Ryan may turn down speaker position due to family

[jeaniebueller]

.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/paul-ryans-big-speaker-hangup-is-reportedly-his-family-for-a-male-lawmaker-thats-unusual/

First, let us get the known but essential details out of the way.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has become what a lot of people consider the solution to the Republican Party's potentially very big and very messy problem in the House. Still, Ryan is reluctant to vie for the House speaker job. He has reminded colleagues and reporters that he is a married man with three young children with whom, because of his existing work in D.C., he already spends only weekends. The New York Times reported that in recent years, current Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the man who wants out of the job, spent as many as 200 days a year en route to fundraisers or fundraising somewhere.

For Ryan, it's hard to imagine how the two travel patterns would not conflict.

Now, let's turn the page.

There's almost nothing about Ryan's conundrum that Americans haven't heard before. In fact, work-life balance is about two days away from joining the list of arguably meaningless cliches. More than a few public figures — particularly lawmakers — have used the old "resigning to spend more time with my family" excuse for bowing out of some political race or office. Oftentimes, the excuse seems dubious.

And most of Ryan's own House colleagues seemed to have all but dismissed his family life concerns. Look closely at all those stories about which lawmaker has said what to Ryan to convince him to take the job. Not many have bothered to share a thought — at least in print — on how one might be speaker and a good father to three young children. Translation: Ryan should be more like them. He should leave the bulk of family responsibilities and relationship-building to his wife or the hired help a rising career can buy.

The truth is, there's almost nothing about Ryan's dilemma that many working parents don't know. The real and important difference here is that this time, this is a conversation that is kind of, sort of, being had about a man.

Let's admit at least this much: The way we think and talk about family life and work generally stays in some well-known territory.

First, there's child-care costs. For a middle-income family with a child born in 2013, feeding, clothing, educating and caring for that child into adulthood will cost over $300,000. That's after inflation. The figure is $241,080 before it. But lest anyone comfort themselves with the idea that we must be talking about the cost of raising a family in a big, glamorous city or a childhood with all manner of lessons and camps and enrichment activities, check out and use this useful government calculator. It's digital birth control. For real.

Here's just a taste. Check out the full report here.

But that math often leads to the second topic America likes to cover on the occasion that family and work responsibilities are discussed. This is the one where people ask in the most obtuse fashion possible why so many mothers are leaving or have left the workforce (43 percent) and what on Earth can be done about it.

The answer is beyond simple. Most women still make less than men. That's especially true for mothers. And when those who have a different-sex partner or husband sit down and do the math on child care costs and all the other items in that graphic above (we strongly suggest you check out the full thing), for some, work stops making much immediate financial sense.

When all else fails, there's the inevitable trend story or I-know-a guy-who-knows-a-guy dinner discussion about the virtual sprinkle of men who have become stay-at-home dads. This group may be on its way to becoming a small puddle. But let's not pretend that the stay-at-home dads (a large share of which are, despite the content of most of most of those trend stories, black) have become common. They are important but remain relatively rare.

As Ann Ann Marie Slaughter's Atlantic Magazine article and her book-length look at family and work issues have made plain, people are struggling and in many cases really distressed by this challenge. They are interested in these issues. And there's a lot of evidence that as Slaughter's book puts it, we need to rethink, reframe and, yes, revalue care (child care, family care, family time and relationship building) itself.

[She said women can't have it all. Now she's recommending a revolution in family life.]

Someone is sure to point out that Ryan's children are well past the swaddling and wake-up-at-night stage. That's true. But think long and hard about the implications of that idea, particularly if you are someone's boss.
Ryan, a man in his mid-40s, has young kids. He is part of a younger generation of fathers who, while they do not match the time put in by their children's mothers, are spending more time with their kids and doing at least a little more housework than fathers in the past. Is that really something to discourage?
And all politics and policy aside, anyone who has given the most cursory read to any child development research knows that children benefit from healthy, sustained and reliable contact with both their parents and, when possible, extended family. Certainly, Ryan has spent some enough time on Capitol Hill to see the sometimes sad results of another path. Is there any other professional community besides perhaps Hollywood where struggles with troubled and out-of-control children or rocky marriages are the subject of so many knowing jokes?

Moreover, Ryan is a man who came to his family life with a personal history that, at the very least, has given him real reason to be deliberate. Ryan found his own father, an apparently hard-charging lawyer, dead of a heart attack in his bed when Ryan was just 16. At that point, as Ryan's older brother told the New York Times, his older siblings were away at college. Ryan's mother went back to school. And his grandmother, who lived with the family, had reached the advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease. Before Ryan even left high school, he experienced the toll of a sudden and early death and a slow, merciless one.

Is it really any wonder Ryan's wife said in an August interview that Ryan's time with his family is "his oxygen?"

Now, Ryan's biggest critics would no doubt argue that Ryan's budget ideas haven't advanced the work-life balance cause, particularly for families with less money than his own. But whatever happens, the Ryan conundrum should make this much clear.

