“Government is simply the name we give to things we choose to do together.” That’s an old favorite line of Democrats, especially former congressman Barney Frank. It’s wrong in about a thousand ways that all encapsulate the errors of progressivism, but most importantly, that statement ignores community, civil society, and family.
A church potluck is a thing we do together. Little League is a thing we do together. An informal weekly gathering with children at the playground is a thing we do together. Heck, producing a magazine is a thing we do together.
Yet, it’s endemic on the Left to talk as if “together” or “public” necessarily means “government.”
During the Obama administration, I wrote that much of the safety net currently provided through the federal government should instead be provided by civil society — community groups, businesses, charities, churches. At the Washington Post, liberal writer Mike Konczal criticized me for denying that poverty is a “public program.”
Liberal writer Arlie Russell Hochschild wrote a book that featured Bayou Corne, a small community of Cajun Catholic conservatives whose ideal life is “a world nearly wholly private.” Yet, she describes Bayou Corne as incredibly tightknit and neighborly. A “wholly private” life to her meant “one as far as [possible] from government taxes and regulation.”
If it’s not done by the government, according to this mindset, it’s not done “together” and it’s not “public.”
This is not the way most people see it, I think. But sadly, some conservatives fall into this trap. The latest is Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
Johnson was speaking to reporters from the corporate headquarters of Kwik Trip, a gas station/convenience store chain. After Johnson commented on the labor shortage, a reporter said the lack of childcare kept parents out of the labor force.
“There’s a lack of childcare where they can’t find or afford childcare. Is there a fix for that?” the reporter asked.
Johnson rejected the idea the federal government had a role here, and his answer has gone viral on liberal Twitter.
Sen. Ron Johnson asked about reducing child care costs: “Well, people decide to have families and become parents. That’s something they need to consider when they make that choice. I’ve never really felt it was society’s responsibility to take care of other people’s children.” pic.twitter.com/HyJr4iTwUG
— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) January 26, 2022
Johnson’s precise statement was: “People decide to have families and become parents. That’s something they need to consider when they make that choice. I’ve never really felt it was society’s responsibility to take care of other people’s children.”
There’s a good debate to have over the proper federal role (if any) in helping parents “find or afford childcare.” I may even mostly agree with Johnson on that specific question. But Johnson very clearly is saying “society” has no duty to help parents care for their children. This is dead wrong.
It is unnatural to expect parents to do the entire work of raising their own children. If that sounds socialist to you, ask why conservatives favor vouchers for school parents, why churches subsidize schools, why neighbors bring meals to new mothers, why we expect communities to build playgrounds, or why pro-life activists volunteer at and donate to crisis-pregnancy centers.
The single most important thing civil society does is support parents raising their children. Put another way, society has a duty to help parents raise their children.
Too many conservatives reject this. They take an extreme individualism and mix it with a cramped notion of “personal responsibility” and then unconsciously blend in an unhealthy serving of pro-abortion rhetoric to create the position that anyone who was irresponsible enough to have a child they can’t afford should suffer for it.
If it were only Johnson saying this, I’d ignore it. But I have seen conservatives cursing low-income families and single mothers for years. It’s bad for many reasons. For one thing, it proves the abortion defenders are partly right when they say conservatives only care about babies until they’re born. Again, this is mostly slander against pro-life activists, but it seems to apply to comments such as Johnson’s.
More importantly, it feeds into the notion that babies are simply a “choice,” and thus, it makes contraception and family planning some sort of duty to society. This unnatural view of family formation ultimately results in seeing babies as solely costs.
Finally, Johnson’s statement buys into the Left’s view of government. Here’s his explanation of why “society” has no duty to help care for children: “If you’re proposing that the federal government incur even more deficit spending to provide childcare for parents, I don’t see how that’s a solution at all. That’s just going to exacerbate the problem.”
Johnson is conflating society and the federal government. He is implying that if society has an obligation, then it should be carried out by the federal government. This was wrong when Barney Frank said it, and it’s wrong when conservatives say it, too.
