A Matter of Trust
JD Vance showed conservatives what it will take to win the future
It’s October, which means it’s time for postseason baseball, college football, and ever-(Pumpkin?) spicier family policy newsletters. Welcome to Family Matters. On tap:
The Main Event: Vance showcases policy details and compassion in VP debate
It’s Me, Hi: Compass, Newsweek, Semafor and more
Et Cetera
The Main Event
I wasn’t planning on writing about the Vice Presidential debate this week, because the likelihood of any VP debate on any election is probably significantly lower than the effect of the weather on Election Day. But Sen. JD Vance’s successful reintroduction to the American people on Tuesday night has ramifications long beyond November, regardless of how the 2024 election shakes out.
For Vance himself, it was a welcome chance to showcase the talent and potential that made him a rising star in conservative circles, and he made the most of his opportunity. An estimated 43 million Americans watched a Millennial conservative dad with a detailed grasp of policy deliver a more cogent explanation of Trump’s policy agenda than anyone, including the man of the ticket, has to date.
Part of what made Vance’s performance so compelling was not just his ability to leave aside the at-time too online persona and memes,1 but proactively advocate for where his party should move, rather than just defend the traditional Republican status quo. (Eagle-eyed Family Matters will remember I suggested a similar move in last week’s script.) His opening response on abortion is worth quoting in full:
“I grew up in a working class family in a neighborhood where I knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn't have any other options. And, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. And I know she's watching tonight, and I love you. And she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn't had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship. And I think that what I take from that, as a Republican who proudly wants to protect innocent life in this country, who proudly wants to protect the vulnerable is that my party, we've got to do so much better of a job at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us.”
In an election cycle where elected Republicans are skittish about the electoral baggage of Dobbs and the pro-life cause faces existential stakes, this was an honest, heartfelt attempt to level-set the discussion. Acknowledging the tragedy inherent in so many circumstances that result in an abortion, as well as the self-evident fact that Americans don’t trust conservatives when it comes to doing right by both pregnant women and the babies they carry, is an essential step for any pro-life Republican.
This approach frustrated some conservative pundits; the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh called it “incessantly apologetic”, pro-life activist Lila Rose said Vance was “morally wrong” and accused him of “throwing babies under the bus”; at National Review’s live blog, Dan McLaughlin called his answer “weaselly and weak.”
No one can gainsay their passion, but their comments betray instincts ill-fit for the politics of the moment. Changing hearts and minds on the morality of abortion requires a willingness to meet people where they are; to have real and heartfelt compassion for the victim of domestic violence, economic deprivation, or other innumerable tragedies that cause women to seek the violence of abortion as a solution to an unwanted problem. Acknowledging the difficult circumstances that make abortion a desired option in no way undermines the pro-life cause; in fact, failing to speak about them with compassion and understanding threatens to undermine it.
Because if the keyboard chorus haven’t noticed, the pro-life cause faces near-existential stakes this year. Its biggest political partner is running headlong away from it, and ten ballot initiatives threatening to widely expand abortion access even in red states. Conservatives need new messaging, not to simply reiterate what has been shown not to work.
If pounding the table about the immeasurable moral worth of the unborn were the ticket to winning win over hearts and minds, we would have seen more promising election results for the side of life since Dobbs. If opposing abortion in virtually all cases, even rape and incest, were something other than an 85-15 issue, making a philosophically-principled case for a total ban might make for a fascinating ethics seminar. In the realm of contemporary politics, it’s asking to have your head handed to you. If calling Democrats “baby killers” were enough to flip the script, it would have been flipped by now. In today’s treacherous post-Dobbs environment, pro-lifers must lead with empathy rather than extremism; discernment, not doctrine.
To put it more succinctly: We will never make more headway in convincing Americans to trust that pro-lifers have the best interests of women at heart without more empathy and compassion for the pregnant women who feel like abortion is their best, and perhaps only, option.
Those who are firmly committed to legal and accessible abortion aren’t the targets. The New York Times’ Jessica Grose spoke for many progressives when she proclaimed herself unconvinced by Vance’s rhetoric: “Even though Vance talked a very good game, I still don’t trust him — or Republicans in general — to help create a thriving America for mothers or their children.” Many others on the left will agree; and the continued cavalcade of flippant remarks on abortion from prominent Republicans don’t help. A Republican party whose public face is that of, say, a Todd Akin or a Scott DesJarlais does not and should not receive any benefit of the doubt on abortion or supporting families.
If the keyboard chorus haven’t noticed, the pro-life cause faces near-existential stakes…conservatives need new messaging, not to simply reiterate what’s been shown not to work.
But Vance represents a new era. And for many undecided voters, or those who like some of what Republicans stand for but have hesitations about the headlines and viral clips about what a post-Roe America means for them and their daughters, the reassurance, compassion, and commitment to families Vance spoke about will be essential for conservative ideas to receive a fair hearing.
And in a debate that featured a surprising amount of comity between Vance and Gov. Tim Walz, one concrete example of Vance’s commitment to a new way of doing politics came in an exchange about child care. Many are, by now, familiar with his preference for systems that prioritize kin caregiving over for-profit or commercial child care. But the way he talked about the dynamics of the child care industry seemed especially notable:
“As Tim said, a lot of the childcare shortages, we just don't have enough resources going into the multiple people who could be providing family care options. And we're going to have to, unfortunately, look, we're going to have to spend more money. We're going to have to induce more people to want to provide child care options for American families because the reason it's so expensive right now is because you've got way too few people providing this very essential service.” (emphasis mine)
That’s a much more direct commitment to spending on child care than most of his populist brethren can bring themselves to admit. And his overall conception of providing for children, with robust support for grandparents, church-based care, home-based providers, and the rest, are a much better fit for parents’ desires and a more sensible approach than either Build Back Better-style progressivism or corporate tax-cut centrism.
