Women shouldn’t have to choose: The Remix

John Edwards, desperate to prove that he is at least the poor man’s Barack Obama, wrote a guest blog for Glamocracy in which he echoes Obama’s sentiment that women shouldn’t have to make hard choices:

My grandmother and my mother instilled in me a strong belief in the value of hard work. I believe we need to honor hard work by making sure no woman has to choose between taking care of her children and earning a living. That’s why I’ll make it easier for working mothers by raising the minimum wage, offering seven paid sick days a year, expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act and making child care more affordable.

Wait, you mean you want to honor hard work by raising unemployment for the lowest earners, reducing the flexibility of businesses and taxing everyone else to pay for childcare for those women who shouldn’t have to choose?  I’m going to have to give Edwards the non-sequitur of the week award.

As I noted before, freedom means that you make hard choices and you live with the consequences.  Families can choose for themselves which arrangement of work and family time is best for them, whether that be two incomes, a parent at home, or some combination of the above.  Government should not give preference to one choice over another by, say, funding daycare at the expense of families who choose to have a family at home.

And an astute reader (and fellow former GSO columnist) passed along an eye-opening article about the failure of so-called “family-friendly” policies in Sweden.  Something to consider, before we start entertaining the idea of trying out such an experiment in our country.

 

“Women shouldn’t have to choose”: a quick note on the politics of trade-offs

In honor of the election season, Glamour magazine started a “Glamocracy” blog, with 5 regular bloggers from a range of positions on the political spectrum (including CBLPI speaker and writer Amanda Carpenter), as well as guest blogs by the candidates and voters in early primary states.

While I’m sure I’ll find time later to comment on the lack of meaningful political analysis, or the fact that conservative Amanda Carpenter has been getting a lot of negative feedback from the entitled liberal set, I’m short on blogging time today, and this little gem from Obama’s guest post jumped out at me (emphasis mine):

My wife, Michelle, radiates beauty, strength and integrity, and continues to make me a better person every day of our lives. Michelle has done an extraordinary job balancing her role as a mother with her responsibilities at work. But I know it’s not easy, and I also know that many other working moms are having an even harder time. That’s wrong. Women shouldn’t have to choose between their children and their careers in the United States of America. That’s why as president, I’ll make sure that employers provide their workers with seven paid sick days a year, and I’ll encourage all 50 states to offer paid leave.

Unsurprisingly, I take a somewhat different stance. In a free society, people are allowed to make choices about their lives. The corollary to this right is the sometimes unpleasant fact that people will be forced to make choices. Sure, it would be nice if no one ever had to make trade-offs. But that’s not how life works in a free society. Once you accept that it is the government’s responsibility to keep people from having to make trade-offs (like more time at work versus more time with children), it’s a very short step to government limiting the range of choices available.

What’s funny is that Obama’s proposal here, while moving down the path of greater government interference, is hardly extreme. So why does he use such extreme rhetoric?

As Thomas Sowell points out, Democrats (and unfortunately, an increasing number of Republicans) seek power through “Santa Claus politics”: the promise of something for nothing. Here, Obama is playing to an audience of Americans trained to believe that the government exists to make everybody’s lives easier and eliminate tough choices. He makes a run-of-the-mill life experience sound like a moral crisis: mothers having to choose between careers and children.

As with most rhetorically-created crisis situations, the answers are predictably big-government: mandates on sick leave and/or parental leave, optional flex-time, taxpayer-funded daycare (a perennial favorite of moral crusaders), or a larger refundable childcare tax deduction.

But these options tend to restrict rather than expand choice, especially the latter two. When government preferentially funds childcare, whether through tax deductions or public daycare, it reduces the ability of a family to choose to have a parent at home (increased tax burden=fewer options). And mandates on paid leave tend to hurt the competitiveness and productivity of a business, especially small businesses that lack the personnel and resources to provide flexible leave.

But what does that matter to big-government advocates? As long as you get to feel morally superior because of the goodies you hand out, who cares whether you’re hurting small businesses, or increasing the tax burden on families?

Side note: I do like the fact that Mr. Obama says he will “encourage all 50 states” to offer paid leave. It’s probably too much to hope that he has the disposition of a federalist, but at least he doesn’t jump right to “I will force everyone.”