To celebrate the ringing endorsement given to him this week by the American electorate in the mid-term elections, President Bush opted for modesty. As White House press secretary Ari Fleischer declared: "The President thought that the most appropriate way to mark today would be with a touch of graciousness."
So the President made no public statements. No doubt Mr Bush was also quietly savouring the fact that the snide comments about stealing the presidential election were being well and truly buried. Americans are happy with their President.
Most of the media in this country are baffled by his popularity, and make no attempt to hide their contempt for him. I am not particularly a Bush fan, either. The fact that he is adored by the kind of American who happily combines being anti-gun control and pro-life at the same time does not help.
However, he has done some things which are brave and innovative. Among them are allocating funds to promote marriage among low-income families, particularly those who are welfare-dependent. There is no element of coercion. Those who want marriage for themselves, or to preserve the one they're in, were to be given help through non-governmental organisations to gain the skills they need. This was one of many pieces of legislation which got log-jammed in the Senate. The budget was cut from $300 million to $200 million and some of it was diverted to childcare. Now that there is a Republican majority in the Senate, it is expected that the proposal in its original form will be given fresh impetus.
It is practically impossible to imagine a government-sponsored initiative in Ireland aimed at increasing the marriage rate and strengthening marriages in low-income areas. Yet there is strong evidence that poverty and life chances are linked directly to whether people grow up in stable two-parent families or not.
American research has shown that growing up in a single-parent family roughly doubles the risk that a child will drop out of school, have difficulty finding a job, or become a teen parent. About half of these effects appear to be because of the reduced income available to single parents, but the other half is due to non-economic factors, such as less parental time and attention for children.
Lest this sound like a dreary single-parent bashing exercise, it is important to point out that statistics are not destiny, and that many single parents do a fine job, showing well-nigh heroic dedication. Nor are single parents a homogenous group. Few would argue that it is desirable for many young girls in low-income areas to view having a baby as a teenager as virtually a rite of passage to adulthood. Nor would there be much argument that the anti-social tendencies in young males in deprived areas are connected to the fact that they are surplus to requirements in a system in which a young single mother is virtually married to and dependent on State support.
Yet many would baulk at the idea of promoting marriage. Combating social exclusion by decreasing poverty and increasing educational and job prospects is valid, and any initiative which neglected this would be flawed. However, this needs to be balanced by measures which recognise the need for stable families.
We have seen a horrifying upsurge in violence and out-of-control behaviour in young people. It may well be a problem which is only amenable to long-term solutions. If we care about children, the evidence is overwhelming that children in general do best in a stable, two-parent married relationship. Nor is cohabitation the same as marriage, as it has much higher breakdown rates, and significantly higher rates of domestic violence.
The interesting thing about America is that advocates for marriage are found right across the spectrum of political and ideological beliefs. For example, Theodora Ooms, a supporter of what she calls Marriage Plus, is an old-time liberal. Yet she is dedicated to spreading the word about the benefits of marriage, particularly to Democrats. Her pragmatic approach could be summed up in two aims: as a society we should help more children to grow up with their biological married parents in a reasonably healthy, stable relationship; and, second, where this is not possible, we should encourage parents to be financially responsible and actively involved in their children's lives. Fatherhood advocates might add, rather grimly, that we might begin by recognising that it is difficult to be responsible when you have few rights, and your presence in a child's life is dependent on the goodwill of the mother.
While support for Bush's policies on marriage and family may come from all parts of the political spectrum, that does not mean there is a "halo effect" which reduces criticism of his other policies.
For example, I was speaking this week to a major figure in the marriage movement, Don Browning of the University of Chicago. He mentioned that he was among a group of 35 academics from that university who signed a statement declaring that it remains unproven that there is an intrinsic link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that therefore the case for war against Iraq also remains unproven. Despite that, unlike many Irish commentators, they feel free to endorse what Bush does right.
The Government here would do well to watch the progress of Bush's initiatives on marriage. It is already involved in funding marriage preparation and marriage counselling, but there is so much more which could be done, from marriage enrichment to marriage- and family-friendly employment programmes. Just as there have been attempts to tackle the poverty trap, the long-term effect of the housing crisis and the economic downturn on marriage should now be examined.
At the moment, Ireland is not at the level of demographic meltdown found in other European states. Countries are simply not having enough babies to replace their population. Enormous burdens are being placed on a decreasing workforce to support more and more dependent and elderly people.
But already in Ireland people are delaying or feel unable to start families, and families are breaking down due to economic pressures. George Bush may get a lot wrong, but in attempting to strengthen families he is showing the kind of foresight which was rewarded in the mid-term elections.