make speeches that are in many ways indistinguishable--in substance, if not style--from those of Quayle and William Bennett, perhaps the leading commentator on the American crisis of values.

The message from all these figures is that the breakdown of the American family has much to do with the rise in crime and the drop in educational and behavioral standards. All argue that the regeneration of society will depend on the ability of communities and families to reassert themselves.

These are not revolutionary ideas, and they have never been completely absent from American public discourse, but they are being discussed now with an intensity and a unanimity that makes the crisis of values one of the leading issues on the political agenda. Liberals no longer look at the family values issue as a mere facade for conservative antipathy to social spending: they are recognizing it as an issue that stands on its own.

The signs that the issue has captured the public's attention are manifest. Bennett's A Book of Virtues, a compilation of stories and fables intended to instill fundamental values, is on the top of the best-seller list. Features on the crisis of values have become commonplace on talk and news programs. Last week alone, Nightline had two programs on the issue.

Bill Clinton, the consummate political weathervane, has noted the trend, and he has responded. He has devoted several major speeches to the issue of value. It appears that Clinton has made a conscious decision to use his bully pulpit in an effort to lead the national debate on values. In this endeavor he has been encouraged by even conservative opponents like Bennett.

The President, through his public persona, has always been expected to reflect in certain ways the norms of society. Presidents of all eras have strived to display the qualities that society holds in high esteem. But what Clinton is attempting, and what the political climate may demand, is something different: rather than just mirroring society's values, the President now may become a leader in the national attempt to salvage our values.

This new task will make different demands on those aspiring to the presidency. Just as leaders in times of military danger were expected to have shown some martial valor, a leader in a time of moral crisis must be on the high ground in that sphere, and in more than just his public life. The private lives of presidents have long since become an open book. The media will no longer cover for presidents in the interest of maintaining an idyllic image for the public.

If the role of President as a leader of the debate on values is an enduring one, the relevance of a candidate's private life must increase. There may be little correlation between fidelity and managerial ability, but the President must be able to address the issues of the times without being guilty of open hypocrisy. The spectate of Clinton preaching monogamy and family values has, no doubt, brought a smirk to more than a few faces.

David L. Rosco is a columnist for The Crimson.