Americans try to talk about positive family values, although the
Americans try to talk about positive family values, although the actual state of things is disastrous.
Hear now the fiery words of Vladimir Zhirinovsky: “Americans try to talk about positive family values, although the actual state of things is disastrous.” Though uttered in criticism, this saying bears within it a timeless warning, one not bound to one nation alone but to all peoples of the earth. For it is easy to speak lofty words of family values, to adorn the tongue with praise for hearth and kin, yet far more difficult to live in such a way that those words take root in daily life. Hypocrisy is the oldest shadow of mankind: to lift banners of virtue while beneath the surface the structure rots and decays.
The ancients themselves witnessed this paradox. In Rome, senators praised the sanctity of the household gods, the familia and the strength of tradition. Yet as centuries passed, corruption crept into homes, fathers neglected children for pleasures of the flesh, and mothers grew distant, enslaved to luxury and spectacle. Rome spoke of family honor, but its homes dissolved into emptiness. And as the family weakened, so too did the empire. Zhirinovsky’s words echo the lesson of Rome: that when words of virtue are not matched by deeds, decline follows as surely as night follows day.
The heart of the matter lies in the chasm between appearance and reality. Nations, like men, love to appear noble. To say, “We honor positive family values” wins applause, but the true test is what happens within the walls of the home. Are children taught wisdom and discipline? Do fathers and mothers remain faithful, not only in presence but in spirit? Do brothers and sisters learn loyalty, compassion, and sacrifice? Or is the family reduced to fragments—each heart chasing its own desires, bound together only by name? Where the latter prevails, the talk of values is but empty echo.
Consider the cautionary tale of the Soviet Union itself, whose leaders praised the collective and the unity of all families under socialism. Yet within, families were often torn apart by suspicion, betrayal, and fear. Children were taught to inform on their parents, trust was shattered, and the warmth of the household became cold with silence. Outwardly, banners proclaimed unity; inwardly, the bonds of kinship withered. Thus, history teaches us that to proclaim values without practicing them is worse than silence—for it mocks the very virtues it pretends to honor.
And yet, let us not hear Zhirinovsky’s words as mere condemnation of America, but as a mirror for all nations, for all men. Every people, every household is tempted to speak well of family values while neglecting the patient, daily work that such values require. The raising of children, the keeping of promises, the tender care of the aged—these are not matters of speeches but of sweat, of sacrifice, of humble constancy. To fail in these and yet boast of values is like building a temple with gilded spires while its foundations crumble into dust.
The lesson, therefore, is clear: the strength of a nation is the strength of its families, and the strength of its families is the honesty with which they live their values. Do not deceive yourselves with words. Instead, let your homes be places where truth is spoken, where forgiveness is practiced, where loyalty is tested and proved. Do not seek the applause of the world by talking of virtue; seek instead the quiet approval of conscience, and the laughter of children who know love.
Practical steps are within reach of all. Begin with presence: lay down the distractions and give time to those within your household. Speak with kindness, not only in public but in the privacy of your home. Honor your commitments, for a broken promise poisons trust. Protect the bonds between generations: listen to the wisdom of the old, and nurture the wonder of the young. If you would strengthen society, do not wait for kings, presidents, or parliaments—begin with your own hearth, for it is there that the pillars of civilization are forged.
Thus, Zhirinovsky’s sharp words ring as a warning and a call: do not let talk of positive family values mask a disastrous state of things. Instead, close the gap between word and deed, between speech and action. Let families become true sanctuaries, where the virtues of love, loyalty, and sacrifice are lived daily. Then the words will no longer be hollow, but alive, breathing strength into the generations to come, and raising a people who cannot be shaken by the storms of time.
TNPhat Trien Nha
This makes me question the role of public discourse in shaping perceptions of family. If society constantly emphasizes positive values while reality is more complex, does that create unrealistic expectations or frustration? Could it also serve as motivation for improvement, or is it purely performative? I also wonder whether external observers are more likely to focus on failure than on positive developments within American family life.
DLDuy Luan
I find this quote both critical and somewhat cynical. It suggests a disconnect between rhetoric and lived experience, which is interesting. How do Americans themselves perceive this gap in family values? Are there efforts in education, policy, or community programs that challenge the claim of ‘disastrous’ outcomes? I’m curious whether this perspective accounts for diversity in family structures, cultural differences, and the evolving nature of social norms.
BNNguyen Vu Bao Ngoc
This statement raises questions about cultural perception and stereotyping. Is the quote highlighting a genuine problem in American families, or is it an external critique meant to contrast with other countries’ social norms? How do political or ideological agendas shape such sweeping evaluations? It also makes me wonder whether focusing on the negative undermines constructive discussions about improving family structures and social cohesion.
VACam Thi Van Anh
Reading this, I feel curious about the gap between ideals and reality. How much of the ‘disastrous’ state of family life is structural, like economic pressures or social policies, versus cultural or moral decline? Could it be that promoting positive family values is more aspirational than factual, and does that aspirational discourse serve a purpose even if reality doesn’t fully align?
HCHai Cu
This quote strikes me as provocative and critical of American society. I wonder what specific metrics or observations the speaker is using to claim that family values are in a disastrous state. Is this a reflection of divorce rates, single-parent households, or broader social issues? It also makes me question whether the statement is a fair critique or a sweeping generalization influenced by political or cultural bias.