Meghan Markle has shown her face on the New York Times DealBook summit and is trying to push back against claims that she’s playing politics and paid family leave is a “humanitarian issue.” Given that people die daily from violence and war, famine and disease, her plea that she’s being “bipartisan” is failing entirely on deaf ears.
On the 30-minute panel, Meghan looked incredibly smug wearing her signature black and a virtue signaling red poppy, even though she abandoned the U.K. barely two years in and last year trapsed over the graves of dead soldiers for a fashion photographer photoshoot. But still, she cares about soldiers and veterans (sarcasm).
The title of the session was called “Minding the Gap,” “which is focused on how women can reach economic and professional parity,” from the woman who essentially slept her way to relevance and influence. How much they could learn from Meghan is questionable.
It seemed like one of the main purposes of her talk was to try and defend her political meddling—clearly responding to the global criticism of Meghan using her title to try and influence American public policy as an unelected official.
Meghan argued, “I think this is one of those issues that is not red or blue. We can all agree that people need support certainly when they’ve just had a child.”
But that’s not true.
There is some bipartisan support for paid family leave, but the two sides strongly disagree about how that should be carried out.
Democrats, like Meghan, want the taxpayers to cover the $20 billion price tag, while Republicans would be more interested in seeing how companies could do it without leaning on the government. The legislation she’s championing is also incredibly partisan, and even certain Democrats are deeply concerned about how it could impact an already faltering economy.
To argue otherwise shows that Meghan doesn’t care that she’s disrespecting her husband’s family and putting him and them in an uncomfortable spot. It’s all about what she wants and what she thinks is right for the American public.
So, she’s ignored the obvious political implications and is calling it simply a “humanitarian issue.”
Meghan said, “Paid leave, from my standpoint, is just a humanitarian issue.”
If that’s what Meghan thinks is a “humanitarian issue,” it does explain why a lot of Archewell is self-serving and not done in the interest of anyone else, but Harry and Meghan.
A humanitarian issue is the lack of clean water and easy access to food. A humanitarian issue is protecting women from violence in combat situations.
It’s not the government paying for women and sometimes men to have time off while they care for their children. There are a variety of options that families can explore without relying on government handouts.
The woman or the man could be a stay-at-home parent, for instance. The couple could save so that they can have that time off when they need it and not worry financially. Some companies even offer programs like Aflac, where couples and individuals can pay for short-term disability, which can be used to help supplement an income while the parent/s stay home.
It’s not a humanitarian issue when there are so many other options available for people, beyond government payments. Yes, some people don’t have that option but that’s sometimes what happens.
A true humanitarian would focus on helping those who have literally no other option and need a champion in order for their plight to be brought to the attention of the rest of the world, not campaigning for something that could be abused to take a government funded vacation.
If the government is required to pay for an extended family leave time, businesses could also be hesitant to hire women of child-bearing ages, knowing that they could be on the hook for 20 weeks or more of leave, meaning that they have to hire temporary employee to fill the gap or go without the position.
But Meghan Markle doesn’t think about the broader implications. She only cares about herself and what she thinks could bring her the most fame and attention.