In the United States, talent is squandered, opportunities are missed and maybe even the common good sacrificed every day because hard choices like Ryan's too often have to be made.

[jillboston]

Ryan doesn't want the job because it is political suicide. The end.

[jeaniebueller]

Oct 13, 2015 8:40:07 GMT -5 jillboston said:

Ryan doesn't want the job because it is political suicide. The end.

Exactly! That was my thought when I read the headline.

[jillboston]

Oct 13, 2015 8:44:22 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Oct 13, 2015 8:40:07 GMT -5 jillboston said:

Ryan doesn't want the job because it is political suicide. The end.

Exactly! That was my thought when I read the headline.

the oldest political non-excuse in the book. and seriously who would want to try to deal with the crazies that have taken over the GOP

[smock]

I actually don't think we should dismiss the family argument against becoming Speaker. In addition to all the political reasons, it would mean a much higher work load and less time with his family, who live out of state. It's completely reasonable that Ryan might not think the title is worth the further work-life balance disruption. Lots of people make similar choices all the time; we just discussed an article recently on why some women don't want top management jobs that relied on a similar argument.

Sure, there are major political reasons not to accept the Speakership. But dismissing the major family consideration would be a mistake, because as the article points out, it's a real problem that parents (especially mothers) face all the time.

[ttt]

Oct 13, 2015 8:56:31 GMT -5 smock said:

I actually don't think we should dismiss the family argument against becoming Speaker. In addition to all the political reasons, it would mean a much higher work load and less time with his family, who live out of state. It's completely reasonable that Ryan might not think the title is worth the further work-life balance disruption. Lots of people make similar choices all the time; we just discussed an article recently on why some women don't want top management jobs that relied on a similar argument.

Sure, there are major political reasons not to accept the Speakership. But dismissing the major family consideration would be a mistake, because as the article points out, it's a real problem that parents (especially mothers) face all the time.

It is a real problem. I just don't believe it's the real reason. I mean, the man ran for Vice President of the United States.

[laurenpetro]

who cares why he doesn't want it? the dude said no. let him be.

[Wallflower]

If he says "no" to the speaker job, do you think he'll be in any position to ever go after the White House? ("If Speaker is too much for you and your family, then the Presidency is too.") At least for a decade and more and the kids are grown?

[tacosforlife]

Oct 13, 2015 9:22:09 GMT -5 ttt said:

Oct 13, 2015 8:56:31 GMT -5 smock said:

I actually don't think we should dismiss the family argument against becoming Speaker. In addition to all the political reasons, it would mean a much higher work load and less time with his family, who live out of state. It's completely reasonable that Ryan might not think the title is worth the further work-life balance disruption. Lots of people make similar choices all the time; we just discussed an article recently on why some women don't want top management jobs that relied on a similar argument.

Sure, there are major political reasons not to accept the Speakership. But dismissing the major family consideration would be a mistake, because as the article points out, it's a real problem that parents (especially mothers) face all the time.

It is a real problem. I just don't believe it's the real reason. I mean, the man ran for Vice President of the United States.

Yes, but presumably if he'd won VP, his family would have moved to DC with him. So the campaign was seen as a temporary sacrifice.

Again, not saying that there are not massive political reasons, or that those may even be the primary reasons, for turning it down. But as much as I dislike Ryan, I am inclined to think his family was one of many considerations and possibly was the tipping point. It's a cost-benefit analysis: the costs of a presidential campaign are high, but the benefits of winning are higher; the costs of being speaker, and the benefits are basically non-existent.

[tacosforlife]

Oct 13, 2015 9:31:13 GMT -5 Wallflower said:

If he says "no" to the speaker job, do you think he'll be in any position to ever go after the White House? ("If Speaker is too much for you and your family, then the Presidency is too.") At least for a decade and more and the kids are grown?

Again, I think not because a president's family will go with him or her to DC. A member of Congress has to reside in his or her district, which generally means the family stays put. Not as big of a deal if you're Joe Biden and can catch a train back to Delaware every day. A fairly big deal if you're family is 1,000 miles away.

[ESF]

Oct 13, 2015 9:22:09 GMT -5 ttt said:

Oct 13, 2015 8:56:31 GMT -5 smock said:

I actually don't think we should dismiss the family argument against becoming Speaker. In addition to all the political reasons, it would mean a much higher work load and less time with his family, who live out of state. It's completely reasonable that Ryan might not think the title is worth the further work-life balance disruption. Lots of people make similar choices all the time; we just discussed an article recently on why some women don't want top management jobs that relied on a similar argument.

Sure, there are major political reasons not to accept the Speakership. But dismissing the major family consideration would be a mistake, because as the article points out, it's a real problem that parents (especially mothers) face all the time.

It is a real problem. I just don't believe it's the real reason. I mean, the man ran for Vice President of the United States.

The difference is that if he were VP, he'd live in the same town as his family. He'd probably see them a hell of a lot more than if he was Speaker and on the road 300 nights a year in DC or fundraising.

