I was reading one of Elise's favorite bloggers, Reclusive Leftist, who cited the Roman emperor Diocletian as a desirable model. Desirable, that is, in the sense that he could completely dispose of the existing system and replace it with another that he thought was better.
Probably everyone has that impulse at times, although doubtless over different issues; obviously the Stupak amendment doesn't cause me to doubt the system as much as the bill it was attached to in the first place. For me, it's the regulation of every facet of everyday life that sometimes makes me wonder if we can really fix the system we have. I remain devoted to the system, and the Constitution, but I certainly understand moments of frustration.
What interested me was her concept that women ought to create a party -- 'the National Womens' Party' or something like that -- because they were not well served by either of the existing parties. She has a list of things that a pro-woman party would support: abortion (though failure to be pro-choice would not be disqualifying, she says, if you supported the rest); perhaps something like an equal rights amendment; single-payer health care.
What she aspires to, I gather, is a model in which the government takes care of women. If a woman gets sick, her health care is covered by the government. If a woman wants to have a child, there will be financial assistance from the government if she needs it so she can stay home with the child; or, if she would prefer to work, the government would provide her with child care. If she doesn't want to have a child, she is free to dispose of him or her. If she wants to try something and people don't think she should, the government will be there with laws and lawyers to force them to give her access to whatever field of endeavor she'd like to try.
The irony, of course, is that there is a word to describe this form of government: "Paternalistic."
Yet it's not really the father that the government is replacing here: it's the husband. This model of government would replace the husband-and-father-of-your-children. The equality it really creates is an equality between happily married women and unmarried ones. It gives them the access to health care that they might have to give up if they were unmarried and wanted to quit work to raise a child; a husband would have provided it in the traditional system. It gives them a basic level of income even if they don't work, as being married would. It hires someone to care for their children if they'd rather work than spend time with them. It stands up for them and fights for them against bullies, yet -- like the perfect husband -- it is completely deferential to their wishes even on the most crucial of matters, such as whether their child lives or dies. The husband or father might want to have a say in that; but the government bows to its wife's will.
In the fashion that women who joined a nunnery became "Brides of Christ," this model of government would essentially make them "Brides of the State."
I would think that would be a terrifying model, and I don't understand why it isn't. In the fantasy, the government that can't be convinced even to avoid the Stupak Amendment is perfectly behaved. In reality, giving the government that much of a working partnership in your life means that you would be totally controlled by it. Every single critique that early feminism reared about the dependence of women on their husbands would be directly applicable to such a state. And while a woman can leave a bad husband for another one, or for no husband at all, you're pretty much stuck with the State. You can try to change it, but whereas a woman has a direct and personal opportunity to try and change her husband, she'd be but one voice among millions of women in the National Womens' Party; and that party would not be the only party in government.
On the other hand, I am certainly pro-woman. I like women, respect the women in my life, and want women to feel happy and fulfilled as members of our society. It seems to me that there are two alternatives to this paternalistic vision of government that are at least as objectively pro-woman, one conservative and one libertarian.
The conservative version is to reinforce marriage: to try to rebuild it as an inviolable contract, so that women are provided those advantages by their husbands instead of the State. This would include trying to teach young men how to be good husbands. This vision is exposed to all the early-feminism critiques of marriage, but no more than the Statist vision: and the woman has a lot more leverage with her individual husband than she has with the massive State, with its armies and police and its trillions to force her to obey. In a marriage, a woman has an opportunity at real equality with her partner; and if there is not real equality, it's just as likely that she will be the domineering partner as her husband. That is more about intelligence and force of will than about physical size.
There's no doubt that being a member of a successful marriage is of tremendous advantage to both partners -- and to society! We were talking the other day about how married couples pay 75% of all income taxes. The "top ten percent" of income earners pay 71% of income taxes; married couples are 40% of filers. That means there is almost a perfect identity between "married couples" and "the top ten percent," but that the 30% of filers who are married-but-not-in-the-top-ten-percent are still overpaying their share.
In addition, the married couple is paying the lions share of the costs of raising its children. Furthermore, their children will be more successful, as study after study shows that children from two-parent families outperform other children on average in every field.
So, a conservative answer: a stronger system of marriage, with a focus on raising young men fit to be good husbands, is the single best thing that you can do for women and their children. This system is unlikely to admit to abortion as a "right," but even many women are deeply opposed to it. It is, after all, the killing of innocent children for personal advantage.
A libertarian answer is also possible to imagine. This would be more state-oriented than the conservative model, which would rely chiefly on the family instead of the government. However, it is substantially less-statist than the Leftist model.
In the libertarian model, the government's role would be to provide women with opportunities, rather than guarantees. For example, it would float them student loans at generous rates. It would help them start small businesses. It would help them find child care by helping establish those small businesses, and by providing some oversight to ensure that they were of high quality.
It might try to handle those in need of catastrophic health care according to something like the non-coercive model Elise and I were debating the other day:
A non-coercive approach that might be worth considering: the government runs a catastrophic plan that manages voluntary, tax-deductible donations, only to care for those too foolish to buy their own care. However, when the donations run out, the plan is done for the year.This model has the advantage, for all adults including women, of not forcing them into a position of dependence on the state. They are independent in the literal sense: if they take the student loan, they have to pay it back. If they take the help starting the small business, they have to run it and make it successful. If they want the system to have money for catastrophic care, they have to chip in when they are able; but no one forces them to do so. You could even address the free-rider problem by refusing to allow people into the system who don't choose to contribute as they are able; but that would be a decision for debate.
That would leave us in a situation much like the blood supply: there would need to be regular drives for support, but nobody is pinned to the table and forced to donate blood. The blood supply seems to work, and it treats the same kind of 'unexpected emergency' problems that you're considering here.
If you allowed 'in kind' donations from doctors and nurses, on a tax-deductible basis, I'd say you could probably arrange a substantially effective model without having to force anyone to do anything. Right now, doctors are essentially forced to absorb much of the costs of treating the people without insurance; if they were allowed to deduct those costs from their taxes, many of them would probably gladly donate a set amount of time for providing such care.
Abortion would be more of an open question to the libertarians, who tend to be in favor of letting people do what they want. However, even libertarians might like to note that the woman is not the only one who ought to have a vote on the issue of an abortion: the father might deserve a voice in whether his child lives or dies; and the child herself should have some rights to be considered.
These are thumbnail sketches, as Reclusive Leftist's own post was. What I hope that they illustrate is that it is possible to approach issues of pro-woman politics without Statism. The truth is that the State is not your friend; it is at best a dangerous servant, and more likely to be the slavemaster that Socrates considered it to be. He considered it a largely benevolent master, but felt that "citizens" were really slaves who owed the state their lives. Most states through history have felt so also; and even among the free, it is a constant struggle to restrain the concentrated power that every government builds over time. The defense of liberty is an eternal fight.
That refusal to submit does not mean that women are not important to me, though; it doesn't mean that I don't care about them. I do my best to be the kind of good husband that frees and liberates at least one woman to live the life she's always imagined. I wish I could do more. I can do that much, though, and I do.
It seems to me that a woman who wanted to see herself as my genuine equal might reply that she would be responsible for herself, and would not need a husband to help her with her dreams. I've no objection to her being personally independent and strong; but especially with children, it is important to have a companion and partner. You're better off chosing your own, and carefully, than having the State force its way into your bed.
