NEW YORK -- Newt Gingrich, to paraphrase Forrest Gump's mamma, is like a box of chocolates: You never know what you're going to get. In a single appearance on "Meet The Press," Gingrich called for increased air attacks on the Bosnian Serbs (an irresponsible idea), charged that one quarter of the White House staff had used drugs (an irresponsible accusation) and defended his suggestion that the states be allowed to place certain non-orphaned children in orphanages. The last is worth chewing on.
Hillary Rodham Clinton does not think so. She has called Gingrich's proposal "unbelievable and absurd," and George Stephanopoulos, the very important White House aide, enunciated a literary counterattack: "We'll mail all the Republican members {of Congress} a copy of 'Oliver Twist.' " Clearly, he thinks that just the mention of such a Dickensian possibility is enough to doom the proposal.
I am less sure. That's because I am the son of an orphan, and my father's memories of his orphanage are both sweet and nostalgic. It was both his home and "the home" and while it was no substitute for the traditional family, it sure was better than the succession of foster homes where, on occasion, he was treated as live-in help. "The home," he has insisted over and over again, was truly his asylum.
That, though, was then -- more than 70 years ago -- and now is now. We have no assurance that the orphanages Gingrich envisions will be any different from some other public institutions. If that's the case, the staff will be poorly paid, sometimes cruel, often indifferent, and it will have to deal with children whose parents are not dead but alive and probably socially dysfunctional -- not to mention children themselves. These "orphans" are not likely to be the kids of "Boys Town," the 1938 film starring Spencer Tracy that Gingrich, ever humble, recommended Mrs. Clinton rent from Blockbuster. Today's kids might turn "Boys Town" into a free-fire zone.
So it behooves us all to approach Gingrich's less-than detailed proposal with some caution and lots of skepticism. But his idea does not originate with him. Instead, it has been turgidly whispered in the little magazines that are read within conservative political circles and in the faculty lounges of universities. The aim, as these people see it, is to break the cycle of poverty and antisocial behavior that seemingly is festering in the American underclass. One possibility is to take the children out of their environment.
Such a proposal emits the whiff of un-Americanism: Take children away from their mothers? The suggestion is indeed disturbing, but it is no less so than what we see around us. Either because of welfare or some tectonic shift in public morality, the birth of children to single teenage girls is now commonplace. Forget Murphy Brown. Women like her account for only 2 percent of illegitimate births. Instead, the problem is poor women, those with incomes of less than $20,000 a year. They account for about 74 percent of all illegitimate babies. Often they have neither the income nor the stability for motherhood.
In this city the other day, a 16-year-old was arrested for the alleged killing of a cop during the robbery of a Brooklyn bike shop. Once, such an incident would have been all but unheard of. Not any more. Teenage males are the scourge of our cities. Their homicide rate has surpassed that of adults, and they account for a disproportionate share of murders. Boys aged 14 to 17 are 3.3 percent of the population. They commit 5.6 percent of the murders. Remember: Only yesterday they were considered children.
Whether the solution to this -- to murders, poverty, illegitimacy, drug addiction, illiteracy and, of course, staggering unemployment rates for such people -- is orphanages, no one can know. But we do know that something has to be done to break the cycle in which a poorly socialized teenage mother produces a poorly socialized child -- a burden to the taxpayers, a menace to society. The social welfare system has failed us in this regard -- as have the schools. We cannot pretend that things are going swimmingly.
Gingrich's proposal is so wispy, so lacking in detail, that it's hard to know what exactly he has in mind. It sounds both expensive and maybe impractical. But as a nation, our mantra is "the best interest of the child" when it comes to, say, custody disputes. How about other areas? Is it in the best interest of the child to remain with an incompetent, overwhelmed mother? Can we consider the influence of the neighborhood, the real extended family of so many children? If that amounts to a criminal subculture, is it best for the child to remain where he or she is?
If Gingrich succeeds only in making us face these questions -- never mind his own proposal -- then his Pac Man mouth will have done some good. Orphanages may be a lousy idea, but it is no lousier, really, than the present situation. Just ask the cops in Brooklyn.