[penguingrrl]

I find this very believable. Not only because as VP his family would relocate to DC during the duration of the term instead of residing a plane ride away, but also because I don't find it impossible to believe that maybe he breathed a sigh of relief when he didn't win because the campaign made him realize more fully how much it would be to manage. H and I have both had times where we took on more than we could handle and ended up in over our heads and were slightly relieved when able or forced to take a step back. It could very well be that the campaign was harder on his family than he ever imagined and made him reevaluate his short-term ambitions based on it.

[eclaires]

I'm not sure how old Ryan's kids are, but if they are school age, I will say this: I have discovered in the past 6m just how busy my life can be and I am a SAHP with a husband whose job, while demanding, is flexible in the sense that he can pretty much make his own hours. Often that means we lose out because he is busy and works more than 40 hours a week, but it can also mean he can go in late or leave early and work from home later if the schedule necessitates it.

Life was a lot easier when the kids were younger because they didn't have schedules and commitments and now they do. There's also a huge difference in relocating your family for the job of VP vs. taking on the job of Speaker (which is terrible and demanding) and having even less time with your family than you currently do.

IDK, if I were his wife or I were him, this would be a huge consideration for me because the job is terrible and thankless and does nothing for his career. I'm willing to make sacrifices in the short term for my husband's career and so is he - if it will ultimately help his career (and our family since he is the main breadwinner). But if the job is terrible and odds are it won't help his career? Nope, bye.

[Wallflower]

Oct 13, 2015 9:34:26 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Oct 13, 2015 9:31:13 GMT -5 Wallflower said:

If he says "no" to the speaker job, do you think he'll be in any position to ever go after the White House? ("If Speaker is too much for you and your family, then the Presidency is too.") At least for a decade and more and the kids are grown?

Again, I think not because a president's family will go with him or her to DC. A member of Congress has to reside in his or her district, which generally means the family stays put. Not as big of a deal if you're Joe Biden and can catch a train back to Delaware every day. A fairly big deal if you're family is 1,000 miles away.

All that is true, but I'm not sure voters would make this distinction. I think voters are really simple (total generalization) and would think "he thought the Speaker job took up too much time and the job of President is worse."

Then again, if Ryan doesn't run again until 2020, no one will remember that he turned down the Speaker job or why.  So maybe it's only a concern for him in 2016.  (And by "concern for him" I mean it may only matter to him.  I can't stand him and actually don't mind if he does stuff that makes things harder for any future ambitions.)

[eclaires]

I don't think there's any indication Ryan was planning on a 2016 run anyway. A 2016 run might be more of a political suicide than a turn playing lead babysitter, I mean, speaker of the house.

[tacosforlife]

Oct 13, 2015 10:16:15 GMT -5 Wallflower said:

Oct 13, 2015 9:34:26 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Again, I think not because a president's family will go with him or her to DC. A member of Congress has to reside in his or her district, which generally means the family stays put. Not as big of a deal if you're Joe Biden and can catch a train back to Delaware every day. A fairly big deal if you're family is 1,000 miles away.

All that is true, but I'm not sure voters would make this distinction. I think voters are really simple (total generalization) and would think "he thought the Speaker job took up too much time and the job of President is worse."

Then again, if Ryan doesn't run again until 2020, no one will remember that he turned down the Speaker job or why.  So maybe it's only a concern for him in 2016.  (And by "concern for him" I mean it may only matter to him.  I can't stand him and actually don't mind if he does stuff that makes things harder for any future ambitions.)

BINGO. Heck, most people won't remember by 2016. Any voter who is, as you say, simple enough to hold this against Ryan is also likely simple enough to not even realize who the Speaker of the House is.

[Cicero]

How many members of the general public can even name who the Speaker was in 2006 or 2010? Let alone who the alternatives were? I'm betting it won't even be on the radar four or eight years from now.

[msmerymac]

Gee, if only Paul Ryan had some kind of ability to ensure that all Americans had a better work-life balance...

But no, I can't blame him. It's a legitimate concern, and if I were his spouse, I would probably voice that concern as well. His wife already parents alone most of the week.

[sparkythelawyer]

If Ryan has a brain at all, he will reject this job immediately.

[Cicero]

Oct 13, 2015 13:06:40 GMT -5 sparkythelawyer said:

If Ryan has a brain at all, he will reject this job immediately.

He already has twice.

[NewOrleans]

I am just pleased that they are applying this level of scrutiny about family to a man!

[oscarnerdjulief]

Oct 13, 2015 9:25:09 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

who cares why he doesn't want it? the dude said no. let him be.

Not for sure.  I read an article that states that he might run if he can get the unequivocal support of the House Republicans.

edited to change "will" to "might"

[boiler717]

I agree the position is career suicide, but I also believe he is very concerned about family balance. I had the chance to meet him in a small group setting pre-2012 and he was asked about political ambitions. Instead of a typical non-answer answer he gave a passionate, long reply about how important being there for his kids was so important to him, especially with what he went through with his dad. It could have been all BS but seems consistent either what's reported here.