I’ve been working my way through David Koyzis‘ book Political Visions and Illusions, and it’s quite good (I’ll probably post a full review when I actually finish it). This past weekend, I finished his analysis of Liberalism and found it thought provoking and thorough. One point he makes that while the Liberal state wishes to permit as much as possible (without infringing on the rights of others), in the end it is asked to subsidize the consequences of such liberties. An example? With the rise of the civil practice of marriage (that is, marriage outside the bounds of religion, which treats the covenant as something more than a social contract), there came with it a rise in the divorce rate (yes, there is also a rise in the divorce rate within “church” marriages, but this does nothing but strengthen Koyzis’ point). As the State permits (even oversees) the destruction of the basic family unit, it is forced to bear the consequences through programs to assist single parents and their children.

Need a more concrete example? Look no further. I find Mimi Smartypants to be at times very funny or very frustrating. This post falls under the category of frustrating.

Here’s the part where I whine like a spoiled baby with serious entitlement issues: This finding-good-childcare thing is really hard. And really expensive. If it’s hard for me and LT, who are Internet-connected and savvy about hunting down referrals, conducting background checks, and evaluating our options, I can’t imagine what it is like for people without the time or resources. If it’s expensive for a one-child, two-parent family where both adults make a decent salary, I can’t imagine what it is like for families with more children and less income. After these last few weeks of stressing about it I am ready to either make a hefty donation to a daycare advocacy group or start calling senator’s offices myself, so if you know of any particular causes I should support, send me an email. Or if you just want to join me for a beer and bitch about the situation, send me an email as well. The personal is the political is drunk angry women sketching plans for the revolution on cocktail napkins.

I resist the urge to get out my very tiny violin. But, again, here is Koyzis’ point played out the real world. Being unwilling to take part in the rather un-feminist world of child-rearing (as many of her prior posts will attest to), Mimi wants the government to pay for her child-care because, well, it’s their job. Her argument is wrapped in the logic of economics — how can a two parent, two wage-earner family be expected to make a decent salary and pay someone to raise their child? Here’s where I sound like a curmudgeon — deciding to raise a family should take priority in one’s life. It’s not something to be shoehorned between work and a social life. Parenthood is about sacrifice — we very explicitly choose to put aside things we love in the service of someone who relies on us for her every need. The pragmatist in me has something to say about this too — if daycare is so expensive, is it a wise choice economically for both parents to work? If nearly every penny from one wage-earner’s monthly salary goes to someone to tend to the children, why not just stay home?

Do I think that all parents who send their child to daycare are evil? No, not really. That is their decision. Do I think a single wage-earner family, with the other staying at home to raise children is an ideal situation? Absolutely. Do I think the State should legislate it? Not really. I’ll re-use this quote from the old Jebbie:

But in the main, I do not think there is any real hope for “reform” of the late-liberal state. I think the best answer is to resist disorder personally, and if one is truly successful at this, it will spill over into one’s family and one’s immediate community. Hunker down and wait for the big crash per MacIntyre* and Eliot.** See what’s salvageable from the rubble.

Posted on 13 July 2005