HOW is it possible for a study group headed by a magisterial defender of the family, Michael Novak, and including such pro-family analysts as Allan Carlson and Charles Murray to produce, no doubt unwittingly, a profoundly antifamily report on American welfare policy? How is it possible for such a group of conservatives to espouse a set of recommendations that would vastly expand the U.S. welfare state? How is it possible for this learned panel entirely to ignore profamily policies proven effective in a dozen countries and to advocate policies repeatedly proven futile in the United States? We all know there is an enemy out there. But, speaking as a conservative, I wonder: Why does it so often turn out to be us?