Quayle Calls On Fathers to Be Responsible

Former Vice President Dan Quayle, gearing up for a likely presidential run in 1996, returned Thursday to the scene of his attack on television character Murphy Brown to call for an end to government subsidies of out-of-wedlock births.

Challenging both the traditional welfare system and new programs that put welfare mothers to work, Quayle called on government and society to make fathers more responsible for their children.

He also suggested providing public assistance through churches and synagogues as a way of ending what he calls “the poverty of values.”

“Too often, fathers walk away from their children or, worse yet, they don’t even know who their children are,” he told the Commonwealth Club of California. “Raising a child is not just a mother’s responsibility, it is a father’s responsibility, too.”

Speaking before the same group two years ago, Quayle raised a firestorm of controversy when he criticized the fictional Murphy Brown for “mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone.”

Because of his comments, the Vice President was widely attacked for bashing single mothers--who, defenders pointed out, are often left to raise children by themselves or who choose to give birth rather than have an abortion.

*

But since his election defeat, others have joined in calling for a return to “family values,” including President Clinton. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala told a congressional committee this summer that she too thought that the Murphy Brown character set a bad example. The Atlantic Monthly published a detailed article on the decline of the American family titled: “Dan Quayle Was Right.”

In Thursday’s lengthy address, the Indiana Republican reiterated that his point in the Murphy Brown speech was to focus attention on the problem of men who father children out of wedlock and then neglect them.

Quayle called for welfare reform that would stop the government from subsidizing parents who have children without getting married. But he did not offer a specific plan that would cut aid to welfare recipients.

“All our other efforts will probably be in vain until our programs of assistance stop subsidizing illegitimacy,” he said. “This may sound harsh, but where is the compassion in adding another generation, and another, to the roll of fatherless children.”

Quayle also questioned the approach embraced by many conservatives that welfare recipients should be put to work in exchange for their benefits.

“In households where family life is already fragile, and where adult supervision is most needed, we’re talking about putting the sole parent of a small child into the work force,” he said. “Economically that makes sense. Socially, I’m not certain.”

Instead, Quayle said, he would favor a plan to put the fathers of welfare children to work as a condition of receiving aid--an idea the Clinton welfare plan calls on states to try.

In addition, Quayle called for changes in tax laws to strengthen the family, including ending the marriage penalty, increasing exemptions for children and granting generous tax credits to parents who adopt.

In his call for government to “stop subsidizing illegitimacy,” Quayle appeared to align himself with conservative intellectuals led by sociologist Charles Murray, who have been pressing the GOP to shift the focus of welfare reform from requiring work to discouraging out-of-wedlock births. In an influential Wall Street Journal article last fall, Murray called for the elimination of all welfare benefits to women who bear children out of wedlock.

*

In the months since, leading conservative intellectuals such as former Education Secretary William J. Bennett (whom Quayle praised Thursday) and Bill Kristol (Quayle’s vice presidential chief of staff) have championed Murray’s idea--over the resistance of more moderate congressional Republicans, who consider it too Draconian.

By associating himself with the Murray plan, Quayle could strengthen his credentials as the “values” candidate in the 1996 race--a slot left open when Bennett, a favorite of religious conservatives, recently said he would not enter the race.

Times political writer Ronald Brownstein contributed to this story.