Remind me again why we can’t have paid family leave

Abstract

The impact of language on social welfare policy is a subject of extensive research for scholars of deliberation studies, political economy, rhetoric of law and gender studies. Much research has demonstrated how both sides of the political spectrum use the ideograph of < family values > to build support for various government programs. I use a rhetorical perspective to show how the < working family > is presented in public policy debates over paid family leave as primarily an economic unit. I trace how the working family is often invoked by politicians along specific racialized and classist lines. I argue that problems remain even when politicians draw attention to the economic precarity that mothers face. The larger oppressive systems of patriarchy and capitalism remain unchallenged. My research questions are: What common assumptions undergird public discourse on paid family leave? What values were presented as most foundational to evaluating paid family leave proposals? This has significant implications for our understanding of various social welfare debates beyond the paid family leave debate. The contrast between the leave policies American citizens say they support, and the policies that are passed by the United States Senate, is stark. Rhetoric offers unique insight that helps us make meaning out of the policy making process. This thesis seeks to contribute to the application of rhetorical studies to social movements and political communication in general. Through a rhetorical analysis of the opening statements and witness testimony found in the 2018 hearing, this study explains how values laden with ideology constrain the paid family leave discussion.