Practice what you preach: Do we value moms in early childhood or do we not? And what is government's role, anyway?

The left is now taking umbrage at remarks of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made concerning moms on welfare going to work. (Note, I am not pro-Romney by any stretch, and plan on voting for Obama, even though I'm not altogether thrilled with him, he's what we have right now and he's centrist enough to not be too dangerous either way, in my opinion. This is not the first time I've felt at odds with the "progressive" agenda.) "Women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and have the dignity of work," Romney said in January, according to the Huffington Post article linked. Questions about whether staying home with kids is work and what constitutes "dignity" aside (for now), I don't see the problem with this when we consider it through the lens of the post-feminist world we're now living in.

All around the internet I constantly see working- and middle-class women and men calling for federally-subsidized childcare. You can't even question whether daycare is good for little ones or not without getting flamed. That infants and young children spend their days in centers or homes other than their own, being cared for by paid workers, not mom (or dad) seems to be normal and very much accepted in our society today. This situation, in fact, is even encouraged by many as good for socializing the baby/child and, of course, good for the mom, whether she needs to work for money or her own glorious personal fulfillment, which of course, could not possibly be found in caring for her child(ren) (if only for a few short years). I hear cautionary tales from women who felt they had to stay in the workforce just in case their husband left them and because they wanted to be independent. I guess those calling for subsidized childcare don't have a problem being dependent on a government program, though. Who's your daddy?

But anyway, about if daycare is "good enough" (or again even good—as is argued) for middle-class kids, then why is it not good for poor kids? Ideologically, you can't have it both ways. Is daycare bad or not? If it's not bad, as everyone seems to say it's not (I have my own views on this) then what's the problem with having a poor woman be working or seeking work as a condition for her federal financial assistance? If middle class people supposedly must send their kids to daycare to make ends meet, why should a poor person NOT have to send their kids to daycare, and then get assistance? Just because it breaks certain people's hearts to not be with their young children doesn't mean daycare is bad, right?

Or maybe it is?

Anyone who's familiar with me or my writing knows that I would not put my under-two in daycare if I had any choice whatsoever in the matter. That said, do I think it is permanently damaging or horrible to the point that I couldn't bear it if I was in the situation that I had to, truly, truly had to? No. The kid will muddle through. I kind of have a problem inasmuch as it's my business (it's not) with people who can afford to not work, or scale back, who put infants in daycare, but at the end of the day, it's not my business. When you talk public policy, though, it sort of becomes the business of anyone who pays taxes or has to share the country, and its public schools, public problems, etc. with the other millions of Americans out there.

So, maybe we need to ask again and not be afraid of the answer—is daycare good for kids under 2, or 3, or whatever, or not? And what role or responsibility does the government have in this area of people's lives? I don't have all the answers, but the feminist voices on the left seem very inconsistent on this to me.

I understand what the left is trying to do. They're trying to spotlight what they perceive to be inconsistencies with Romney's position on the value of stay-at-home moms (SAHMs)—all of this, by the way, is a stupid deflection away from much more important economic policies that need attention. They say that the Romneys took umbrage at Hilary Rosen's assertion that Ann Romney "didn't work" because she was a SAHM. Whether she "worked" or not is certainly up for debate, though it's unimportant and petty, in my view. And it should noted that Romney didn't say he's getting his info on what women want from his wife based on HER personal experience, it's based on what she's been hearing from the women she's been talking to on the campaign trail...so, it doesn't really matter whether Ann Romney worked outside of the home or not. It's about what the women she interacts with are saying...for whatever that is worth. But the left now says that Romney's insistence that welfare moms have to work "for their dignity" implies that women who don't work outside the home lack dignity and is also inconsistent with the respect we're supposed to have for Ann for staying home. Well, yes, poor choice of words for Mitt. Wouldn't be the first time.

What they don't seem to understand, or want to admit, is that Ann Romney married well (at least in terms of money) and therefore is not at the mercy of what the state doles out and the rules the state makes in order for her to get the dole (though she may be at the mercy of Mitt, which is a whole other story). For one thing, you can't enforce fairness. Everyone gets dealt a different hand. Another issue is, this ties in to another lie of feminism—that men don't matter. They totally do matter if you're going to have a kid and it shouldn't take a genius to see that having a well-earning, engaged partner is a plus. Some lose out to bad luck in the daddy department and for them, yes, there should be safety nets. We should help. But the notion that a person can do it on their own (or with help from the government) as opposed to respecting the value of an actual family unit should not be a basis for policy.

Alternately, women who can support themselves financially by whatever means (college degrees, successful careers, etc.), aren't at the mercy of the state, even if they are professional, single-by-choice moms, which I'm not a fan of, but, that's their choice and they're self sufficient, at least.

Not everyone has a good man or a good job, and that's just how it shakes out sometimes. When the state provides benefits it has to do the basics and is not always concerned about what's best for people (think of the formula-focused WIC program, the government funded food programs—school lunches and such). These programs are concerned with people getting by (and perhaps providing kickbacks to companies and interests who supply the "free" shit that the need y get) not really flourishing. It's up to us as individuals to make the flourish part happen.

What Mitt should have said was that we can't be paying moms to stay home with kids because some will just take advantage and have kid after kid after kid and never work. This, of course, would be more politically incorrect than what he actually did say. Now if you wanted to get really socialist and we could come to some consistent standard about what's good for moms and kids, I could see having mandatory classes that could include moms WITH their little ones together, and that might be a good requirement for mothers on welfare. You know, they have to learn a marketable skill, they have to learn some home economics, they have to learn about child care and development. But, is there really a will for that? I don't know. And I can already hear the argument that that's paternalistic, and maybe it is.

Maybe the best thing economically is for the welfare moms to put their kids into daycare and get their own jobs. This means jobs for them and jobs for the daycare workers, right? I don't know. I am not an economic expert. Both the jobs the moms are likely to get and the care provider jobs are low level, low paid jobs, though, so I'm not real impressed. I understand the government might have to do what's more economical /best for the economy. Can we expect government to care about what's best for children? And is what's best for children better for the economy in the long term? And do they care about the long term. It doesn't appear that the U.S. government cares about what's best for children or what's best for the long term right now and judging by past practices. Maybe this will change. I don't know.

In my view life is about more than a balance sheet, though, obviously, because I'm taking a financial hit to be with my kid more. Like with the breastfeeding issue, how can we expect the American people to support policies that are good for the nation's kids if individual middle- and upper-class parents who can won't even take the hit for their own kids?

"Choice" (the choice to stay home or go to work) is not a right. It is a privilege and one borne much out of luck, though also a good deal from hard work or merit, and often a mix of both. For women, the fact is, it's still a lot about who you marry if you are going to be a mom. How deep do you want the government to go into our personal lives to ensure some vague idea (since nobody seems to be able to agree) about what's good for kids? Or, do people want to come out and say that daycare is really not that great for little ones?

Probably neither. Each side just wants to cherry pick inconsistencies in each others' sound bites to fuel their petty political squabbles. This is why I tend toward limited government. Building roads, regulating energy, food safety and such are large-scale issues that make sense for government to handle (though I'd argue they haven't done great on even these). It doesn't appear to me that Americans have a consistent set of values and I certainly don't trust the government to know what's best with regard to the day-to-day details of my family and how I raise my children. At the end of the day, like with breastfeeding, I don't care if you put your baby in daycare or not, but I am sure glad I didn't have to—and I don't want to support policies that would threaten my ability to choose what I think is best, according to my family's means.