I managed to miss most of the horrible Paternity Leave Discourse because, well, I'm on paternity leave until January.
But: Parental leave should be universal, and it should be universally taken. And not just so men can be helpmates to their wives, who're doing the Real Work.
Men should take paternity leave because they should care for their children, and experience the love that grows out of caring for their children.
To miss that is to parent (and live) in grayscale, not color.
I've seen a lot of older men who have no idea how to care for babies. They can't change a diaper, they don't know how to quiet a tantrum. They hold the baby for a minute and pass them back. They want to connect and build a relationship, but they can't. It's a lifelong loss.
This is something @AlisonGopnik says, and it's among the most important lines I've ever heard: We don't just care for others because we love them. We love them because we perform acts of care for them. vox.com/podcasts/2019/…
This is a way that shitty ideas about masculinity really hurt men too. We tell men that missing out on infant parenting is escaping gross work. We don't tell them what they're missing.
That's what was so telling and sad about Tucker Carlson's comment, among others: To think all a parent does for a baby is breastfeed is to reveal pretty clearly you've been on the outside of the experience, looking in through a foggy window. businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson…
But a lot of fathers (and mothers!) never had a choice. They weren't given the time to care for their infant children. They weren't given the cultural permission to do it. They still aren't.
Parents have done remarkable, heroic work under these circumstances. I'm not saying, in any way, that you can't be a great parent if you didn't get or take leave. It's the acts of care that build love.
But we shouldn't have made it so hard for you.
That's a policy choice that we are closer to fixing. Many states, like California, have fixed it. We should fix it nationally, too.
That there's no chance of Congress passing a strong, well-designed parental leave program this session is heartbreaking.
What you see in all this, though, is bad policy is supported by bad culture. Watching adult men with children struggle to imagine what a man might do with parental leave, or what parental leave might do for them, is a brutal commentary on fatherhood in America.
Anyway, I'm trying to stay off this site during the rest of my leave, but everyone should read Gopnik's "The Gardener and the Carpenter." It's life-changing. us.macmillan.com/books/97812501…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, time for some thoughts on "unpopularism," which is the closest I have to a synthesis in this conversation.
In short, the missing piece of popularism is what I’d call agenda control. Agenda control requires controversy. You can’t achieve it if you’re afraid to offend.
The media is attracted to controversy. Controversy requires large or powerful groups to be both opposed ands interested.
Most of the time, that requires some degree of unpopularity in your ideas.
I’m skeptical that polling is that useful a guide to issue popularity, particularly on new issues.
I think it’s more reliable as a guide to which party is favored on broad issue areas, like health care or immigration.
The debate over how Dems can win more seats through messaging — whether popularism or viralism or something else — reflect them proving unable to deploy my preferred strategy: Winning more seats through governing.
This was my first feature at the Times. In some ways, the Shor piece reflects an admission that Democrats aren't going to pull this strategy off. nytimes.com/2021/01/21/opi…
But two points of realism:
1. 50 Dems, given Manchin and Sinema, were not enough to pass many of the policies I'd prefer. That's why winning more seats matters.
2. The policy feedback loop is weaker than I'd like to admit. Child Tax Credit didn't drive Biden's numbers up.
Shor should speak for himself here, but I started thinking this was true and ended thinking that the difference is that the DLC/Third Way version of moderation had strong ideological commitments popularism doesn't share.
I speak to this very quickly in the piece, but I think it's an important distinction:
The DLC version of moderation, or the Manchin/Sinema version, is about creating a vibe of independence by siding with corporate or status quo interests against progressives.
They'll deploy that strategy against *highly* popular initiatives.
A consistent dynamic right now is Democrats lose elections and obsess about why they lost, and how they could change, and Republicans lose elections and...don't.
But the California recall should really be a moment of reflection for them.
One problem with the way narrativize elections is we focus on the flowers, not the soil. That is to say: We look at candidates as independent of the voters that choose them. But they’re not.
And Elder really, really wasn’t.
He wasn’t endorsed by the CA GOP. He didn't have institutional backing.
He had name recognition, and his Trumpy approach reflected what the CA Republican base wanted.
And that terrified the rest of California, and led to a complete collapse in recall support.