Part of it is that like most Americans today, thanks to the suffragettes, he believes the individual, not the family, to be the basic economic unit.
I was just hearing something about that last night on Al Kresta as to why many Catholics, including Archbishops and Cardinals, back in the 1848-1920 era, opposed the 19th Amendment, but largely supported the 18th Amendment. Both of these at the time were considered feminism- women were the main people protesting for both to be passed. It is a sign that women in the 1800s and early 1900s had a lot more political power than we give them credit for even without the vote that the 18th is about Prohibition and the 19th about voting.
The reason for that power is that the basic assumption previous to the 19th Amendment was *one household, one vote* not *one man, one vote*. Husbands and fathers had a duty of protection over their wives and daughters, and drunkards were seen as shirking that duty. Likewise, it was seen as women actually losing political power over their husbands, was the reason to *oppose* them getting the vote.
It's easy to see why individualism, in that era, after 80 years of nagging, became the ascendent philosophy. It remains to be seen if it will continue to work for much longer.