A better way of talking about child care, in and of itself, won’t convince the American people to trust Republicans on issues of life and family. Nor will one example of walking alongside one woman in a tragic circumstance who felt like she had no other choice. But the way Republicans - particularly self-described pro-family conservatives, like Vance - approach questions of parenthood, fertility, marriage and the rest can either turn the heat up or down. To win over voters’ trust, more conservatives will need to find the compassionate and policy-oriented tone exhibited by Vance on Tuesday night. And then — although it should go without saying — to back it up with policy proposals that match.
It’s Me, Hi
My most recent piece for American Compass focuses on the way that support for UBI on the one hand, or blanket work requirements on the other, misunderstands the pathway out of poverty for many:
“Ensuring welfare spending is targeted toward those who truly can’t expect to fully participate in our economy, while amplifying approaches to help those who can do so to get their lives back on track, are not the easy answers of either the free-spending Left nor the starve-the-beast Right.”
I was interviewed by the Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity on the potential for bipartisan efforts to improve the Child Tax Credit:
“Both presidential tickets recognize that the CTC is a meaningful way of delivering for parents, and that there’s some pressure on them to focus on that, whoever is in the White House next year.”
And, for Newsweek, I offered a quick take praising Vance for his debate performance:
“[Vance’s] performance on Tuesday's debate stage was a near-perfect reintroduction to the American people, showcasing his command of family policy, a strong answer on abortion and support for parents, and putting forward the strongest national case for the Trump agenda voters have heard to date.”
For Semafor, Joseph Zeballos-Roig quotes me and other pro-family conservatives about Vance’s influence on the GOP.
For The Hill, Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech and Nathaniel Weixel quotes me and other pro-life conservatives about Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to veto any federal abortion legislation.
Et Cetera
Reports
How Voters Expect Harris’ and Trump’s Policies to Affect Different Groups in Society (Pew Research Center)…Family benefits in America: 2023 report card (Joshua McCabe and Julia Pelletier, Niskanen Center) - and a virtual event highlighting their report to boot!
Articles
Walz and Vance both tout child-care issues, with some differences (Abha Bhattarai, Washington Post)…Too many babies? Too few? What Americans think about the birth rate (David Montgomery, YouGov)…Trump campaign says it backs 'universal' IVF access (Matt Lavietes, NBC News)…On Child Care, Vance Tests a Talking Point Democrats Also Embrace (Dana Goldstein, New York Times)…As Romney leaves the Senate, he hopes to influence future family policy (Suzanne Bates, Deseret News)…As Harris shifts to the center, progressives hold their fire — for now (Liz Goodwin and Jacqueline Alemany, Washington Post)…Trump vows to veto any federal abortion ban — after previously refusing to commit (Lisa Kashinsky and Megan Messerly, Politico)
Takes
Cultural Shifts Alone Won’t Persuade People to Have Kids (Stephanie H. Murray, The Atlantic)…For a Better Birth Rate Debate, Consider the Possibilities (Melissa Kearney, The Dispatch)…Car Seats (, Lament for the Nations)…A Recipe for a Striving America (David Brooks, New York Times)
Roundup
Cities from Boston to Birmingham are experimenting with new approaches to early childhood, as profiled by Christopher Swope for Governing magazine…In Texas, public-provided pre-K is skimming 3- and 4-year-olds from child care providers, causing a financial crunch…In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis has declared this Oct. 6 as “Protect Life Sunday”…In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation mandating insurance coverage of IVF to all couples and individuals seeking to become pregnant…In Ireland, free IVF will be expanded to include couples who already have children and those relying on donor-assisted IVF.
Send me a postcard, drop me a line, and then sign up for more content and analysis from EPPC scholars.
It’s no accident that the portion of the debate that was widely agreed on having gone worst for Vance was the last question on January 6th, with the baggage of his running mate’s post-election behavior and ongoing truculence about 2020 giving Vance very little room to maneuver.
I’m sorry, it is simply not true that most single moms are consuming $90,000 in government assistance even broadly construed. But lucky for you…I have a post in the works that will do the math showing why that’s wrong that pop up in a week or two - so keep reading! :)
The difficulty with pro-life is that “give me more welfare or I’ll murder my baby” is the basically what a lot of this boils down to. I’m not sure giving into that sort of hostage taking is healthy, and anyway the state provides an absurd amount* of welfare to single moms already.
I think at the end of the day the pro life movement is just going to give up on the politics. If democrats want to kill their babies, at what point do you stop losing elections to try and stop them.
Pro-life will become more something that individuals and communities try to teach to their kids, getting schools vouchers passed would go a long way there.
There is of course a roll for pro-family policy making including more money, but the kind of responsible middle class taxpayer families that make up the Republican base should probably focus on child benefits that help them rather then targeted at the underclass.
*A single mom household will have its effective consumption topped up to something like $50-60k a year by various government subsidies. On top of that there will be about $17k or so per kid in k-12 spending. So if she’s got two kids government assistance is bring her consumption up to 90k or so.
Sure, it’s mostly in kind services whose quality she might not like (mediciaid, ghetto schools), but it costs the taxpayers the same whether the recipients value it that much.
Under these circumstances, I’m not sure paying even more blackmail is really the path to convincing people not to get abortions. And anyway in Vance’s example the real problem is that she’s choosing to get pregnant by an abuser, seems like a self goal I can’t do anything to prevent.