Congressman Paul Ryan, R-WI, newly elected Speaker of the House, has come under fire recently for an unexpected reason — he wants to see his family on weekends. Unlike his opponents for the position, Ryan did not seek out the speakership. Rather, House Republicans implored him to take the job after judging him the best candidate to unite the various moderate and conservative caucuses within the GOP. Sensing his bargaining power, Ryan agreed to accept the position on the condition that he could still spend time with his wife and young children. I would expect people to applaud a politician’s commitment to his family, but instead Ryan received vitriol from reliably left-wing sites like Jezebel, Salon and Think Progress, and even more centrist publications like Time. The central charge is that Ryan is a hypocrite because he has been a consistent opponent of federally mandated paid family leave. But such criticisms fundamentally misunderstand Ryan’s philosophy. You may disagree with his voting record, but calling him hypocritical reveals your own lack of understanding of the issue, not his.
At first sight I understand how Ryan’s record appears hypocritical to some. He wants to spend time with his family, yet seems not to want to allow others to do the same. But such thinking implies someone cannot want something for himself unless he wants the government to mandate it for all. Liberal journalist Jonathan Chait aptly highlights the flaw in this logic, noting how people who love drinking wine would nonetheless find a federal mandate to ensure universal access to free wine absurd. Of course, Chait still labels Ryan’s belief on the matter “terrible,” but at least he recognizes the bankruptcy of the hypocrite label.
Even a moderate understanding of American conservative thought should reveal why Ryan’s position is not surprising. Unfortunately, given the chorus of journalists labeling Ryan a hypocrite and misogynist (among other things), it seems many think the only reason Ryan could vote against federally mandated paid maternity leave is because he must hate working mothers. This is a gross oversimplification. In fact, there are numerous reasons to oppose a congressional act to mandate paid leave.
The first is philosophical. Acolytes of Ayn Rand such as Ryan will oppose nearly all forms of federal mandates affecting private business. They argue the government has no role in deciding how a private business decides to compensate its employees, and consenting adults should be able to decide for themselves their own terms of employment. This is not to say they oppose family leave; they merely oppose the federal mandate. Republican candidate Carly Fiorina recently made this argument — expressing her opposition to a congressional mandate but applauding Netflix for offering paid family leave for one year, and noting that Hewlett-Packard offered paid leave during her tenure as CEO. She was predictably denigrated by the usual suspects. It appears philosophical arguments do not mean much to this crowd when they stand in the way of progressives’ preferred policies.
Another argument against federally mandated paid family leave is economic. Basic laws of supply and demand predict that as a service becomes more expensive, people will demand less of it. Thus if paid family leave becomes mandatory, it will increase the cost of hiring expecting parents, rendering it harder for them to find a job. Companies forced to pay employees for extended periods of time even when they aren’t working may decide it is in their rational self-interest to avoid hiring women in their 20s and 30s, as they are more liable to have children and collect more pay without work than the average male or elderly employee. An analysis of the unintended consequences of the American Disabilities Act provides evidence for this supposition.
In a similar but more centrist vein, some oppose a federal law on the grounds that politicians in Washington are unable to effectively implement a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach. However, one might still believe that some mandate is necessary to ensure businesses do not engage in collusion and avoid offering paid leave altogether. Thus a law is necessary, but it should be implemented state by state, because local governments are more likely to understand their constituents’ needs and capacities better than congressmen in Washington. Other Republican proposals include using tax breaks to incentivize businesses to provide paid leave on their own, or the Working Families Flexibility Act, which allows private sector employees to substitute their overtime pay bonuses for paid time off.
Reasonable people can disagree over how best to help working families. While I tend to favor conservative arguments, I can at least understand why some believe the tangible benefit of allowing mothers more time with their newborns outweighs the philosophical argument over government’s role in the private sector. I also understand why some doubt the economic effects of another federal mandate would be as drastic as conservatives predict — although I think the intuitive response to this belief is to allow states to experiment with paid leave policies first, before implementing one on a national scale. And I understand why many initially perceived Ryan to be a hypocrite. But hypocrisy is a serious charge — one that does not apply here — and should be used sparingly. Resorting to demagoguery over policy disagreements may score cheap political points, but it fuels polarization and dooms hopes of meaningful bipartisan legislation, which, if we truly want to help working families, is desperately needed.
Matt Winesett is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.winesett@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 3 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
