Strong families? Yay! Government involvement? A resolute thumbs down

One of the key issues on which we can see that Trump is no conservative and in fact blows with the prevailing winds - in this case, his daughter Ivanka - is the subject of paid family leave.

This matters because since so much of the Right has become slavishly devoted to the Very Stable Genius, you're starting to see supposedly conservative people and organizations get on board with it, as Kira Davis points out at Townhall:

Pundit Dana Loesch recently ignited a mini-controversy on her radio show when she posted her theory that supporting federally mandated paid family leave is not a conservative position.

Like Loesch, I have noticed more and more conservative organizations pushing for some kind of “Paid Family Leave” legislation. The argument is that if Republicans/conservatives really consider themselves to be pro-family then they should be supporting policy that makes it easier for a woman to stay home with her family as long as possible after giving birth.

As a mother who has occupied many different spots on the “mothering spectrum” I have thought long and hard about this. When I had my first child my husband and I agreed that I would stay home to raise our children. It wasn’t what I wanted to do, but I felt it was best for our family. Later I worked part-time in the non-profit industry and when I moved to writing I was able to work from home and be a stay-at-home parent. I know the unique challenges of being a mother in each of those common situations.

She makes clear that she feels strongly about this. The more time parents - particularly mothers - can spend with young children, the more those children are going to form strong bonds, as well as pave the way for learning life lessons and absorbing the family's values.

But government making private organizations enact certain policies, even if they serve a cause like this?

A resounding no:

What does perplex me is just how many conservatives seem to think it’s acceptable for the government to coerce employers to pay for women to stay at home. My husband’s corporation has an extremely generous paid leave package for new mothers. They do it with pleasure. I applaud any employer who offers this type of support and sensitivity to their working mothers. Bravo!

I cannot in good conscience support the government getting involved in any of this.

Paid leave is a nice idea, but why on earth would we give the government the power to coerce employers to provide this against their will? It might even sound like a good idea under the Trump administration (it doesn’t to me, but to some it might) but how would this power be expanded and wielded under an Elizabeth Warren administration? Or - God forbid - an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez administration?

And let us remember that the leave-taking employee's work still has to get done:

Besides the terrifying potential for more and more overreach, there is the issue of whether or not anyone should ever be forced to pay someone for work they’re not doing. Government mandated family leave puts employers with already tight profit margins in the unenviable position of being forced to pay two employees - the temp and the mother - for months on end when only one is working. This is just more impetus for businesses to find ways not to employ women who may get pregnant during their employment. If you’re looking at choosing between a man and a woman with similar qualifications, you’re probably going to choose the least costly employee. Under mandated family leave, that would be the man more often than the woman.      

I like the way Davis thinks. I, too, am always trying to imagine scenarios that can test the airtightness of my positions. She handles the business about certain kinds of life circumstances that make working and parenting difficult to juggle quite deftly, I think:

“But Kira! Hold on. I would love to stay home with my kids full time but we can’t afford it. It’s tough being a working woman with children. What’s wrong with employers making it easier for us to work and be mothers?”
I’m so glad you asked, imaginary commenter! First, none of this applies to a single parent home (that is obviously a whole other ball of wax). Second, as I’ve stated already there is absolutely nothing wrong with employers volunteering to make your life easier as a working mom. I am only against a federal mandate for paid leave. Third, millions of women in a two-parent family do stay home and they do it by making tremendous sacrifices. Maybe you need to downsize. Maybe you need to take your kids out of private school. Maybe you need to move to a cheaper neighborhood, clip coupons or sell your car for a cheaper model. These are all sacrifices that stay-at-home parents make all the time. Why should we be asking employers to make sacrifices but not ourselves?

In the end, it is about freedom and responsibility. As conservatives we have long been advocates for taking the government out of family decisions. We should not give the government even more of a foothold into our family lives just for the sake of making our life choices easier on ourselves. 

Freedom exists within parameters, but one still has the sovereignty needed to set one's own priorities.

I'd just like to add another important level of consideration to all this, and it's this: In these cacophonous times, conservatives are going to have to check their worldviews for consistency more than ever. There can be no room for tribalism. In other words, just because the Very Stable Genius is for something doesn't mean any one else necessarily should be.