From a reader in response to the Family Security Matters review:
Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman writes:
Where I disagree with Goldberg is his total discrediting of the notion of community in favor of the individual. As a classical conservative, he believes in liberty for the individual and government that limits its duties to national defense and minimal interference in the economy. He criticizes Hillary Clinton’s position of “it takes a village” (her belief that children are our joint responsibility and that some parents in the inner city need help in parenting). He notes that Senator Clinton, whom he viscerally dislikes, is certainly well-intentioned, but does have an agenda that seems tending toward a totalitarian approach to solving social problems. I believe that this is indeed a slippery slope, but I happen to think that Clinton is right about some things needing community attention, but wrong in thinking that the big stick of federal government is the remedy.
But she doesn’t really disagree with you. Neither of you want the government to control aspects of our lives that should be private. If I choose to use a community to help me raise kids, deal with stress, control my disparate urges or support me with prayer and praise, that’s my business. When the government steps in, as you both say, it overreacts and overreaches. Then it tends to solidify in its one-size-helps-all bureaucracy. I didn’t see anything in your book that discredits totally the notion of community, only its imposition by the state.
Me: Yeah, I agree with the reader. I thought that was a bit off too. I think I’m in favor of localism, federalism etc in the book, and I know I write at length about the sovereignty of the family.