The level of government provided goodies is always the sign of a
carrying, enlightened country, right? That’s the view of a lot of
people around the world, including many, if not most, American
Democrats. And it is certainly the view of most of the members of
the mainstream media. I was reminded of this while recently
reading, of all things, the August issue of National
Geographic.
A short, one page piece (for some unknown reason classified
under the headline “Geography”) entitled “Who Gives Parents a
Break?” concludes, “American moms-to-be might consider a move to
Slovenia.” Why? Because as an accompanying map shows, the United
States is nearly alone in not having government-mandated paid
maternity leave. The article also provides the opinion of a
Canadian “social policy expert” that the U.S. “could definitely do
better.”
Well, the fact is American mothers-to-be aren’t fleeing to
Slovenia or any other countries that National Geographic
finds more enlightened because the U.S. offers much more than
government-mandated paid maternity leave — namely personal freedom
and economic opportunity. Americans have traditionally valued
freedom, including economic freedom, more than have the citizens of
other nations. It’s part of our contribution to world cultural
diversity. And valuing freedom has served Americans well.
Government provided goods (in this case in the form of an
employer mandate) are not always a societal benefit. Advocates of
government-mandated paid maternity leave apparently just assume
that businesses can afford to give 14 or 52 weeks of paid maternity
leave with no negative impact on how businesses are able to
operate, including how many people they can employ, and at what
wages, and how they may view female job applicants of child-bearing
age. And there is apparently no consideration of what the proper
relationship between government and private employers should be in
a free society. It certainly is an oddity that in today’s PC world,
encouraging mothers to stay at home to raise their children is
sexist and oppressive, but encouraging mothers to stay at home to
raise their children by forcing employers to pay them to do so is
considered socially enlightened.
And when one looks at the fertility rates in places like Europe
and Canada, as Mark Steyn has done in America Alone and in
many of his columns, you have to wonder what the benefits of these
liberal paid maternity leave policies are. They certainly don’t
seem to encourage couples to have more children. In 2002, for
instance, in the supposedly family unfriendly United States, the
fertility rate was 2.11 children per couple, or just about at the
replacement rate. In Canada it was 1.48; in Russia it was 1.14; and
the EU average was a mere 1.38.
National Geographic can chastise the U.S. if they like
for being behind the rest of the world in forcing private employers
to be an extension of the welfare state. I, however, don’t see that
as a problem, and I’m more concerned by the fact that the rest of
the world is so far behind the United States in providing economic
liberty — and the resultant economic opportunities — to its
people. But will I ever see a map in the “Geography” section of
National Geographic praising those nations with the
highest amount of economic freedom (and necessarily the least
intrusive welfare states)? What do you think?
WHEN IT COMES TO GOVERNMENT-MANDATED paid maternity leave (of up to
52 weeks), you may not be surprised to learn that countries like
Russia, and China, and (as the author especially notes) Cuba,
“score high” in this peculiar gauge of societal advancement. Well,
that should be an immediate tip-off that government-mandated paid
maternity leave isn’t necessarily a wonderful thing. If it’s
perfectly compatible with repressive and totalitarian governing
structures, perhaps it’s not all that conducive to preserving a
culture of personal, economic, and political freedom.
This reminds me of one of my enlightening experiences in
college. I had noted that many of the scribblings on the blackboard
from a class prior to mine looked rather interesting, so I came
early one day and sat in on the lecture that preceded mine. It
turned out to be a sociology class. And in this particular lecture,
the professor argued that one good measure of how just a society is
is the economic disparity between ethnic minorities and the
majority group. And, of course, he noted that in the Soviet Union,
this disparity was relatively small, especially in comparison to
the United States. This was 1982 or 1983. How he thought he had
reliable data to make this comparison, or how he viewed the
economic disparity between government cronies and everyone else, or
how the mass murder of various groups in the Soviet paradise played
into his calculus, was and is an unexplained mystery.
Although the sociology professor’s judgment was not an uncommon
one in academe, most elected members of the Democratic Party would
never have called the Soviet Union a more just society than the
United States. Nonetheless, a majority of the Democratic leadership
certainly holds the view that expanding the welfare state is
unquestionably good. With Democrats in charge of Congress, and
making a strong run at the White House next year, we will
undoubtedly be hearing a lot more from Democrats about how they
will use government to “improve” our lives. And don’t be surprised
if National Geographic’s focus on government-mandated paid
maternity leave isn’t a precursor to what we will be hearing over
the next year from Democratic leaders.
Remember four years ago when Dr. Howard Dean was wrangling for
the Democratic presidential nomination? He argued strenuously that
if they have nationalized health care in Europe and Canada, then by
gum we should have it here. It didn’t seem to matter that
nationalized health care doesn’t work too well. The main point was
that we were behind the rest of the world in providing a government
handout.
Just as you don’t see American mothers-to-be fleeing to
Slovenia, you don’t see a lot of Americans fleeing to other
countries to take advantage of their health care systems. It is
quite the opposite, in fact. Sure, you see Americans going to
Canada to take advantage of cheaper prescription drugs, courtesy of
the Canadian government. But it is wise to keep in mind that most
of those drugs aren’t developed in Canada or Europe but in the
United States. The rest of the world had better be hoping we don’t
follow its lead when it comes to health care, or there simply won’t
be many more advancements in drug design, diagnostics, or
treatments.
Americans shouldn’t be as quick as National Geographic
or Howard Dean in unfavorably comparing the United States to the
rest of the world by virtue of the fact that our welfare state
isn’t quite as robust as those in other parts of the world. Instead
we should take comfort knowing that our economy is much more
healthy and robust compared to most of the rest of the world, and
we enjoy a lot more personal liberty to boot. That may not mean a
lot to National Geographic or some members of the
Democratic leadership, but it should.
